04/04/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB82 | |
| HB269 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2012
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 82(JUD)
"An Act relating to the procedures and jurisdiction of the
Department of Health and Social Services for the care of
children who are in state custody; relating to court
jurisdiction and findings pertaining to children who are in
state custody; and modifying the licensing requirements for
foster care."
- MOVED HCS CSSSSB 82(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act relating to the amendment of a declaration that creates
a common interest community."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 82
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CARE LICENSING/STATE CUSTODY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DAVIS
02/04/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/11 (S) HSS, JUD
03/11/11 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/11/11 (S) HSS, JUD
03/14/11 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/11 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/16/11 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/11 (S) Moved CSSSSB 82(HSS) Out of Committee
03/16/11 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/18/11 (S) HSS RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/18/11 (S) DP: DAVIS, MEYER, ELLIS, EGAN, DYSON
03/30/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/30/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/01/11 (S) Moved CSSSSB 82(JUD) Out of Committee
04/01/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/11 (S) JUD RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
04/04/11 (S) DP: FRENCH, COGHILL, WIELECHOWSKI,
PASKVAN, MCGUIRE
04/07/11 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/07/11 (S) VERSION: CSSSSB 82(JUD)
04/08/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/11 (H) HSS, JUD
04/14/11 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/14/11 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/22/12 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/22/12 (H) Moved HCS CSSSSB 82(HSS) Out of
Committee
03/22/12 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/23/12 (H) HSS RPT HCS(HSS) 5DP 1NR
03/23/12 (H) DP: MILLER, SEATON, DICK, MILLETT,
KERTTULA
03/23/12 (H) NR: KELLER
04/04/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 269
SHORT TITLE: COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLMES
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) L&C, JUD
03/14/12 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/14/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/12 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/12 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/30/12 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/30/12 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/12 (H) L&C RPT 5DP 1NR
04/02/12 (H) DP: THOMPSON, SADDLER, HOLMES, MILLER,
OLSON
04/02/12 (H) NR: JOHNSON
04/04/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CELESTE HODGE, Staff
Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSSB 82 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Davis.
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director
Central Office
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SSSB 82.
AMANDA METIVIER, Statewide Coordinator
Facing Foster Care in Alaska (FFCA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSSB 82.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SSSB 82, responded to
a question as one of the joint prime sponsors of the House
companion bill.
JAMES R. WALDO, Staff
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 269 on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Holmes.
JAMES H. McCOLLUM, Attorney at Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 269.
ROBERT C. PETERSEN, Director & President
The Petersen Group, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 269.
JOE BEEDLE, President & CEO
Northrim Bank;
President
Alaska Bankers Association (ABA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 269.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:35:29 PM
VICE CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Representatives Gatto,
Thompson, Keller, Pruitt, Gruenberg, Holmes, and Lynn were
present at the call to order.
SB 82 - FOSTER CARE LICENSING/STATE CUSTODY
1:36:05 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 82(JUD),
"An Act relating to the procedures and jurisdiction of the
Department of Health and Social Services for the care of
children who are in state custody; relating to court
jurisdiction and findings pertaining to children who are in
state custody; and modifying the licensing requirements for
foster care." [Before the committee was HCS CSSSSB 82(HSS).]
1:37:11 PM
CELESTE HODGE, Staff, Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Davis, relayed
that SSSB 82 would modify various provisions of Title 47 in
order to prioritize the needs of children in state custody.
Among other things, SSSB 82 seeks to ensure that older children
in foster care achieve what she referred to as "permanency";
permanency for a child, she went on to explain, is best achieved
through reunification with the child's parent, or, failing that,
through adoption or guardianship. However, she added, if none
of those options are available, permanency can still be achieved
through what she referred to as, "another planned permanent
living arrangement (APPLA)," and the bill, by providing
guidelines for both the OCS and the court regarding when this
APPLA option should be used, seeks to ensure that it is not
chosen unnecessarily.
MS. HODGE explained that in addition, SSSB 82 would allow for
state custody to be resumed in instances where the parents of a
previously-released child [age 16 or older] are unwilling or
unable to care for the child; would create a statutory
presumption that siblings be placed in the same home when
possible and when doing so is in their best interest, and
requires documentation in instances where such placement isn't
possible; would provide guidelines for a child's early release
from state custody, including proper-notification requirements
and stipulations that such release be in the child's best
interest; would statutorily stipulate that the application
process for foster parents be streamlined; would provide a
variance of applicable building code requirements for certain
foster care homes under certain circumstances; and would conform
the statutes addressing the retention of the court's
jurisdiction over a child under the age of 21, to legislation
passed in 2010.
MS. HODGE, in conclusion, mentioned that SSSB 82 has a zero
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether the bill also contains
provision for notifying necessarily-separated siblings of each
other's whereabouts.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, mentioning that he supports SSSB 82,
expressed disfavor with Section 1's proposal to establish a
short title for the bill in uncodified law, and questioned
whether the sponsor would object to having that provision
deleted.
MS. HODGE suggested that others could better address that issue.
1:46:32 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Central Office, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
relayed that the OCS collaborated on SSSB 82, and finds that
[its passage] would be in the best interests of the children the
OCS serves. In response to questions, she said that deleting
Section 1's proposed short title would not have any impact on
OCS staff; that much of what's contained in SSSB 82 comports
with the OCS's concept of best practices for children and
families, and the OCS was already contemplating making changes
to OCS policy reflective of some of the bill's proposed changes;
that the adoption of SSSB 82 would enable Alaska to stay in
compliance with federal law; and that the bill won't impact the
OCS's ability to change its policies, most of which stem from
federal guidelines.
1:49:36 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, Statewide Coordinator, Facing Foster Care in
Alaska (FFCA) - noting that she is an alumni of the foster care
system, having "aged out" of foster care while living in
Anchorage, and is currently pursuing a master's degree in social
work - relayed that the FFCA supports SSSB 82, adding that it
would do a number of things to improve the lives of children in
foster care. To elaborate, she, too, noted that the bill would
create a statutory presumption that siblings be placed in the
same home when possible; regardless that federal law already
requires this of states, siblings coming into the foster care
system in Alaska are still being separated. With regard to the
bill's proposal to provide a variance of applicable building
code requirements for certain foster care homes under certain
circumstances, she indicated that this would allow more foster
children from rural areas of the state to stay in their
communities. Referring, then, to the bill's proposal to provide
guidelines regarding the aforementioned APPLA option, she
characterized this as the most important provision of the bill,
one that would help foster children obtain the permanency and
support they need in order to be successful later on in life.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on SSSB 82.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that language in Section 3 of
the bill addresses the resumption of state custody in instances
where the person is completing an educational or vocational
program.
1:59:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature - in response
to a question, and speaking as one of the joint prime sponsors
of the House companion bill to SSSB 82 - acknowledged that
deleting Section 1's proposed short title would be a policy call
for the committee to make.
MS. HODGE concurred.
2:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HCS CSSSSB 82(HSS) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSSSB 82(HSS) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:01 p.m. to 2:04 p.m.
HB 269 - COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITIES
2:04:21 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 269, "An Act relating to the amendment
of a declaration that creates a common interest community."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, speaking as the sponsor, relayed that
HB 269, in addressing Alaska's version of a uniform law, would
clean up the statutes pertaining to the development of
condominiums.
2:05:08 PM
JAMES R. WALDO, Staff, Representative Lindsey Holmes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Holmes, added that HB 269 would address a glitch in state law
that can cause condominium-development projects to stall; this
same glitch existed in the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act
(UCIOA) upon which Alaska's law was modeled, but has since been
fixed, and HB 269 would similarly fix Alaska's law.
Condominiums are developed in phases, with specific timelines
for the completion of each of those phases having been agreed
upon, and with any necessary adjustments to those timelines also
being agreed upon. However, under current law, before a
declaration - which is the instrument that creates a common
interest community, such as a condominium, and in which the
aforementioned timelines are specified - can be altered,
100 percent of the ["unit owners"] must agree to the proposed
change, and, for a variety of reason, this is often a very
difficult percentage of unit owners to get an affirmative
response from when seeking permission to alter a declaration.
In the UCIOA, the required percentage has been lowered to
80 percent, and the bill would similarly lower the required
percentage stipulated in Alaska law. In conclusion, he urged
the committee to support HB 269.
MR. WALDO, in response to questions, explained that the term,
"declarant" as used in the bill means the developer of a
condominium; and that declarants - regardless that they "own"
the unsold units in a condominium development and are entitled
to cast votes in the unit owners' association - aren't
considered to be "unit owners" for purposes of determining
whether the statutorily-required percentage of affirmative votes
has been obtained.
2:10:48 PM
JAMES H. McCOLLUM, Attorney at Law, in response to comments and
a question, confirmed that under HB 269's proposed new
AS 34.08.250(g), both 80 percent of the votes of all who are
entitled to cast a vote in the association, and 80 percent of
the votes of the unit owners, would be required for any proposed
changes to the timelines and development rights specified in the
declaration; and, in response to further comments and questions,
indicated that under existing law, the votes in an association
may be allocated in a variety of ways.
MR. WALDO added that the specific allocation formula chosen by
the participants in a particular condominium development must be
stipulated in the declaration.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed concern that under HB 269's
proposed new AS 34.08.250(f), obtaining a mere 80 percent of the
allocated votes would be sufficient to alter a declaration to
prohibit or materially restrict the permitted uses of or
behavior in a unit or the number [or other qualifications] of
persons that may occupy units.
MR. WALDO said proposed new subsection (f) isn't the main thrust
of HB 269.
MR. McCOLLUM indicated that the language of proposed new
subsection (f) reflects additional changes made to the UCIOA by
the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL), which now considers obtaining an affirmative vote of
80 percent of the allocated votes to be sufficient for those
types of alterations to a declaration, adequately balancing the
interests of the project and those of the individual unit
owners, since even 80 percent of the allocated votes can still
be a difficult percentage of affirmative votes to obtain.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER relayed that his concern with proposed new
subsection (f) has not yet been alleviated, positing that it
might very well be appropriate for even one negative vote to be
sufficient to preclude alterations [to a declaration that would
prohibit or materially restrict the permitted uses of or
behavior in a unit or the number or other qualifications of
persons that may occupy units].
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON pointed out, however, that that one "no"
vote could come from the person creating the problem that's
meant to be addressed by the proposed alteration to the
declaration.
MR. McCOLLUM concurred, and remarked that obtaining even
80 percent of the allocated votes signifies broad support for a
proposed alteration to a declaration.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disclosed that he owns two
condominiums.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to comments and questions,
clarified that language in proposed new AS 34.08.250(g) also
stipulates that "all persons holding special declarant rights" -
the developers - and all persons holding "security interests in
those rights" - the lending institutions - must also all agree
to any proposed alterations to the timelines and development
rights specified in the declaration; that such persons would
have 30 days in which to record written objection to the
proposed alterations; and that baring any such objection, once
the agreed-upon alterations have been recorded, they would
become effective 30 days afterward unless all such persons
consent in writing to having them become effective when
recorded.
MR. McCOLLUM added that that language is intended to preclude a
unit owners' association from making alterations to the
timelines and development rights specified in the declaration
without the consent of the developer and lender.
2:30:52 PM
ROBERT C. PETERSEN, Director & President, The Petersen Group,
Inc. - after indicating that his company, a building and
development firm, has been the declarant on numerous projects,
and thus he is quite familiar with how unit owners' associations
function under [Alaska's version of] the UCIOA and various types
of declarations - opined that for purposes of altering the
timelines and development rights specified in a declaration,
requiring agreement from 100 percent of the unit owners to
address delays in project development is unreasonable,
particularly given the impact various economic factors can have
on the development of such a project. In conclusion, he
expressed his hope that the committee would pass the bill and
thereby rectify the existing problem with Alaska law.
2:35:29 PM
JOE BEEDLE, President & CEO, Northrim Bank; President, Alaska
Bankers Association (ABA), mentioning that he was speaking in
favor of HB 269, relayed that all members of the ABA have
unanimously agreed to support the bill. Characterizing
condominium developments as both important for the future
because they provide communities with affordable housing, and
difficult to develop, finance, and govern, he offered his
beliefs that current law creates hardships for existing
developments that haven't been finished on schedule, and that
the adoption of the bill's proposed conforming updates to
Alaska's version of the UCIOA is going to provide a solution to
that problem and help with the timely development of
condominiums in Alaska. In conclusion, he relayed that the ABA
recommends approval of HB 269 so that the burden of financing
such projects would be eased.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on HB 269.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated his concern with proposed new
AS 34.08.250(f), and relayed that he would be amenable to
deleting it from the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to a question, relayed that
according to those who drafted the bill, proposed new
AS 34.08.250(f) would allow a future condominium development to
initially stipulate that only 80 percent of allocated votes
would be required in order to alter its declaration to prohibit
or materially restrict the permitted uses of or behavior in a
unit or the number or other qualifications of persons that may
occupy units. She offered her belief that under proposed new
subsection (f), an existing condominium development wouldn't
automatically have to, or get to, lower the required-vote
percentage, and would instead still have to first obtain
100 percent agreement before it could alter its declaration to
require only 80 percent of the allocated votes. The bill simply
provides condominium developments with the statutory authority
to stipulate an affirmative-vote requirement of as low as
80 percent, but does not mandate that they do so.
MR. WALDO concurred, and pointed out that language in proposed
new AS 34.08.250(f) indicates that a percentage higher than
80 percent could still be stipulated in the declaration itself.
The bill, he remarked in conclusion, would simply provide
condominium developments with greater latitude.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to comments, characterized
the bill's proposed affirmative-vote requirement of 80 percent
as sufficiently high, particularly given that declarations would
not be mandated to require only 80 percent of the allocated
votes.
MR. McCOLLUM, in response to further comments and questions,
added his understanding that when a condominium development does
vote to alter its declaration [to prohibit or materially
restrict the permitted uses of or behavior in a unit or the
number or other qualifications of persons that may occupy
units], what was permitted prior to the alteration often gets
"grandfathered in."
2:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a motion to adopt an amendment to
delete HB 269's proposed new AS 34.08.250(f) [and the references
to it].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected, and requested that she be given
time to research the issues raised.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER withdrew the amendment.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that HB 269 would be held over.
2:54:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB0082E.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB82 LS0500M.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| HB269 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| HB269 ver A.PDF |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| SB082CSSS(JUD)-Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Letters of Support.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Background Information.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| HB269 Supporting Documents-UCIOA Section 2-117.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| HB269-DCCED-DCRA-03-14-12.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| HB269 Supporting Documents-Letter First American Title 2-20-12.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |