Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
04/09/2019 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Community Service Block Grant Program, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development | |
| HB32 | |
| HB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2019
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harriet Drummond, Co-Chair
Representative Sara Hannan, Co-Chair
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Sharon Jackson
Representative Josh Revak
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): COMMUNITY SERVICE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM~
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE~ COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 32
"An Act making certain entities that are exempt from federal
taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), (4), (6), (12), or (19)
(Internal Revenue Code), regional housing authorities, and
federally recognized tribes eligible for a loan from the Alaska
energy efficiency revolving loan fund; relating to loans from
the Alaska energy efficiency revolving loan fund; and relating
to the annual report published by the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation."
- MOVED HB 32 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act prohibiting disposable plastic shopping bags; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 32
SHORT TITLE: AK ENERGY EFFICIENCY LOANS: ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) CRA, FIN
04/02/19 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/02/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/19 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/09/19 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT PLASTIC RETAIL BAGS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
03/06/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/19 (H) CRA, L&C
04/04/19 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/04/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/19 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/09/19 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PAULETTA BOURNE, Grant Supervisor
Division of Community and Regional Affairs
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint Presentation on the
Community Service Block Grant Program.
PATRICK M. ANDERSON
Chief Executive Officer
Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding the
Community Service Block Grant.
STACY BARNES, Director
Governmental Relations and Public Affairs
Alaska Housing Finance Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 32.
MICHELLE PUTZ, Leader
Bags for Change
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
SYDNEY PAULINO
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
LISBETH JACKSON
Hatcher Pass, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of banning plastic
bags across Alaska.
MATT SEAHOLM
Executive Director
American Progressive Bag Alliance
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 81.
BRENDA DOLMA
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding HB 81 on
behalf of Representative Josephson, primer sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 81, responded to a
concern expressed during the hearing on the bill.
LISA NILSEN
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
JOHN HAVRILEK
representing self and wife
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
MARGI DASHEVSKI
Alaska Youth Environmental Association (AYEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
KENGO NAGAOKA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
SILVIA DAEUMICHEN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of a plastic bag ban
during the hearing on HB 81.
ADAM HYKES
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 81.
AMANDA SASSI
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of a statewide plastic
bag ban during the hearing on HB 81.
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 81.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:33 AM
CO-CHAIR SARA HANNAN called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, Revak, Jackson, Thompson,
Drummond, and Hannan were present at the call to order.
Representative Claman arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): COMMUNITY SERVICE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTATION(S): COMMUNITY SERVICE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
8:04:00 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation regarding the Community Service Block Grant
Program, by the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development.
8:04:34 AM
PAULETTA BOURNE, Grant Supervisor, Division of Community and
Regional Affairs (DCRA), Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED), gave a PowerPoint presentation on
the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) Program. She turned to
slide 2, titled "General Information," and she related that
block grant funds are allocated from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS); the division anticipates
receiving approximately $2.3 to $2.5 million in the federal
fiscal year 2020 (FY 20); Rural Alaska Community Action Program
(RurAL CAP) is the only recognized community action agency in
Alaska, and by statute 95 percent of the funds received are
granted to RurAL CAP; and 5 percent of the funds are used for
administrative costs.
MS. BOURNE directed attention to slide 3, titled "Purpose of
CSBG." She said the purpose of the grant is to alleviate the
causes and conditions of poverty; revitalize low-income
communities; and empower low-income families and individuals in
rural and urban areas to become fully self-sufficient.
Referring to slide 4, titled "State Plan," she said 42 USC
9908(3) requires states to hold at least one legislative hearing
every three years in conjunction with the development of the
state plan. She said the last hearing was held on March 29,
2016. She mentioned the developing stages of a federal FY 2020
state plan, which outlines the activities to undertake in the
fiscal year.
8:07:07 AM
MS. BOURNE turned to slide 5, titled "Program Components." She
said RurAL CAP utilizes funds to serve low-income people
throughout Alaska through the following entities:
Administrative Services; Development and Communications; Child
Development Division; Community Development Division; Planning
and Construction Division; and Supportive Housing Division.
Referring to slide 6, titled "Outcome Measures," Ms. Bourne
noted those measures identified in the state plan track results
and report them on a quarterly basis "in terms of the number of
clients who achieve a given milestone." She said progress is
reviewed by RurAL CAP staff, who use the information to evaluate
results and make any necessary changes. She concluded, "Both
the department and RurAL CAP place a strong emphasis on
promoting maximum participation by rural residents in the
elimination of the causes and conditions of poverty." She said
she worked with RurAL CAP in the daily administration of this
grant for eight years, and indicated that RurAL CAP has
demonstrated a sincere interest in aiding low-income Alaskans.
She indicated her purpose in providing information about the
block grant.
8:10:12 AM
PATRICK M. ANDERSON, Chief Executive Officer, Rural Alaska
Community Action Program (RurAL CAP), stated that RurAL CAP has
"a long and active history in addressing poverty." He said he
started in his position in January 2018. He said RurAL CAP
takes its charge seriously. He said poverty in the state of
Alaska is "extremely persistent," and he said he thinks it will
require new initiatives in order to address the issue. He said,
"We are preparing to do that." He said the board of directors
will meet in May, when RurAL CAP will present to it breakthrough
initiatives that will reach beyond current programs and start
looking at the root cause [of poverty].
MR. ANDERSON said the first area is in community health. He
related that for a number of years he had been an executive in a
number of rural health care organizations that seek to establish
and understand "adverse childhood experiences" or "toxic
stress." He said by looking at this level of toxicity in
communities, RurAL CAP hopes to identify the root cause for many
of the behaviors that actually lead to poverty.
MR. ANDERSON stated that one of the issues faced is referred to
as "a poverty tax." He explained as follows:
As soon as you begin to approach ... overcoming the
poverty level, programming that supports your movement
out of poverty starts to drop away at a very rapid
rate, which means that your effective income is
actually less than what you're receiving. So, if
you're receiving daycare assistance, and that starts
to decline after you begin to reach a certain income
level, that decline is more than the income you're
serving, and we hope to be able to address that ...
with Congress. It's not such a huge issue ... within
the state of Alaska as far as taxes go, but in terms
of real income, the programing - as ... it begins to
decline when you reach a certain income level - has an
impact.
MR. ANDERSON stated his hope that RurAL CAP will be able to
identify "a community that is interested in pursuing both goals
as a system," and RurAL CAP would work with that community. He
said he anticipates the board will adopt the initiative; funding
still needs to be located to pursue such an initiative with
those communities that indicate an interest. He said RurAL CAP
would be doing that over the next nine months.
8:14:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked how long [RurAL CAP] has existed
and what the statistics are in terms of how the program has
helped empower low-income individuals.
MR. ANDERSON, to the first part of Representative Jackson's
question, said RurAL CAP was founded in 1965. He suggested Ms.
Bourne could answer the second part of Representative Jackson's
question.
8:15:33 AM
MS. BOURNE indicated that the means of reporting the numbers has
changed over the years, and she said she would get that data for
Representative Jackson.
8:16:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed appreciation for the
information regarding community services block grants and
interest in having learned about mandatory reporting to the
legislature every three years. He said he was compelled by Mr.
Anderson's testimony regarding RurAL CAP's holistic, outcome-
oriented, and evidence-driven approach. He mentioned the
breakthrough initiative RurAL CAP is endeavoring to identify, as
well as "the authorized expansion in social enterprise." He
asked Mr. Anderson to speak to any breakthrough initiatives that
RurAL CAP has already identified and to elaborate on any
"initial thinking in terms of social enterprise and what that
kind of work or investment might look like."
MR. ANDERSON replied that RurAL CAP is operating two
breakthrough initiatives. He related that since 2004, he has
been immersed in a management system, called "lean thinking."
He continued:
The legislature has funded portions of the state
administration in lean management activities. I
followed those since the Division of Public Assistance
first started in about 2009. It's not been adopted by
the state, but I have been convinced of its
effectiveness in a nonprofit organization and in
health care, where I have introduced it twice; this is
my third, full introduction. Lean management is a
specific way of ordering business in order to achieve
the greatest amount of value added and to reduce
nonvalue-adding activities.
The complexities within a nonprofit are because we do
not have a visual process, but what I can report right
now is that we have utilized lean management
principles in our grant writing process. We had six
individuals in that department; we now have four.
Because of the way we have ordered the writing of
grants, we have actually applied for new grants that
are 44 percent new source for us. I didn't mention
that we leveraged the CSBG funds ten-fold, and we're
trying to increase that number. So, our management
system is all about total quality and high efficiency,
and that is working well. In addition to grant
writing, we went from a 15- to 16-day month-end close
of our books to the last session we had 6 days - I
believe this time we've gotten down to our target of 5
days. We have a number of those kinds of initiatives
going on to improve the quality, to improve the value-
adding time.
We're also utilizing an innovative approach to
workforce healing. Organizational trauma exists in
this country in great numbers. When you look at the
research, about 90 percent of people in organizations
around the country are highly stressed - some
toxically stressed - and we are taking a breakthrough
approach to "how do we feel our own employees"? So,
when we hire people, we're not aware of their load of
toxic stress, and many workplaces add to it.
MR. ANDERSON offered to talk with any legislators interested in
the subject the next time he travels to Juneau. In terms of
social enterprise, he said RurAL CAP is already engaged in a
for-profit Rural Energy business that provides discretionary
operating funds for RurAL CAP and also service to rural Alaska.
He said RurAL CAP is looking at hydroponics. In terms of
economic development, he said a community can choose "import
substitution." He explained that "the value chain" of imported
produce, wherein produce can take up to two weeks to get to its
destination in Alaska, and at that point the loss of water
weight has reduced the value of the produce by half. He
continued:
We're currently operating 24 Head Starts, and our
initial foray into hydroponics is to look at the
recently enacted Farm Bill by Congress. There is
funding identified for loans; we're going to attempt
to identify other funds .... In a couple of our Head
Starts there is a pilot to see what is required and
how well it will do. Ultimately, in certain
communities we believe that hydroponics can be an
effective source of cash.
MR. ANDERSON said there is a good salad bar at Fast Eddie's in
Tanacross, Alaska, and he indicated that Tanacross would be a
good staging area for [a hydroponic operation]. Further, he
said there are military bases and school districts that are
required to purchase locally sourced vegetables when available.
He said that is the current thinking that is under development.
8:23:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND thanked Mr. Anderson and recognized his
work in identifying the impact of Alaska's Clear and Equitable
Share (ACES) [passed during the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State
Legislature]. She opined that it is important to be aware of
the impact of ACES on Alaskans and through every type of
organization and community. She said, "I think this is a good
way to spread the word and help Alaskans achieve and pull
themselves out of poverty." She said she thinks hydroponics
sounds like a terrific way to begin to work toward food security
in rural communities.
8:24:17 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN thanked the presenters for "taking adverse
childhood experiences at its fundamental level into
programming." She said she is a career educator, and many of
the experiences people have effect their ability to transform
their lives. She mentioned a study by Kaiser Permanente related
to the relation between [poverty] and its connection to disease
and [adverse] mental health. She applauded the speakers for
their work in "helping transform people out of poverty" and
giving them ways to use skills and build resiliency.
HB 32-AK ENERGY EFFICIENCY LOANS: ELIGIBILITY
8:26:28 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 32, "An Act making certain entities that are
exempt from federal taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), (4),
(6), (12), or (19) (Internal Revenue Code), regional housing
authorities, and federally recognized tribes eligible for a loan
from the Alaska energy efficiency revolving loan fund; relating
to loans from the Alaska energy efficiency revolving loan fund;
and relating to the annual report published by the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation."
8:27:22 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN noted that the committee had heard HB 32
previously and no amendments had been submitted. She said a
question had been asked about the mechanism used to bond the
project with Galena, Alaska.
8:28:35 AM
STACY BARNES, Director, Governmental Relations and Public
Affairs, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), stated that
the Galena project "came forward with assets that included
grants" from DCCED. She said the AHFC finance team considered
the project and moved forward with "bonding outside of the
Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan." She explained that
was because of the size of the project and because "it was a
standalone project." Thus the project was financed and moved
forward.
CO-CHAIR HANNAN asked, "So, AHFC still remains with the
authority to do a full $250 million bond for applicants that
could come forward if this program were expanded and needed?"
MS. BARNES answered that is correct: AHFC would have the
authority to pursue "the $250 million in authority" should the
program be expanded to include the nonprofit organizations
listed under HB 32. She noted, however, that historically AHFC
has not gone forward with bonds of that size, so "it would
likely be smaller projects."
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND moved to report HB 32 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 32 was reported out of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
8:30:50 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:31 a.m. to 8:33 a.m.
HB 81-PROHIBIT PLASTIC RETAIL BAGS
8:33:48 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act prohibiting disposable plastic
shopping bags; and providing for an effective date."
8:34:30 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN opened public testimony on HB 81.
8:34:49 AM
MICHELLE PUTZ, Leader, Bags for Change, testified in support of
HB 81. She said plastics are getting into food and being
ingested by humans. The toxins in plastics affect the health
and reproductive systems of humans and could be affecting the
health of fish. She stated that plastics last forever in the
environment; plastic bags in particular litter communities and
"are very hard on ... marine life." She reported that 2 million
[plastic] bags are given away annually at [Sitka's] two grocery
stores alone and cost stores and consumers over $100,000 a year.
Ms. Putz said a poll was taken in Sitka asking whether single-
use plastic bags should be "banned, provided - but for a fee,
handed out for free, or 'no opinion.'" She relayed that over 70
percent of shoppers polled randomly at Sitka's grocery stores
agreed that something should be done - either banning the bags
or charging a fee for them. She relayed that in a more informal
poll on a more conservative site, 225 people were in support of
taking action regarding bags and 195 supported taking no action.
Ms. Putz said some argue that people recycle their plastic bags;
however, she countered that only 1 percent of "the bags" get
recycled, and it costs money to recycle.
8:37:15 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND responded that she finds it shocking that 2
million bags are being given away [annually] at Sitka's grocery
stores alone.
MS. PUTZ noted that was "a quick estimate" made by [the store
representatives].
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND estimated that amounts to 2,700 bags per
day/per store, if those stores operate 365 days a year.
8:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked if Bags for Change has approached
the Sitka Assembly to ask for change as 17 communities in Alaska
have.
MS. PUTZ answered yes, the group brought the issue to the
assembly last year as an ordinance, which passed on first
reading. She explained that "opposition came forward";
therefore, Bags for Change asked the assembly to "back off last
year" and "put it on hold." This year the group is in the
process of doing a citizen ballot initiative and has just begun
gathering signatures to put a plastic bag ban on the ballot,
along with a fee on paper bags and a provision that would allow
the assembly to ticket stores that do not "follow the rule."
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked if there is enough community
support in Sitka to "get this ban."
MS. PUTZ answered yes. She offered her perspective that support
[for a ban] seems to be growing in the community, and Bags for
Change is "ready to take on this challenge."
8:39:39 AM
SYDNEY PAULINO said she was representing herself and her mother,
who could not testify today. She stated support of HB 81. She
opined that "we owe it to our environment and our communities to
take this trash out of our oceans and off our beaches." She
stated one reason is that much of Alaska's revenue results from
the beauty of the state, and, if polluted, "it will no longer
have that kind of effect."
8:40:33 AM
LISBETH JACKSON noted that she had not seen a copy of the
proposed legislation but supports banning plastic bags across
Alaska. She said plastic bags are harmful. She offered her
understanding that HB 81 does not include a fee for plastic bag
use, and she said she would support such a fee. She noted that
single-use plastic bags under a certain mil weight have already
been banned in certain communities, and in spring considerably
fewer bags are littering environment. She said the communities
of Palmer and Wasilla "have taken the elimination of plastic
bags in stride," with many people bringing reusable bags to do
their shopping. She said this has a positive effect on
landfills, waterways, and the environment.
8:42:32 AM
MATT SEAHOLM, Executive Director, American Progressive Bag
Alliance, indicated that the alliance is involved with a variety
of packaging products, but his testimony would focus
specifically on the subject of plastic retail bags. He stated
his opposition to HB 81. He said the committee should have his
written testimony. Mr. Seaholm stated, "Any study that has ever
been done has shown, actually, either an uptick or no actual
discernible difference in the amount of waste or litter
generated in the location that has implemented a ban similar to
HB 81." He related a story done by National Public Radio (NPR)
that morning that highlighted the unintended consequences of a
proposal like [HB 81], including "the carbon footprint of the
alternative," such as an increase in garbage bag sales because
plastic bags are no longer being used for trash. He said the
alternative, which typically is paper, takes up more space in
landfills and is heavier and greater in volume in terms of
transport. He said the NPR piece also touches upon "the
assumption that cotton tote bags are better." He recommended
the committee look at that story. He stated, "We know these
policies are well-intentioned, but the fact is they really do
miss the mark on sustainability."
8:45:20 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked how many bags are actually recycled and
how many recycling centers are continuing to accept plastic
bags.
MS. SEAHOLM answered that there are a number of recyclers
throughout the U.S. that recycle plastic. He recollected the
last number he had seen was 1.2 billion pounds of plastic. He
indicated that 10-15 percent [is recycled], and while that may
seem like a low number, "the primary competitor to recycling for
us is actually re-use." He relayed that the recycling authority
of Quebec identified that 78 percent of plastic bags are reused,
predominately as trash can liners. Another recycling use of
plastic bags is turning them into composite lumber that is much
more durable than other lumber.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that in Alaska there are dozens of rural
communities that have no access to recycling centers, and it is
cost-prohibitive to return the plastic to an urban community
with recycling capabilities. She asked Mr. Seaholm how he
intends to reach out to these communities to help them to
recycle.
MS. SEAHOLM prefaced his answer by stating that recycling is not
the sole, end-life use for a plastic retail bag. He said there
is no doubt that plastic retain bags are "the best option at the
checkout counter." He mentioned environmental footprint, bags
from Asia made from nonwoven polypropylene, and cotton tote
bags, and he said, "Any of those have to be used so many times
that overall you're just not going to offset that single re-use
of [a] plastic retail bag." He clarified that even in areas
where there is no recycling "that one re-use [of a plastic bag]
still makes it the best option." He indicated that since Alaska
has no manufacturers of plastic or paper retail bags, the
plastic retail bag [weighs less] than the paper bags to ship to
the state.
8:49:45 AM
BRENDA DOLMA testified in support of HB 81. She said it was
legislation that would aid in the protection of Alaskans,
animals and waterways in the state, and visitors to the state -
not corporations. She related that [Homer] has "boomerang
bags," which are made from already existing materials, such as
t-shirts. She suggested other communities could consider using
similar bags. She noted more than 1.96 million tourists spend
thousands of dollars to visit Alaska and "don't want to see
'tundra tumbleweeds' floating around." She surmised that
tourists that come to fish would [care] about the impact of
plastics on water life. She indicated that [HB 81] would speak
for the wildlife that cannot speak for itself. Ms. Dolma said
Alaska has 8 national parks, 16 wildlife refuges, and 33,900
miles of coastline.
MS. DOLMA referred to language in HB 81, [Section 1, subsection
(b), paragraph (2), subparagraph (B), on page 2, lines 26-27],
which would include under the definition of "retail seller" a
retail establishment "that has annual gross sales of $250,000 or
more in the previous calendar year". She questioned whether
that would allow rural communities falling below that mark to
ban plastic bags.
8:51:58 AM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, on
behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor of HB 81,
responded that Ms. Dolma expressed a valid concern, and she
suggested the committee could look into amending the amount to a
smaller figure.
8:52:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 81, said the issue came up in the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee a year ago.
He said he would not take offense at any attempt by the
committee to lower that threshold.
8:52:58 AM
LISA NILSEN testified in support of HB 81. She said she has
been a retailer for over six years, and her shop does not use
single-use plastic bags. She said as a mother of five children,
she feels responsible for teaching them by example the many
options for transporting purchases. She said as a fisherman's
wife, she hears about the negative effect of single-use plastic
bags on ocean life. She indicated her husband has expressed
shock over the single-use plastic debris on the beaches. Ms.
Nilsen shared that she was born and raised in Kake, Alaska. She
said she is passionate about discontinuing single-use plastic
bags in Alaska. She noted that Northwestern and Coastal
indigenous communities in Alaska began banning single-use
plastic bags approximately 15 years ago. She said she believes
it is time for Southeast Alaska "to get onboard with everybody
else." She said she listened to [Mr. Seaholm] and she thinks
"they found their solution for their plastic bags in composite
lumber products." She opined that it is the right time to
pursue the goal of no longer using single-use plastic bags.
8:55:18 AM
JOHN HAVRILEK stated that he was testifying on behalf of himself
and his wife. He said he supports the ban of plastic bags. He
shared that he has been a resident of Alaska for 50 years and is
no stranger to pollution, having moved from Cleveland, Ohio,
where he witnessed the Cleveland River catch on fire. He said
he is proud that attempts are being made by the State of Alaska
to ban [single-use] plastic bags. He said he and his wife have
been using the same "recyclable bags" for 10 years now. He said
the most important thing is to keep the beaches clean. He
explained that he lives on the water along the Wrangell Narrows,
and he picks up plastic off the beach and out of the water
daily, so he would love "to see them disappear permanently."
8:56:55 AM
MARGI DASHEVSKI, Alaska Youth Environmental Association (AYEA),
testified in support of HB 81. She said there are dozens of
Alaska students across the state who, over the past year, have
lead campaigns to ban single-use plastic bags; they have
collected 766 petition signatures in support of a statewide ban.
She read the language of the petition, which extolled the
benefits of banning plastic bags statewide. She said she sees
the young adults she works with as visionaries for the next
generations. She echoed the testimony of Ms. Dowling that
banning plastic bags would be a strong step forward for Alaska.
8:58:53 AM
KENGO NAGAOKA testified in support of HB 81, which he called
common sense legislation. He noted that the Municipality of
Anchorage recently passed an ordinance related to a plastic bag
ban, and it would be taking effect soon. He said [banning
single-use plastic bags] is "a positive thing to do for our
environment and our water and our tourism." He said he is aware
many communities in the state have already instated such bans,
and he opined that it is time for the state to support those
communities. He expressed support for high school students
working on campaigns around the state to reduce use of single-
use plastic. He recognized Homer as addressing the issue soon.
Mr. opined that banning plastic bags is not enough; the state
must encourage alternatives and ensure those alternatives are
accessible to all Alaskans. He said in Anchorage, many
residents use [public] transit or walk to buy their groceries,
and he wants to make sure reusable bags are accessible and "the
paper alternatives don't have an excessive fee on them." He
encouraged the committee to think of "the equity components of
this proposition, as well." He thanked Representative Josephson
for sponsoring HB 81, and he encouraged those who may be "on the
fence" to take a closer look at the proposed legislation.
9:01:30 AM
SILVIA DAEUMICHEN testified in support of a plastic bag ban.
She said she works with a group of children ages 9-13, who are
worried about the adverse effects of plastic on the environment.
There are about 10 children in the group, and they call
themselves "Kids' Environmental Action." She said, "We feel
that humans need to take better care ... of our home planet and
of the animals, and banning the plastic bags would be a big
step." She said she does not use plastic bags; she lines her
trash can with newspaper, as she learned to do growing up in
East Germany. She encouraged less plastic use in general,
especially in Alaska where it is not very feasible to recycle
plastic. She opined that efforts should be made to transition
to the use of compostable plastic bags, which break down in the
landfills and do not release toxic chemicals. She said Kids for
Environmental Action have done some research. Regarding the
recycling of plastic bags, she mentioned a low rate of 5
percent. She stated that in Fairbanks "there is no way of
recycling." She noted that Kids for Environmental Action is
part of the Savings Planet Coalition; therefore, she reflected
that she could say she was speaking for hundreds of people who
would be in support of HB 81.
9:04:01 AM
ADAM HYKES testified in opposition to HB 81. He said he "loves
the environment" and picks up trash from the side of the road,
but he sees the issue as being "a people problem" not "a plastic
bag problem." He added, "This plastic didn't ... [make] a jail
break from the grocery store; people put them there." He
referred to the Prohibition on alcohol and "how that worked
out," and he indicated that any prohibition, although well-
intended, costs money to enforce. He opined that it is not job
of government to pay for [enforcing a ban] but is the
responsibility of citizens. He said the amazing organizations
he has heard about "should continue to do what they do," because
"this is a problem." He said he does not think the legislature
is considering the cost that would be involved with enforcing a
[single-use plastic bag] ban, including the punishment involved
if people ignore the ban. Mr. Hykes said he loves living in
Homer and Alaska, but restated his position that [the proposed]
ban is not the job of the government. He said he works in a
grocery store that uses a lot of plastic bags. If paper bags
had to be used, he indicated, the price of doing so would be
passed along to the customers. He said the state does not have
enough money currently to spend "on new laws" or "putting it on
the shoulders of citizens." He concluded, "So, as much as I
love this effort, I am not in support of this House bill."
9:06:22 AM
AMANDA SASSI testified in support of a statewide plastic bag
ban. She stated that single-use plastic is detrimental to the
environment, and Alaska's environment, in particular, is
sensitive. She opined that using less plastic would mean less
plastic in trees and waterways, which would ultimately keep
plastic out of animals that people could be eating. She
expressed appreciation for the effort being made [under HB 81]
and said she hopes "it is considered."
9:07:58 AM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), said he cannot speak for or against "the prohibition of
disposable plastic shopping bags," but he would speak to Article
10 of the Alaska State Constitution, regarding the maximization
of local self-government. He said, "When we do any statewide
preemption of local decision-making, we come back to local
control and really giving communities the opportunity to speak
for or against something ... of this nature." He opined that
"the comments from Sitka" were relevant, in terms of bringing
the ban issue before the community, addressing opposition, and
potentially changing the minds of community members through
public education, campaigning, and advocacy. He said he thinks
every community should have that opportunity. He said there are
ways to improve HB 81, including to give municipalities the
opportunity to opt in or out of s stateside decision. He said
AML would be interested in implementation grants, "to walk
through what implementation looks like at the local level." He
offered to work with the bill sponsor to assess local interest
and better understand the implications of HB 81. He
reemphasized AML's interest in local control and the
maximization of local government.
9:10:08 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked about the unorganized boroughs, for
which the legislature has the responsibility to act as assembly.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that to the extent the Alaska State
Legislature acts as the assembly for unorganized boroughs, it
can make decisions related to those boroughs; however, there are
165 incorporated cities and boroughs in Alaska, for whom the
legislature is not the assembly, and it is to those he is
speaking, because they have local decision-making in place.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND queried, "So then, it is our responsibility to
make those ... kinds of decisions for the unorganized borough,
and they're not in the purview of the [Alaska] Municipal
League?"
MR. ANDREASSEN replied, "For that borough, yes."
9:11:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Andreassen if he is
aware of any laws the legislature has passed that apply
exclusively to "the unorganized borough within Alaska."
MR. ANDREASSEN answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed curiosity as to whether
the bill sponsor or anyone else on the committee is aware of
that.
9:11:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked [Representative Kreiss-Tomkins]
whether he was aware of any other laws the legislature had
passed in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS shook his head no.
9:12:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN mentioned that during debate on a recent
statewide smoking ban, consideration was made both to an "opt-
out" and "opt-in" clause. A statewide ban was enacted, but
communities could opt out. He noted that Sitka attempted to opt
out, but voters voted that down. In light of the concern
regarding unorganized boroughs, he asked Mr. Andreassen whether
he thought it would make more sense to offer an opt-in provision
rather than an opt-out provision.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that he thinks an opt-in provision would
maximize local control more than an opt-out option would. He
indicated that giving the decision to the community to make
would be positive. To the question of the unorganized boroughs
and decisions that could be made in their interest, he noted
that there are both home rule and first-class cities within
unorganized boroughs that make decisions on behalf of their
residents; therefore, it is not a clear-cut case that the
legislature could make decisions on behalf of unorganized
boroughs and not impact "the incorporated cities therein." He
suggested the legislature would want to "work with those cities
to really understand what that looks like." He said AML has had
some communication with unorganized boroughs, many of which have
expressed interest in strengthening communication with the
legislature by establishing a "feedback group" between the
borough and legislature. He said he thinks that is work that
can be done and for which AML could offer assistance.
9:15:06 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN closed public testimony on HB 81.
9:15:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, to the bill sponsor, said he has a
problem with the enforcement aspect of HB 81. He pointed out
that in reading the analysis on the back of the fiscal note, it
seems as though the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) has no interest in seeking out violations or conducting
any routine inspection. He said the proposed legislation would
throw more onto DEC when the department cannot keep up with its
current workload. He asked, "How are they going to enforce
this?"
9:16:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that "there
would be mostly compliance." For example, there would be
situations like that in Anchorage, where citizens overwhelmingly
passed the ban and allowed time for existing bag supplies to be
depleted. He predicted that people will know there is a ban and
will comply with it, and "they won't be ordering that inventory
anymore."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON opined that there are "so many holes" in
[HB 81]. He said packaging for bulk grains, fruits, nuts,
vegetables, bakery goods, "or other full food products" would be
excluded. He suggested that "other full food products" means
anything a person would buy in a grocery store. He expressed
confusion as to how the ban would actually be enforced. He
emphasized that he thinks local control is "a big part of this,
too."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, regarding the "other full food
products", said he thinks this means items that need "some sort
of container." He indicated that this language was designed to
provide "some ease for the customer." He stated, "The test of
the bill isn't absolute purity; it's improvement."
9:18:57 AM
MS. SORUM-BIRK added that last year, when a previous version of
the proposed legislation was heard, a concern was "sanitation in
grocery stores." She explained, "It might be unsanitary to ...
have a meat product touching your fruit in your reusable bag."
She directed attention to statute, AS 04.16.120, mentioned in
bill language on page 2, line [5], and she noted there are
specifications regarding, for example, how an unfinished wine
bottle must be sealed in order for the consumer to take the
bottle home. She explained that the exceptions are created to
make things "safe" and "sanitary." Regarding local control, Ms.
Sorum-Birk said she does not have an answer but thinks that is
something that should be considered further. She said she
thinks "this would be very beneficial for the unorganized
borough," but she indicated the question should be asked as to
where a limit should be on local control when considering
benefits to the environment and to local communities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON added that while he respects the
concerns and interests of local authorities, it is typical that
the legislature passes legislation that makes impacts statewide.
Regarding the opt-out issue, he said he thinks that would
"invite a discussion statewide of this issue and would not be
offensive to the principals of the bill." He said he would
welcome an amendment to the bill to that effect. He said there
is a huge amount of support for HB 81 from across the state, and
he thinks environmental concerns and tourism concerns make this
a critical issue.
9:22:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK indicated he found Representative
Thompson's remarks that plastic bags had been the answer to
paper bags at one point interesting. He said his research
brought him to a Scottish report - a full environmental
assessment report released in 2005 - and he asked if the bill
sponsor was familiar with the study.
9:23:24 AM
MS. SORUM-BIRK answered no, but said she has looked at a
recently conducted Danish study, as well as a 2008 United
Kingdom Environmental Agency study.
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK indicated that in the study "and four
others listed," in "almost every environmental issue," paper
bags were "far more ... negatively impacting to the environment
than the production of plastic bags." The one area in which the
study found plastic bags to be more detrimental was in "the risk
of litter." He listed some categories: primary energy
consumption, consumption of water, climate change, emission of
greenhouse gases, acid rain, atmospheric acidification, air
quality, ground-level ozone production, and solid waste
production. He asked why, if paper bag consumption is
considered far more detrimental to the environment, it is not
considered in HB 81.
9:24:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that in past reiterations of this
legislation, in former legislative sessions, there was language
proposing a fee for paper products. The paper industry pushed
back on that, he said. He emphasized that he would welcome such
an amendment. Notwithstanding that, he requested that committee
members ask themselves the following question: "Are we solving
plastics problems one bit at a time, starting with plastic bags,
or are we just pushing this off because it's unsolvable?" He
opined that to say that "this just won't work" without offering
an alternative "is no alternative at all." He said he stands
with Representative Revak's former boss, Senator Dan Sullivan,
who has expressed concern about "ocean plastics."
Representative Josephson exclaimed, "I am tired of reading about
whales opened up with 50 pounds of plastic inside them. This is
not a sustainable future, and this is a place where we can
intervene."
9:26:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON noted 24 communities were "listed." She
said she is an advocate for local accountability. She asked how
many businesses in Alaska are "affected with plastic bags" in
producing or where "that is their business."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he thinks "no one does
that." He recollected there had been testimony to that effect
previously.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON suggested people concerned can start
cleaning up plastic bags. She indicated that plastic bag use
had come about because of environmental studies done regarding
cutting down trees [to produce paper bags]. She said it seems
like "an endless circle ... for us as a state to take the time
to mandate what people use and what people don't use." She
questioned how the law would be enforced.
9:28:47 AM
MS. SORUM-BIRK said there are studies that show it takes more
energy to produce a paper bag and a lot more to produce a cloth
bag. However, each of those studies misses a key point, which
is the environmental impact of the litter on the marine
environment and how single-use plastics impact the marine
ecosystem and resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said if she uses a cotton bag to go food
shopping, there would be germs accumulating in the bag that she
would have to use water and electricity to eliminate.
9:30:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed appreciation to the
sponsor and testifiers. He said there are two goals in HB 81:
[reduction of] litter and reduction of resource expenditure. He
focused on the latter. Per Representatives Revak's questions
and the studies mentioned by Ms. Sorum-Birk, he asked, "You
accept the conclusion of resource consumption expenditure for
plastic bags versus alternatives, such as paper, or, if you
don't, what do you dispute about those studies?"
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Ms. Sorum-Birk, but noted
that someone today had testified that he/she has used the same
bags for a decade. He added that when someone calls in from the
American Plastics Progressive Alliance, he has to question that
person's motivation.
MS. SORUM-BIRK said she somewhat agrees with the analyses done
on energy expenditure needed, but what they are not considering
is whether the materials are a renewable or nonrenewable
resource. She said plastics are made from a nonrenewable
resource, which could be an issue in the future. She relayed
that Americans use approximately 100 billion plastic bags per
year, which requires about 12 million barrels of oil to
manufacture. She said, "It only takes about 14 plastic bags for
the equivalent of gas to run one mile." Regarding carbon
footprint, she said it is true that polyethylene requires low
energy to produce, is cheap and cost-effective, and is
recyclable; however, [only] "about 1 percent of bags throughout
the U.S. are recycled." She said the issue of carbon footprint
is real and so is the issue of how many times people reuse a
product, but that is true for any product, whether it be
plastic, paper, or canvas.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the studies are not
exclusively from the industry, but the study mentioned by
Representative Revak and "other lifecycle analyses" are often
from pro-environment governments considering resource
consumption impact. He said that is one side. The other is
litter reduction. He said he picks up trash along the road and
off the beach, so he feels "engaged in the question." He
observed that the assumption seems to be that the elimination of
single-use disposable plastic bag use will decrease the amount
of plastic pollution. He said he has not seen that relation and
wonders "how that cause and effect assumption is substantiated."
MS. SORUM-BIRK responded that she had looked for data showing
what percentage of debris in the marine environment was plastic.
She said she could not find data on the North Pacific, but a
European study of 2016 showed that about 7 percent of marine
debris was plastic bags.
9:37:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said part of what the legislature
considers daily is the question of what has political viability.
He noted that there is statewide momentum - even from the
conservative areas of Wasilla, Palmer, and Soldotna - to ban
[single-use] plastic bans. He suggested one reason may be "the
visual insult" of plastic in an otherwise pristine wilderness.
He stated concern that if focus is given to the issue being only
a small percent of the total problem, then it will be "easy to
retreat from the issue." He suggested that trying to expand the
bill to include other forms of plastic in the ban "could do
jeopardy to what life the bill has." He emphasized that 18
diverse communities have said they want the ban, and he is
"honoring their efforts."
9:38:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK asked if the bill sponsor had considered an
exemption for biodegradable plastics.
MS. SORUM-BIRK answered that the issue with biodegradable
plastics in Alaska is that they take a certain amount of heat to
biodegrade in a special industrial level composting facility, of
which she speculated there may be one in all Alaska, in
Anchorage. She said she has tried to compost biodegradable
plastics, and it takes "a very hot compost for that to work" -
ideally at the industrial level.
9:39:31 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that HB 81 was held over.
9:40:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSBG Opening Comments 4-9-2019.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Rural Cap Testimony on CSBG.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CSBG Presentation.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| FFY19 CSBG State Plan.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| FY17 CSBG FactSheets_AK.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 81 Opposition Letters.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Support Letters.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
HB 81 |