Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/11/2017 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2017
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zach Fansler, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Parish, Co-Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Dean Westlake
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (alternate)
Representative DeLena Johnson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 201
"An Act relating to municipal regulation of trapping; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
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."
- 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
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
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 201.
NICHOLAS ("NICK") SPIROPOULOS, Attorney
Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and 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.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
201.
JAN WRENTMORE
Skagway, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 201.
KNEELAND TAYLOR, Attorney
Law Office of Kneeland Taylor
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 201.
AL BARRETTE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 201.
BRUCE WEBER
Skagway, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 201.
KENNY BARBER
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 201.
HAZEL NELSON, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
201.
BRUCE DALE, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
201.
CHERYL BROOKING, Assistant Attorney General (AG)
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
201.
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
201.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented SB 64.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 64.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:48 AM
CO-CHAIR JUSTIN PARISH called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m.
Representatives Rauscher, Talerico, Westlake, Fansler, and
Parish were present at the call to order. Representatives
Saddler and Drummond arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 201-MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF TRAPPING
[Contains discussion of HB 40.]
8:05:57 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."
8:06:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 201. He spoke of another bill he
sponsored, HB 40, which was heard by the House Resources
Standing Committee, on which he is co-chair and, he noted, on
which some members of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee also sit. He related that during the hearing
on HB 40, no one disputed there is evidence related to trapping
occurring along public trails or that conflict has arisen as a
result, but House Resources Standing Committee members did voice
that they thought the matter should be addressed on a local
level. He said there is nothing in Title 16 - the fish and game
code - that prevents a municipality from regulating the practice
of trapping within its boundaries. He indicated that Title 16
outlines trap identification requirements, signage
[requirements], restrictions on types of traps, and prohibitions
on setting them near places where people and pets can get
injured; however, it does not issue an outright ban.
8:08:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted some experts available on line:
Nicholas Spiropoulus, the borough attorney for the Matanuska-
Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough, and Kneeland Taylor, an expert in this
area of law. He said he thinks there is some dispute regarding
the ability of local governments to regulate trapping. He said
that in general he thinks most people would agree that it is
better if the municipality owns the land in question. He noted
that the Mat-Su Borough is larger than many East Coast states
put together, and he presumed it would not want to regulate
trapping far removed from public use trails. He related that
the Mat-Su Borough has recently concluded that five or six
public use trails could be regulated and trapping proscribed,
because the land in question is owned by the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said the fundamental problem is that
traps are "sort of an exclusive use" - they often "come down" in
spring or summer, but "when they're in the field, they occupy
the field." He added, "They can sometimes do so, sort of, in
concert with other uses, but often when those other uses concern
dogs ... there are significant programs." He stated that he is
offering HB 201 as an alternative for consideration, partly
because of the aforementioned feedback from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
8:11:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, citing a 1982 Attorney General
opinion, stated that the law in this matter is murky. Local
governments cannot preempt state authority, but they can use
powers over land management and land management plans to do some
regulation; however, they have to find "some sort of hook" in
order to do so. He indicated that the same reasoning that does
not allow a person to fire a gun in a city is what "gets them
there." He indicated that it is because of the murkiness of the
law that he has offered HB 201.
8:12:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Representative Josephson for
further clarification regarding the current powers that
municipalities have to regulate their borders.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he thinks it is "unclear
that they can do that." He added, "The only attorney general
opinion on this says that, as well." As a result, the views on
the issue are broad. He said the Constitution of the State of
Alaska says that to the maximum extent possible, local
governments should have power over their own governing; however,
there are competing interests where the Board of Game can
broadly regulate state trapping. He said generally there is no
trapping in the Municipality of Anchorage, but he does not know
who would prevail if a state authority, such as the Board of
Game, insisted there be trapping.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned if the problem being addressed
is that pets on or off leash are getting caught in traps.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that "there are always
concerns with hazards where there's no pet in question." For
example, there could be trap right next to a school yard, and
"there would be nothing in the Mat-Su Borough to prohibit it."
He concluded that it is not necessarily true that the issue is
just a matter of pets; however, the issue that brings this bill
to the forefront is that of repeated stories written by
journalists, mostly about pets.
8:15:47 AM
NICHOLAS ("NICK") SPIROPOULOS, Attorney, Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-
Su) Borough, stated that HB 201 would grant municipalities a
power they do not specifically have at present. He said there
are various classes of municipalities in Alaska. The Mat-Su
Borough is a second class borough, which means that under Title
29 it has a specific list of powers. Anchorage, on the other
hand, is on an opposite system wherein "if the power's not taken
away, generally they'd have it; [it's] the difference between
home rule and a general law municipality." He stated that HB
201 would add more power to the Mat-Su Borough to regulate
trapping. He said the Mat-Su Borough's mayor and manager are
engaged, but have not taken up this issue; therefore, he cannot
say whether or not the borough would support the proposed
legislation.
MR. SPIROPOULUS noted that the committee packet contains a
marked up draft of a Mat-Su Borough ordinance. He indicated
that the ordinance to regulated trapping on borough-owned land
had since passed as 17-021, and he offered to send a final copy
to the committee via e-mail. He clarified that the final
version that passed has some differences in it.
8:19:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how - considering that the Mat-Su
Borough had already given itself the ability to regulate
trapping on its land - HB 201 would benefit the borough.
MR. SPIROPOULUS reiterated that his client, the Mat-Su Borough,
has not taken a position on HB 201; therefore, he cannot answer
what it would do if HB 201 passed. He said the borough owns
land and can designate what happens on that land, such as a fire
station, school, or borough central offices. He gave examples
to specify how, when there is combined state and local land, the
ordinance applies to only the borough owned portion of it. He
said the borough owns the lands on which the schools sit;
therefore, trapping is prohibited on those lands.
MR. SPIROPOULUS, in response to Representative Rauscher, offered
his understanding that under HB 201, municipalities would be
able to regulate trapping on all land within a municipality,
including private land.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if the regulation of trapping
includes the prevention of trapping.
MR. SPIROPOULUS directed attention to paragraphs (3) and (4), in
Section 2, at the top of page 2, of HB 201, which read as
follows:
(3) restrictions on the use of types of
traps likely to cause injury or damage to persons or
property, including domestic animals;
(4) prohibitions on the setting or placement
of traps in areas or locations where they are likely
to cause injury or damage to person, property, or
nontargeted species.
MR. SPIROPOULUS said he interprets that language as granting
municipalities the power to prohibit traps.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Mr. Spiropoulus if he thinks the
provisions under HB 201 would pertain to all classes of
municipalities.
MR. SPIROPOULUS answered that the proposed change would be to
Title 29, which for "municipality people" is the rule book on
what municipalities can and cannot do. He said the definition
of "municipality" is found under Title 29 and includes every
city and borough [in Alaska].
8:26:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO made the assumption that the Mat-Su
Borough had "the ability to do that on borough-owned land,
because they had complete control." He questioned, "Does this
fall into the area wide power provisions in Title 29?" He
offered his understanding that home rule, first class, and
second class municipalities must use a ballot measure and a vote
of the people to enact area wide power provisions.
8:27:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he does not know the
answer, but he suggested either Mr. Spiropoulus or Mr. Taylor
might.
8:28:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if a local ordinance implemented to
regulate trapping has ever been challenged in court.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to [the available lawyers on
line]. He noted that there are a handful of local governments
that do regulate trapping: Kenai, Homer Juneau, Fairbanks,
Seward, Petersburg, Nome, Valdez, Anchorage, Gustavus, and
Yakutat.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to the words "life and
property" on [page 1, line 10], of HB 201. He asked the bill
sponsor to specify whose life and whose property.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he thinks life means
human life and property would include animals.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if HB 201 would allow a local
government to bar trapping because it might "kill a fur-bearing
animal."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to his staff to respond.
8:30:30 AM
MEGAN ROWE, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor of HB 201, echoed Representative Josephson's statement
that life means human life and property is personal property.
In response to follow-up questions from Representative Saddler,
she confirmed that personal property would include an animal,
and HB 201 would allow a municipality to bar trapping of a fur-
bearing animal if that fur-bearing animal was someone's
property, but not if it was a wild animal and not someone's
property. She added, "I don't think a municipality could use
the reasoning that it's life; the 'life' in here is human life."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to the term
"nontargeted species" on page 2, line 5, of HB 201, which he
described as "incidental bycatch," for example, if someone was
out trapping for martin and caught a raccoon. He asked if HB
201 would give a municipality the right to regulate that, and he
asked, "Isn't that the kind of power the Board of Game resorts
to itself?"
8:32:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded as follows:
I think what they're referring to is the subsection
(c) where the departments may have to come in and
eradicate pets that are rabid or wild animals that are
rabid or [attend to] some other eradication problem.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification whether
"nontargeted species" does not refer to incidental catch of
nontargeted, fur-bearing animals. He explained his concern is
to figure out what authority would be given to municipalities
under HB 201 that might be considered the authority of the Board
of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he takes Representative Saddler's
point about incidental catch and would have to give it some
thought. He deferred to Ms. Rowe.
8:33:14 AM
MS. ROWE surmised that "nontargeted species" could "lend itself
to the municipalities trying to limit bycatch." However, she
noted that [within Section 2, of HB 201], the aforementioned
language in [paragraph (4)] pertains to language in subsection
(a), and subsection (a) would allow municipalities to regulate
trapping "to protect life and property"; therefore, she
concluded that if a municipality is trying to prohibit the
trapping of nontargeted species, it would have to be for the
purpose of protecting life and property.
8:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE read Section 2, subsection (a),
paragraph (4), on page 2, lines 3-5 [text previously provided],
and he asked how a trapper who sets a trap for lynx, which is
normally set "high" but sometimes not, but gets wolverine or a
wolf would be affected under that proposed language.
8:34:53 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the prevention of
traps being set low to avoid getting a wolverine instead of a
lynx is not the purview of local government, but is "clearly
within the provenance of the [Alaska] Department of Fish &
Game." He continued:
Those aren't the sort of local ordinances that would
be allowed by this state law. What this state law
would just codify is sort of the nature of municipal
power to protect its local citizens and their
property.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether "nontargeted species"
should be removed from HB 201 in order to avoid conflict between
the proposed legislation and the existing authority of the Board
of Game.
MR. BULLARD said he thinks the language needs to be read in
context. He referred to the language on page 1, lines 9-10: "A
municipality may regulate trapping to protect life and
property". He then referred to the aforementioned language in
paragraph (4). He offered an example of a person who has bird
feeders in his/her yard, and he indicated that the municipality
could "regulate the placement of traps" but would still have to
protect life and property. He said he does not know if that
language should come out of the bill, because "this isn't going
to allow an ordinance that takes the local government into the
provenance of" ADF&G. He said the responsibility of the state's
fish and game is that of ADF&G, not the municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Bullard to confirm that he
thinks ["nontargeted species"] should be removed from HB 201.
MR. BULLARD explained that when he drafted the language of HB
201, it was his legal understanding that that language would be
conditioned, that any ordinance that was adopted would have to
protect life and property. He said it is possible to take that
language out, but the existing language is just codifying what
first class boroughs and municipalities can do currently.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER repeated his question.
MR. BULLARD answered that the decision to remove "nontargeted
species" or leave it in is up to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that the language should be
deleted, because he offered his understanding that Mr. Bullard
had said that "it's an improper impingement on the Board of
Game's authority to regulate incidental take." He said he would
offer an amendment to that effect when committee discussion took
place.
8:38:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Mr. Spiropoulus how big the Mat-Su
Borough is currently.
8:38:40 AM
MR. SPIROPOULUS answered approximately 24,500 square miles.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER added, "Of control over trapping."
8:39:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked who makes the determination whether
something is likely to cause injury.
8:39:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he thinks that would be
a determination made by a local authority. He said he thinks it
may not be easy to codify what would cause injury and what would
not. In response to a follow-up question, he said he has not
seen a standard definition anywhere else in state law.
8:40:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the proposed legislation uses
the term "may" not "shall" in regard to giving municipalities
the ability to regulate trapping. She then asked where in the
bill is there language permitting the regulation of trapping on
private property.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that the permission to
regulate would be within a municipality's boundaries, which
would include private holdings. He said there are people who
think "that can't possibly stand," but he said even though a
home is a proverbial castle, homes are regulated whether or not
the homeowner is aware of the regulations. Many codes apply to
the homeowner.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she agrees. She said she envisions
someone being upset with his/her neighbor and setting a trap for
the neighbor's dog on the lawn, and since that area is easily
accessible to children and other small creatures, that would not
be permissible behavior in a municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that begs the question about
purists who believe that if a dog is off leash, then the dog
owner is violating law, but there is no law that states, as a
matter of policy, that the ultimate loss of the dog's life is an
acceptable price. He said Representative Drummond's example is
one that has been known to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she believes it has.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised that anyone who thinks [HB 201]
is a solution in search of problem need only to do an on-line
search for trapping and trails in Alaska to get many results.
He said, "This is an ongoing problem, and it's not going to go
away." He echoed Representative Drummond's observation
regarding the optional nature of HB 201, and he said he thinks
the proposed legislation "approaches those things that, under
Title 29, local governments can legitimately do as local
governments, without infringing on the Board of Game's
prerogative."
8:45:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked the bill sponsor to share his
personal views on where and when trapping should be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he personally thinks there should
be lots of trapping availability in the state of Alaska, but not
on federal lands where federal land managers think it is not in
the public's best interest. He added that his opinion is "not
prevailing in that respect" and President Donald Trump just
"signed something that runs counter to that." He said he thinks
there is a lot of interest from dog mushers, whose animals are
impacted by [trapping], as well as dog walkers, cross country
skiers, backpackers, and other trail users. He said he thinks
there is an imbalance, because "the traps sort of control the
turf when they're placed." He said he would like traps to be
moved off publicly maintained trails by 100-200 feet, but he
noted that the House Resources Standing Committee disagreed with
him. He reiterated that the House Resources Standing Committee
does think local governments need more authority related to
trapping, which is the impetus for HB 201.
8:48:42 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH opened public testimony on HB 201.
8:48:46 AM
JAN WRENTMORE related that the City of Skagway grappled with the
issue of trapping. She recollected that the city passed an
ordinance in 2015 to regulate for public safety within borough
boundaries. She opined that HB 201 is an excellent bill,
because it would offer clarification to what many communities
are already doing, which is regulating where trapping can
happen. She said the community in Skagway dealt with set-backs
in certain areas and designated a huge rural area, in which set-
backs from trails were much smaller. She related that in
Skagway "trapping is prohibited within 50 yards of any public
street, road, right-of-way, or highway, or established marked
trail within the boundaries of the Skagway Borough, unless the
area is designated 'rural trapping area.'" She noted that the
ordinance in Skagway defines the large rural tracts of land
where the set-back is only 25 yards.
MS. WRENTMORE explained that the old-timers in Skagway always
set their traps far from town; the necessity for the ordinance
came about when two or three "guys" decided to trap in public
parks, along trails, and in the cemetery. She said she likes HB
201 for the control it would give municipalities, because she
said only the people in those municipalities know, for example,
where the favorite trails are. She said ADF&G was not helpful,
because it does not understand "the recreational side of it" and
instead just wants to manage game populations. She concluded
that HB 201 would give municipalities the ability to figure out
what works for their communities and what areas would be of
concern.
8:52:01 AM
KNEELAND TAYLOR, Attorney, testified in support of HB 201 as
legislation necessary to address the murkiness surrounding the
authority of municipalities in regulating the placing of traps.
He said he wrote legal opinions on this matter on behalf of a
group in the Mat-Su Borough that was pushing for an ordinance,
which ultimately was enacted. He said he also served on a Board
of Game subcommittee about 15 years ago that looked at the
placing of traps near trailheads near Anchorage. He noted that
he supported HB 40, and he echoed Representative Josephson's
remarks that the feedback on that legislation was that [the
regulation of trap setting] should be a local matter. He
indicated that those who have seen traps set at trailheads and
right alongside trails would like to see those traps set back.
He said this is a long-standing problem, and clarity would be
helpful to those who would like to see restrictions placed.
8:55:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked how the proposed legislation would
change what is presently possible.
MR. TAYLOR answered that municipal governments in Alaska express
authority to regulate the placing of traps near trailheads,
along trails, and in other public, populated areas, such as
schools. He said it is not now presently clear that the
municipalities have that authority. He echoed Representative
Drummond's previous observation that HB 201 would, through the
use of the word "may", allow municipalities to set limits on
trapping - it would not require them to do so. He indicated
that without this provision, the groups with which he has
associated find themselves involved in litigation, and the
proposed legislation would give them a fighting chance in any
conflict between federal or local authority.
8:57:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Taylor for his general view on
trapping in Alaska.
MR. TAYLOR answered that he would like to see restrictions on
trapping in densely populated areas and trapping along densely
populated trails and at trailheads. He said he does not oppose
all trapping in Alaska. He added, "A long time ago I
entertained some of those views, but I've gotten older and wiser
and changed those views."
8:58:36 AM
AL BARRETTE testified in opposition to HB 201. He opined that
using interpretive terminology is dangerous. He commented that
local governments make up a large portion of the state. He said
almost every municipality or borough has subsistence areas
within their boundaries, and HB 201 would infringe on
subsistence activities. He said the Fairbanks North Star
Borough does not have policing powers, so he does not know how
this could work. He said he has been told by Alaska State
Troopers that they do not enforce ordinances, which is why, for
example, they do not write a ticket for someone who has his/her
dog off leash in violation of a municipality's ordinance.
MR. BARRETTE noted that a 1982 attorney general's opinion stated
that the Board of Game did not have the authority to "regulate
safety," but in about 1983 the legislature adopted new language
in AS 16.05.255 (11), which allows the Board of Game to adopt
regulations for "taking game to ensure public safety". He noted
that Creamer's Field in Fairbanks is within the municipal
boundary and allows trapping through the Board of Game, and
under HB 201, that could be taken away by a municipality.
MR. BARRETTE warned that the proposed "cookie cutter, one-size-
fits-all" legislation should not be supported, because it is
"the wrong way to go."
9:01:25 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked why Mr. Barrette thinks that the result
would be a cookie cutter situation for the entire state when
clearly the bill proposes that each municipality would be able
to choose whether or not to regulate and which regulations would
serve each community. He said he could worry that the outcome
would be the opposite, wherein "you could be going from
municipality to municipality and not have any idea of what the
trapping laws are in that region."
MR. BARRETTE responded that he thinks Co-Chair Fansler could be
correct in his estimation and perhaps his own use of the term
"cookie cutter" was wrong. He said a trap line running through
two municipalities could have two sets of regulations affecting
the trapper. He also reiterated his concern that the
regulations on setbacks or the size of traps could restrict
subsistence trapping. He said as a trapper, he sometimes sets a
trap for one species but unintentionally catches a nontargeted
species, and [under HB 201], an assembly could decide to
restrict his ability to trap based on the likelihood of
nontargeted species being caught in the trap.
9:04:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that from unit to unit
there already are different regulations from the Board of Game.
Further, there are subunits within each game unit that have
separate regulations in terms of methods and means. He said the
idea that "we couldn't possibly tolerate this" because a borough
might want regulation while [an adjacent] borough wants another
"rings hollow a little bit."
9:05:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification regarding the
citation Mr. Barrette had given.
MR. BARRETTE said he had cited [paragraph] (11) from the
aforementioned statute. He said a person could probably argue
that "public safety" means human safety and not that of private
property.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed to the phrase "likely to cause
injury" on page 2, line 4, of HB 201, and he asked Mr. Barrette
if he is aware of anywhere in Alaska statute where a standard
has been established regarding [the meaning of] "likely to cause
injury".
MR. BARRETTE responded that he has not seen that in statute.
9:07:05 AM
BRUCE WEBER testified that three to four years ago, it was
brought to his attention that someone was setting traps at the
end of the road in the subdivision in which he lives. He said
he researched to find out what kind of regulations the state or
municipality had for the placing of traps and was surprised to
discover there were none. He then began a campaign to get the
municipality of Skagway to adopt regulations outlining where
trapping should and should not be. He clarified that his
purpose had not been to end trapping, because he believes there
are places where trapping should occur; however, he also
believes there are lots of places where trapping should not
occur. Mr. Weber said he thinks the number of municipalities
and boroughs that have adopted legislation delineating where
trapping should and should not occur is an indication of the
need for HB 201.
9:09:58 AM
KENNY BARBER testified in opposition to HB 201. He said he
thinks it is wrong to give municipalities the right to close
trapping on private lands, which is what he - having just heard
about the proposed legislation today - understands would happen
under HB 201. Further, he said he thinks "this whole thing is
getting blown out of proportion stating that people are trapping
close to their homes." He said, "Some of it might be, but I
think some of it has to do with dogs, in general." Regarding
safety, he said he does not know of any person who has been
caught in or harmed in a trap in Alaska, "unless it was a
trapper himself who messed up." He questioned how the Board of
Game would "control this thing from getting out of hand." He
concluded, "It doesn't make much sense to me."
9:11:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said Mr. Barber brought up a point that
he would like addressed by someone from Alaska Department of
Fish & Game.
9:12:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that Ms. Rowe had reminded him
that "likely to cause injury" does "ring a bit with the common
law on recklessness," and that may be a good place to
investigate the term.
9:13:06 AM
MS. ROWE offered her understanding that a definition of
reckless, along with the phrase "likely to cause injury", could
be found in Title 11, under criminal law. She added, "I think
that's why we chose that language is because it's been defined
in common law and it's defined in statute."
9:13:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER remarked on the many regulations [the
state] has regarding the many traditions of trapping, and he
said he would like to know what ADF&G's position is on HB 201.
9:14:29 AM
HAZEL NELSON, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated that while she does
not have all the answers for the committee, she would say that
"we probably have concern about the language" to the extent that
she anticipates there would be, under HB 201, "confusions that
would have to be clarified."
9:17:22 AM
BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated that the department
does not have a position on HB 201 at this time; however, there
are some questions as to who would enforce the proposed
legislation. He pointed out that many of the municipalities'
regulations are actually Board of Game regulations. He
mentioned Anchorage, Fairbanks, Skagway, and Kenai. In response
to Representative Rauscher, offered his understanding that the
ability [of municipalities] to regulate their own land is what
has already been established, but "they can't regulate all lands
within municipal boundaries." He suggested the Department of
Law could provide a more detailed response.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "So, then, have they been given
the power to do this through fish and game?"
MR. DALE answered, "No, that ... would have to be through
statute in the legislature. The Board of Game, of course, can
regulate any lands in the state."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER clarified his question as follows:
I guess I'm a little confused on how some communities
do have the ability to regulate this and have done so,
and some say they can't because they don't have that
ability.
9:20:02 AM
CHERYL BROOKING, Assistant Attorney General (AG), Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), responded to Representative Rauscher's query by
explaining that some municipalities have adopted ordinances that
are not particularly valid, and she said she does not know "what
level of enforcement that they ... have." She said that is
similar to state statute that the court has ruled as invalid but
which is still on the books. Conversely, there are examples of
when the Board of Game has adopted regulations. For example,
there were certain areas in the City & Borough of Juneau that
were heavily used by "a variety of different users" who came to
the Board of Game with a proposal to regulate where traps could
be set in these heavily used trail areas. With that type of
consensus, the Board of Game adopted state regulations, and the
municipal regulations on the books mirror the ones adopted by
the Board of Game. So, right now the municipalities do not have
the authority to regulate hunting or trapping, "but like the
Mat-Su Borough did, the borough regulated whether or not traps
can be placed or where they can be placed on borough-owned
land."
MS. BROOKING stated that HB 201 is "a little bit different,"
because it would allow municipalities to regulate all trapping -
not just the placement of traps - within their boundaries,
including on state, federal, and borough boundaries. She added
that HB 201 appears to include university and railroad lands,
although she admitted she is not clear on that.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned, "So, are we giving
permission for ... the ability to do federal land also?"
CO-CHAIR PARISH said, "Ms. Brooking?"
MS. BROOKING responded, "Yes."
9:22:28 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 201.
9:22:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Ms. Nelson how AS 16.05.255(11) has
been interpreted as to the right of the state to regulate taking
of game for police purposes to ensure public safety.
MS. NELSON deferred to DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER rephrased his question to inquire whether
the aforementioned statute has ever been applied and enforced.
9:24:06 AM
MS. BROOKING answered yes, the Board of Game responds to all
proposals, and the overriding goal and directive of the Board of
Game is "to regulate for the conservation, utilization, and
development of the resource," and in doing that the board can
also address public safety concerns. She said the board
addresses issues of overuse and conflict, which can involve
public safety concerns. The board also has regulations that
allow the taking of an animal in defense of life and property,
which is also a public safety concern.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the board ever regulated the
taking, use, or management of non-game animals under the public
safety authority.
MS. BROOKING answered that the board does not regulate non-game
animals; domestic animals are outside of the board's authority.
9:26:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said, "When we do something like this,
we put it into Title 29. I don't see this as being an actual
power, and I would assume that the municipalities would have to
adopt the power in order to engage this, which would be public
safety. I don't think it fits under land regulation or solid
waste or education. So, is this a standalone thing? Would they
have to adopt another power?" He said he was thinking of home
rule and first and second class boroughs. He offered his
understanding that there may need to be a vote of the people and
that [new regulations adopted] must fit somewhere within borough
code. He asked if the land use power would have to "fit under
public safety" or if it could be "put in land use regulation."
9:27:31 AM
MS. BROOKING answered that the proposed bill, as written, seems
to be "within the public safety power." She said it is unclear
whether a borough would need to "adopt that or somehow have that
power." She said HB 201 seems to apply to all cities,
municipalities, and boroughs, regardless of their class. She
concluded that she does not really have an answer to
Representative Talerico's question.
9:28:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE read an excerpt of an article written by
The East Idaho News on March 22, regarding an incident when a
boy was playing with his dog and touched a pipe sticking out of
the ground. What he touched was a cyanide trap set to catch
coyotes, and the trap emitted sodium cyanide, which killed the
boy's dog and required the boy to wash his eyes before he could
run home for help. The incident occurred just 10 minutes from
the boy's home. Representative Westlake asked, "Is there a way
we can stop certain traps like this?"
MS. BROOKING responded that she was not familiar with that
particular incident but does not believe that type of trapping
is allowed in Alaska. To a follow-up question, she said under
current law, anyone can make a proposal to the Board of Game.
She noted that there is a regulatory cycle to consider for
submitting proposals.
9:30:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND relayed that the Municipality of
Anchorage is roughly 2,000 square miles and includes the bulk of
Chugach State Park, which is roughly 780 square miles. Of the
738,000 people who live in Alaska, 300,000 of them live in
Anchorage; and the square mileage of Anchorage is three-tenths
of one percent of the area of the state. She asked if her
assumption is correct that if HB 201 becomes law, ADF&G would
still have jurisdiction in Chugach State Park, which borders the
Municipality of Anchorage.
9:32:55 AM
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), stated
that the division is a state law enforcement agency responsible
for statewide enforcement of hunting, fishing, and trapping
regulations. He emphasized that DPS does not have a position on
HB 201 other than as it may relate to enforceability. He said
the troopers enforce state law - they do not enforce city or
municipal code. He said that is important, because some
boroughs and municipalities are large areas that fall outside of
city limits, so the enforcement falls to the police agency
responsible for the area within the city limits. Outside the
city limits, for example, in a borough, the enforcement falls to
a borough enforcement officer for wildlife or any type of
wildlife complaints. He said some boroughs have [borough
enforcement officers] while others do not. He indicated that
the borough officers would be the ones responsible for municipal
codes placed on the areas outside of city limits.
9:34:48 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that HB 201 was held over.
SB 64-UNIFORM ENVIROMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
9:35:04 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final order of business would
be 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."
9:35:27 AM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented SB 64. He said the proposed legislation fits
the description of legislation that would "streamline and remove
obstacles that inhibit business commerce in the transfer of
property." He said SB 64 would help in that capacity without
reducing expectations for public health, safety, and a healthy
environment. The proposed legislation would create The Uniform
Environmental Covenant Act, which would "protect the buyer and
seller of contaminated property, while allowing the fullest and
best use of the property until the contamination reaches safe
levels." He said that under SB 64, [entering into the
environmental covenant] would be voluntary. He said it is
specifically recordable interest in real estate that will be
tracked in the Department of Environmental Conservation's
(DEC's) database, which results in a zero fiscal note, because
that database already exists. He said [the covenant] is
"specific to the risks at a particular site and restricts
activities that could result in exposure while allowing other
uses to occur."
SENATOR MICCICHE relayed that in his district there is a
beautiful piece of property that has been contaminated, and the
"Mom and Pop" who own it cannot afford the cleanup; however,
there are interested parties who could [buy the property and]
easily afford the cleanup. Under SB 64, the contamination would
be recorded on the property deed; the new owner could purchase
the property and have it cleaned up to the Department of
Environmental Conservation's (DEC's) current standards; DEC
would then release the covenant from the piece of property. He
said the process would protect both seller and buyer. He
reiterated that it would be a voluntary process. He said, "This
eases the sale through a formal recording on the deed itself."
SENATOR MICCICHE related a second story wherein buyers bought
property in Anchorage and were unaware that it was contaminated;
they "did some dirt work" and inadvertently spread the
contamination across their property and into the abutting
properties and are now responsible for paying for the cost of
the cleanup. If the provisions of SB 64 had been in place, the
buyers could have been made aware of the contamination, may have
still chosen to buy the property and pay $20,000 for the cleanup
instead of potentially millions of dollars.
SENATOR MICCICHE said there are many pieces of property that
could benefit under SB 64. Currently there are thousands of
contaminated sites in Alaska. He related that the only
opposition to SB 64 is from the federal government, which owns
51 percent of the contaminated sites in the state. He mentioned
the "Legacy Well" - nicknamed "Travesty Wells" by the
legislature - and said, "We believe they should live up to the
same environmental expectations of the residents of this state."
9:39:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if there is any regulation
currently in place that requires contamination to be declared,
if that regulation is statewide or within local jurisdictions,
and whether contamination currently must be disclosed to
potential buyers.
SENATOR MICICCHE answered that if a property owner is unaware of
contamination, he/she is not required to disclose it. He said,
"This is once contamination has been identified on your
property." He deferred further response to Kristin Ryan from
DEC.
9:40:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE expressed appreciation to Senator
Micciche for SB 64.
9:41:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he has a constituent who "has the
same kind of situation." He asked whether there would be a cost
to create a covenant and whether there would be any [exceptions]
related to types of contamination.
9:41:44 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that any contamination for which DEC
requires cleanup would be covered under SB 64. He said his
personal interest is in regard to transferring of property to
the next owner; the proposed legislation would allow the new
owner "to take on the liability of that contamination if they
choose to do so." He said sometimes contamination reaches safe
levels over time. For example, a person who owns an old filling
station where the contamination was contained underground could
operate a new business there with certain restrictions - perhaps
not a daycare, but certainly an auto parts store. The owner
could choose to have the contamination cleaned up later in order
to lift the restrictions and operate whatever business he/she
may choose. He added, "It allows a lot of flexibility for both
the buyer and seller."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered a hypothetical situation wherein
the owner of the property gets a covenant that states the
contamination would cost $50,000 at most to clean up, but then
the new owner finds out the cleanup will cost $5 million. He
asked, "Does this extinguish any obligation or liability on the
original seller or are there any limitations or sideboards?"
SENATOR MICCICHE deferred to DEC but surmised a determination
would be made on a case-by-case basis. He offered his
understanding that with an environmental covenant, the buyer can
"take on a proportion of liability depending on the transaction
and until it's satisfied ...."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the cost for recording a
covenant would be no more than the cost of recording "a
carpenter's lien or anything else."
SENATOR MICCICHE answered, "I'm not sure if there's any cost."
9:44:57 AM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated
that SB 64 is needed by the department in order to transfer
property that has been contaminated "back into commerce." She
said property that has been contaminated is considered "blighted
and untouchable," and it is difficult to get loans on such
property. The proposed legislation would reduce the
restrictions on the property "to the specific uses that we're
concerned about, allowing all other uses to occur." She said
DEC has found that in other states [that have passed similar
legislation], buyers, sellers, and lenders are more comfortable
undertaking sale transactions of [contaminated property]. She
advised a version of the uniform law has been adopted in most
states, with about 7 states, including Alaska, still working on
getting the law passed. She said, "There's some testimony from
the uniform law organization that explains why they proposed
this and why it's been working so well in other states."
MS. RYAN related that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has
asked to be exempted, but DEC thinks DoD should be held to the
same standards as everyone else. Ms. Ryan told Representative
Saddler that DEC would take on the responsibility of filing a
covenant and is allowed to do so at no cost; therefore, there
would be no cost to the owner of the property for putting the
restriction in the title. She said DEC currently does this work
and puts the information in its database, but the database is
not always accessed [by the public]; the proposed legislation
would ensure that the people involved are aware [of the
contamination] when they do title searches.
9:47:20 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER referred to the story [shared by the prime
sponsor] regarding [the purchase of contaminated land in
Anchorage where the contamination was inadvertently spread to
other properties]. He offered his understanding that the owner
was under no obligation to clean up the contamination but later,
when the owner spread the contamination, he/she was under
obligation to clean up the contamination. He asked for an
explanation. He further questioned why the original owner of
the land was not obligated to clean up the contamination.
9:48:13 AM
MS. RYAN responded that under statute, the current owner is
responsible for the contamination of his/her land. If the owner
is not the cause of the contamination but "inherited it for some
reason," his/her recourse is to pursue the original contaminator
through a court of law. She continued:
A good example is the Flint Hills Refinery. We
recently settled with Koch Brothers, which is the
current owner of the refinery, but a lot of that
contamination probably occurred when William owned the
property. We are continuing a legal fight ... now
joined with the Koch Brothers against William to have
them contribute to the remedy.
MS. RYAN offered details related to the aforementioned situation
given by the prime sponsor, as follows:
We were aware of contamination; they closed the gas
station down - this was on Tudor [Road]; they took out
the tanks and the petroleum contaminated dirt around
the tanks; but there was enough petroleum that had
leached over to the foundation of a building, and ...
there would be no way to get that without removing the
foundation of a building. So, we said, "You can leave
that, but if you ever take that building out, you need
to deal with that dirt appropriately." And what
happened is the property was transferred several
times; that was not communicated to the new purchaser;
they pulled the foundation out; they spread the dirt
in the process of that. So, they are now the
responsible party in our minds, because they're the
ones that moved the dirt. ... Had they known, they
would have not moved it everywhere. ... And they can
go to court after the original responsible party, if
they choose to do so. But ... the way our statutes
work: they're the ones that we regulate.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER surmised that there are situations wherein
contaminations happen and don't get cleaned up, and he inquired
whether there are "alternatives given in that situation."
MR. RYAN responded that there are approximately 2,000
contaminated sites currently in Alaska - about half of which are
on federal property. For about 1,000 of those sites, DEC has
decided - for a variety of reasons - that "they don't have to
clean it all up." The department puts restrictions on the
property "to protect the future." For example, as Senator
Micciche described, perhaps a daycare cannot be built on a
particular site or, Ms. Ryan suggested, a well built on a
contaminated refinery site. She said those restrictions are
called institutional control and vary depending on the type and
location of the contamination. The decision to not clean up
contamination is a joint decision made by DEC and the
responsible party. She emphasized that the department's
ultimate goal is for contaminated sites to be cleaned; however,
there are situations in which that may not be reasonable.
MS. RYAN, in response to a follow-up question, said the proposed
legislation, if enacted, would not apply retroactively to the
2,000 already recorded sites. She said there may be some sites
for which the division would want to establish covenants on a
case-by-case basis. She indicated that there are some owners of
sites on the North Slope who are interested in [the proposed
legislation] for protection of their liability when property is
transferred in the future. She said the department wants to
prevent future situations in which people are unaware that the
land they have inherited is contaminated.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked for confirmation that Ms. Ryan means that
the department could deal with all 2,000 contaminated sites
retroactively but would not, because it would be too time
consuming.
MS. RYAN answered yes, and she added that the department does
not have the resources to do that. She stated, "If the
responsible party wants it, of course we'll honor that; but I
don't see us ... taking them all on."
9:53:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the environmental covenant would
be "an unrestricted allowance of liability" or include terms [of
limitation].
MS. RYAN answered, "That would ... have to be negotiated between
... the sales transaction; it would not be part of the covenant;
the covenant has no monetary interest whatsoever."
9:54:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Ms. Ryan to explain the process of
"getting off of this registry."
MS. RYAN said DEC would be "treating it like a permit." She
explained that there would be an appeal process. If a future
buyer decides the covenant is "no longer necessary in
restricting some use that they're interested in," then he/she
would propose to DEC that the covenant be modified or removed.
She explained that she used the term "permit" because if DEC
does not agree with the proposal, then the buyer could appeal
that decision to the commissioner, as is done with other permit
decisions. She said as a last-case scenario, the person could
take DEC to court. In response to a follow-up question, she
confirmed that of the 2,000 already existing contamination sites
that are not on federal land, some are on privately owned land.
She said home heating oil tanks are problematic. She said she
does not know the percentage, but estimated it would be only
about 5 percent.
9:56:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the initialism "IC" stands for
institutional controls.
MS. RYAN answered, "Correct."
9:56:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the programs in other states
have been working well or if there have been any legal battles
resulting.
MR. RYAN responded that the one benefit of Alaska having waited
to put forth such legislation is that it can first learn from
the mistakes made by other states. She advised that the model
code was put out in 2003, so "it's been over 10 years that
people have been working on this," and the organization that
proposed the model code is saying [Alaska's] version is probably
the best one. She concluded, "Yes, it's working in other
states; the version that we're proposing has ... been effective
in accomplishing the goals that we're talking about."
9:57:30 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH opened public testimony. After ascertaining
that there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public
testimony on SB 64.
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that SB 64 was held over.
9:58:41 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 201 vers A 3.30.17.PDF |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 1982 AG Opinion.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Case law.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Matsu Ordinance 3.21.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Muni Trapping Codes.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 News Articles.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| SB064 Sponsor Statement 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Sectional Analysis Ver. J 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Opposition Letter - DOD 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Support Letters 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Supporting Document - DOD Response 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Support Document - Fact Sheet 3.29.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Support Doc - Uniform Law Commission 3.29.2017.PDF |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Fiscal Note DEC-SPAR 4.6.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 Fiscal Note DNR-MLW 4.6.2017.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HB201-DFG-DWC-04-07-17.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 LAA Legal Memos.pdf |
HCRA 4/11/2017 8:00:00 AM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |