Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/06/2018 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 2. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 15 Minutes Following Session --
+ HB 351 JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ HJR 38 AK RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT; CONVEYANCES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 75 GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 6, 2018                                                                                          
                           1:00 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Vice Chair                                                                              
Representative Louise Stutes                                                                                                    
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky (alternate)                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 351                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to care  of juveniles and to  juvenile justice;                                                               
relating  to employment  of juvenile  probation  officers by  the                                                               
Department of Health and Social  Services; relating to terms used                                                               
in  juvenile justice;  relating to  mandatory reporters  of child                                                               
abuse or  neglect; relating to adjudication  of minor delinquency                                                               
and   the  deoxyribonucleic   acid  identification   registration                                                               
system; relating to sexual assault  in the third degree; relating                                                               
to sexual assault  in the fourth degree;  repealing a requirement                                                               
for  administrative revocation  of  a  minor's driver's  license,                                                               
permit, privilege to drive, or  privilege to obtain a license for                                                               
consumption or possession of alcohol  or drugs; and providing for                                                               
an effective date."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38                                                                                                   
Relating   to  certain   conveyances  to   the  Alaska   Railroad                                                               
Corporation under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 75                                                                                                               
"An Act relating  to gun violence protective  orders; relating to                                                               
the crime of violating a  protective order; relating to a central                                                               
registry  for  protective  orders;  relating  to  the  powers  of                                                               
district   judges   and    magistrates;   requiring   physicians,                                                               
psychologists, psychological associates,  social workers, marital                                                               
and family  therapists, and  licensed professional  counselors to                                                               
report annually  threats of  gun violence;  and amending  Rules 4                                                               
and  65, Alaska  Rules of  Civil  Procedure, and  Rule 9,  Alaska                                                               
Rules of Administration."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 351                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
02/16/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/16/18       (H)       HSS, JUD                                                                                               
03/06/18       (H)       HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/06/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/06/18       (H)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
03/08/18       (H)       HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/08/18       (H)       Moved CSHB 351(HSS) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/08/18       (H)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
03/09/18       (H)       HSS RPT CS(HSS) 6DP                                                                                    
03/09/18       (H)       DP: JOHNSTON, CLAMAN, EDGMON, SULLIVAN-                                                                
                         LEONARD, KITO, TARR                                                                                    
04/06/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR 38                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: AK RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT; CONVEYANCES                                                                              
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
02/21/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/21/18       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/27/18       (H)       STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/27/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/27/18       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/01/18       (H)       STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/01/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/01/18       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/08/18       (H)       STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/08/18       (H)       Moved HJR 38 Out of Committee                                                                          
03/08/18       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/09/18       (H)       STA RPT 1DP 4NR                                                                                        
03/09/18       (H)       DP: BIRCH                                                                                              
03/09/18       (H)       NR: LEDOUX, WOOL, JOHNSON, KREISS-                                                                     
                         TOMKINS                                                                                                
04/06/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB  75                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                                     
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
01/23/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/23/17       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/28/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/28/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/28/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/12/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/12/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/12/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/12/18       (H)       JUD AT 7:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/12/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/12/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/14/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/14/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/14/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/16/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/16/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/16/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/19/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/19/18       (H)       Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                                
03/26/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/26/18       (H)       Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                                
03/26/18       (H)       JUD AT 7:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/26/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/26/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/28/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/28/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/28/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/28/18       (H)       JUD AT 7:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/28/18       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/06/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JUDY JESSEN, Staff                                                                                                              
Representative Ivy Spohnholz                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the  hearing of HB 351, presented the                                                             
sponsor   statement   and   sectional  analysis,   and   answered                                                               
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ERICK CORDERO GIOGANA, Staff                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HJR 38, testified.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM O'LEARY, President/Chief Executive Officer                                                                              
Alaska Railroad Corporation                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
opposition to the legislation.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
ANDY BEHREND, Chief Legal Counsel                                                                                               
Alaska Railroad Corporation                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the  hearing of HJR 38, testified and                                                             
answered questions.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
ERROL CHAMPION, Chairman                                                                                                        
Legislative Issues Committee                                                                                                    
Alaska Association of Realtors                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
support of the resolution.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
KATE BLAIR, Manager                                                                                                             
Government and Public Affairs                                                                                                   
ENDEAVOR fka Tesoro Corporation                                                                                                 
Houston, Texas                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  to                                                             
concerns about the resolution.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Director                                                                                                 
Governmental and Legislative Affairs                                                                                            
Teamsters Local 959                                                                                                             
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
opposition to the resolution.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHARLES DILLARD, Inspector                                                                                                      
Brotherhood Railway Carmen                                                                                                      
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
opposition to the resolution.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
JAMES ABITZ                                                                                                                     
Brotherhood Railway Carmen                                                                                                      
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
opposition to the resolution.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
VERN GILLIS, Conductor                                                                                                          
Alaska Railroad Corporation                                                                                                     
United Transportation Union Representative                                                                                      
Anchorage & State                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
opposition to the resolution.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
LEE DAVIS, Conductor/Engineer                                                                                                   
Alaska Railroad Corporation                                                                                                     
United Transportation Union Officer                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
opposition to the resolution.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
TOM MEACHAM, Attorney                                                                                                           
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
support of the resolution.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JOHN PLETCHER                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During the hearing of HJR 38,  spoke to the                                                             
exclusive use easement issue.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN MCALPINE                                                                                                                
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During the hearing of HJR 38,  spoke to his                                                             
involvement with the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (ARTA).                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
FRED ROSENBERG, Owner                                                                                                           
Dimond Capital Company                                                                                                          
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HJR 38, testified.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HUGH ASHLOCK, Owner                                                                                                             
Dimond Center Mall                                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HJR 38, testified.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
JODI TAYLOR                                                                                                                     
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
support of the resolution.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT TIMMINS, Eagle River, Alaska                                                                                             
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HJR  38, spoke  in                                                             
support of the resolution.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel                                                                                                    
Administrative Staff                                                                                                            
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing of  CSHB 75,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:00:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting to order  at 1:00 p.m.   Representatives Claman, Eastman,                                                               
Reinbold, Kopp,  and Stutes  were present at  the call  to order.                                                               
Representatives LeDoux and Kreiss-Tomkins  arrived as the meeting                                                               
was in progress.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
         HB 351-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:01:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "An Act  relating to care of juveniles and to                                                               
juvenile justice;  relating to  employment of  juvenile probation                                                               
officers  by  the  Department  of  Health  and  Social  Services;                                                               
relating  to   terms  used  in  juvenile   justice;  relating  to                                                               
mandatory  reporters  of  child  abuse or  neglect;  relating  to                                                               
adjudication of  minor delinquency and the  deoxyribonucleic acid                                                               
identification  registration system;  relating to  sexual assault                                                               
in the  third degree;  relating to sexual  assault in  the fourth                                                               
degree; repealing a requirement  for administrative revocation of                                                               
a  minor's  driver's  license, permit,  privilege  to  drive,  or                                                               
privilege to  obtain a license  for consumption or  possession of                                                               
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
[Before the committee was proposed committee substitute (CS),                                                                   
Version 30-LS0304\R, Martin, 3/26/18, adopted by the committee                                                                  
during the 3/26/18, 7:00 p.m. meeting.]                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:01:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JUDY JESSEN, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State                                                                  
Legislature, paraphrased the sponsor statement as follows                                                                       
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     HB 351  is a statutory  cleanup bill which  updates the                                                                    
     terms used  to describe the facilities  operated by the                                                                    
     Division  of  Juvenile  Justice  and  provides  updated                                                                    
     definitions for  those terms. Current  statutes contain                                                                    
     references to  facilities which  DJJ does  not operate,                                                                    
     and  facilities  that do  not  exist  in the  state  of                                                                    
     Alaska.  The  bill  also   makes  a  clear  distinction                                                                    
     between  the role  of juvenile  probation officers  and                                                                    
     adult   probation   officers   in  places   where   the                                                                    
     difference is  unclear. HB 351  also requires  staff of                                                                    
     juvenile justice to  be added to the  list of mandatory                                                                    
     reporters  of child  abuse and  neglect. These  updates                                                                    
     are necessary  to provide  statutory clarity  to ensure                                                                    
     the  Division  can  manage its  facilities  effectively                                                                    
     throughout the state.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Currently, Alaska  Statutes reference places  like work                                                                    
     camps  and  juvenile  detention homes,  which  are  not                                                                    
     recognized or operating in the  state of Alaska. HB 351                                                                    
     adds  juvenile treatment  facility, juvenile  detention                                                                    
     facility,  and temporary  secure juvenile  holding area                                                                    
     as facilities currently being  operated by the division                                                                    
     and  provides  clear  definitions  for  each  of  these                                                                    
     terms. Because references to  these facilities occur in                                                                    
     many  places in  statute, this  bill also  touches upon                                                                    
     many sections  of statute. These changes  are necessary                                                                    
     to provide  the clearest regulation over  facilities in                                                                    
     existence and operated by the DJJ.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     HB 351  also clarifies the  role of juvenile  and adult                                                                    
     probation  officers,  first by  distinguishing  clearly                                                                    
     between  the  two,  and second  by  providing  a  clear                                                                    
     definition  for the  term  juvenile probation  officer.                                                                    
     These  are  meaningful  changes  to  provide  the  best                                                                    
     protection  for   juveniles  in  the  custody   of  the                                                                    
     Division of Juvenile Justice.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Lastly, HB 351 adds DJJ  staff to the list of mandatory                                                                    
     reporters. It is the Division's  objective to engage in                                                                    
     the  rehabilitation of  juvenile offenders.  Adding DJJ                                                                    
     staff to  the list of mandatory  reporters provides the                                                                    
     best guarantee  that when DJJ  staff discover  cases of                                                                    
     child  abuse and  neglect,  those  cases are  reported,                                                                    
     investigated,  and resolved  for the  best interest  of                                                                    
     the child.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     While  these  technical  language  updates  touch  many                                                                    
     sections  of statute,  these  language  changes do  not                                                                    
     significantly alter the authority  of the Division over                                                                    
     juveniles in  its care.  Rather, these  updates protect                                                                    
     juveniles  by making  it clear  where juveniles  can be                                                                    
     placed and  clearly defining the authority  of DJJ, its                                                                    
     staff,  and  facilities   using  current  and  relevant                                                                    
     language.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:04:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. JESSEN paraphrased the sectional analysis as follows                                                                        
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section  1. AS  09.65.255(b): Deals  with indemnity  of                                                                    
     civil  liability for  the actions  of  minors in  state                                                                    
     custody.  Adds foster  home,  definition reference  for                                                                    
     foster  home, juvenile  treatment facilities,  juvenile                                                                    
     detention  facility,  and treatment  institution.  Adds                                                                    
     references  for the  definitions of  juvenile treatment                                                                    
     facility and treatment institutions.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section  2.  AS   11.41.425(b)(1):  Deals  with  sexual                                                                    
     assault in  the third  degree. Adds  staff who  work in                                                                    
     juvenile  detention facilities  and juvenile  treatment                                                                    
     facilities  to  definition  of sexual  assault  in  the                                                                    
     third degree.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section  3.  AS   11.41.425(b)(2):  Deals  with  sexual                                                                    
     assault in the third  degree. Updates the definition of                                                                    
     juvenile probation officer.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:05:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section  4.  AS   11.41.427(b)(2):  Deals  with  sexual                                                                    
     assault  in  the  4th  degree.  Updates  definition  of                                                                    
     juvenile probation officer.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 5. AS 11.41.470(3):  Deals with crimes by legal                                                                    
     guardians.   Adds  employees   of  juvenile   treatment                                                                    
     institutions and                                                                                                           
     juvenile and adult probation officers  to list of legal                                                                    
     guardians                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 6.  AS 11.41.470(5): Deals with  crimes against                                                                    
     persons  committed  by  a  person   in  a  position  of                                                                    
     authority.   Adds   correctional   employee,   juvenile                                                                    
     facility   staff,  and   staff   members  of   juvenile                                                                    
     treatment  institutions  as   people  in  positions  of                                                                    
     authority.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  7. AS  11.41.470:  Deals  with crimes  against                                                                    
     persons  committed  by  a  person   in  a  position  of                                                                    
     authority.  Adds  definitions   for  juvenile  facility                                                                    
     staff and treatment institutions                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section  8.  AS  11.56.760(a):  Deals  with  orders  to                                                                    
     submit to  DNA testing.  Clarifies that those  who have                                                                    
     been "adjudicated  delinquent" may  have to  submit DNA                                                                    
     samples.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section  9.   AS  11.61.123(e):  Deals   with  Indecent                                                                    
     Viewing  or  Photography. Adds  treatment  institutions                                                                    
     and juvenile  treatment facilities to list  of included                                                                    
     facilities.  Provides  references   to  definitions  of                                                                    
     those terms.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section  10.  AS  14.07.020(a):  deals  with  providing                                                                    
     public education services. Includes juvenile detention                                                                     
     facilities and juvenile treatment facilities as places                                                                     
     where  public  education  must  be  provided.  Provides                                                                    
     references to definitions of those terms.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section  11.  AS  14.30.186(a):  Deals  with  providing                                                                    
     special  education.  Includes  treatment  institutions,                                                                    
     juvenile  detention facilities,  or juvenile  treatment                                                                    
     facilities as  places where  special education  must be                                                                    
     provided.  Adds  references  to definitions  for  those                                                                    
     terms.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:07:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section  12.   AS  17.37.070(6):  Deals   with  medical                                                                    
     marijuana.  Includes juvenile  treatment facilities  as                                                                    
     facilities  operated   by  the  state  which   are  not                                                                    
     required to provide medical marijuana.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section 13.  AS 18.20.499(2):  Deals with  overtime for                                                                    
     nurses.  Adds   "juvenile"  treatment   facilities  and                                                                    
     treatment institutions to  describe facilities operated                                                                    
     by Division of Juvenile Justice.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 14.  AS 47.10.141(c):  Deals with  Runaways and                                                                    
     Missing   Minors.  Updates   terms  used   to  describe                                                                    
     juvenile detention facilities  operated by the Division                                                                    
     of   Juvenile  Justice   and  inappropriate   emergency                                                                    
     placement for minors.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section 15.  AS 47.10.141(j):  Deals with  Runaways and                                                                    
     Missing Minors.  Creates new definition  for "temporary                                                                    
     secure juvenile  holding area" where  delinquent minors                                                                    
     may  be   kept  while  awaiting  transportation   to  a                                                                    
     juvenile detention  facility or  pending a  court order                                                                    
     in AS 47.10.990.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 16.  AS 47.10.990(20): Deals with  Runaways and                                                                    
     Missing   Minors.  Updates   the  definition   used  to                                                                    
     describe  facilities   operated  by  the   Division  of                                                                    
     Juvenile Justice for the  temporary secure detention of                                                                    
     minors.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section  17.  AS  47.12.025(c):  Arrest  procedure  for                                                                    
     juveniles Clarifies that the  described duties apply to                                                                    
     juvenile  probation   officers,  not   adult  probation                                                                    
     officer.  Updates language  used  to describe  juvenile                                                                    
     facilities and  other areas where delinquent  minor may                                                                    
     be held.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section 18.  AS 47.12.120(b): Deals with  the placement                                                                    
     of  minors  who have  an  adjudication  order under  AS                                                                    
     47.12.120(b)(1).  Updates  terms  of  facilities  where                                                                    
     minors can be placed.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  19. AS  47.12.120: Deals  with DNA  submission                                                                    
     for  minors.  Adds a  new  subsection  to clarify  that                                                                    
     minors  16 or  older may  be  ordered to  submit a  DNA                                                                    
     sample if adjudicated for certain crimes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 20.  AS 47.12.240(a):  Deals with  placement of                                                                    
     minors  after court  commits them  and before  they are                                                                    
     convicted. Makes  conforming and  clarifying amendments                                                                    
     to the conditions under which a  minor may be held in a                                                                    
     facility housing adult prisoners  and the language used                                                                    
     to  describe facilities  operated  by  the Division  of                                                                    
     Juvenile Justice.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:09:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section  21.  AS  47.12.240(b):  Deals  with  temporary                                                                    
     holding  of minors  while  awaiting transport.  Updates                                                                    
     language  used to  describe  conditions  under which  a                                                                    
     minor  may   be  held  in  a   facility  housing  adult                                                                    
     prisoners and the language used to describe facilities                                                                     
     operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section   22.  AS   47.12.245(b):  Deals   with  parole                                                                    
     officers   arresting   minors.   Clarifies   that   the                                                                    
     authority to  arrest a minor  rests with  juvenile, not                                                                    
     adult, probation officers.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  23.  AS  47.12.250(a):  Deals  with  temporary                                                                    
     detention/  detention  hearings.   Clarifies  that  the                                                                    
     authority to detain a minor  rests with "juvenile," not                                                                    
     adult,  probations  offices.   Adds  "temporary  secure                                                                    
     juvenile holding areas" to the  list of approved placed                                                                    
     to hold juveniles.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Section   24.  AS   47.12.270:   Deals  with   juvenile                                                                    
     probation  officers. Updates  the title  and duties  of                                                                    
     juvenile probation officers.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section  25.  AS  47.12.310(d):  Deals  with  notifying                                                                    
     victims of crimes. Clarifies that  the department has a                                                                    
     duty to  notify victims when  a minor is  released from                                                                    
     any court ordered placement under AS 47.12.120(b)(1).                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  26.  AS  47.12.315(c):  Public  disclosure  of                                                                    
     information in  department records relating  to certain                                                                    
     minors.  Corrects language  authorizing the  department                                                                    
     to  disclose confidential  information  related to  the                                                                    
     offense  when a  minor  has  received an  adjudication,                                                                    
     rather  than the  offense the  minor  "alleged to  have                                                                    
     committed."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section  27. AS  47.12.990(7):  Deals with  definitions                                                                    
     and  institutions. Amends  the  definition of  juvenile                                                                    
     detention facility.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  28. AS  47.12.990(12): Deals  with definitions                                                                    
     and institutions. Amends the definition of minor.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section  29. AS  47.12.990: Deals  with definitions  of                                                                    
     institutions.  Creates  new  definitions  for  juvenile                                                                    
     probation   officer,   juvenile   treatment   facility,                                                                    
     residential  child  care   facility,  temporary  secure                                                                    
     juvenile holding area.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:11:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section  30. AS  47.14.010:  Deals with  the powers  of                                                                    
     DHSS over  DJJ. Updates  language to  describe juvenile                                                                    
     facilities operated by the department.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section 31. As 47.14.020: Deals  with the duties of the                                                                    
     department related  to the  custody of  minors. Updates                                                                    
     the  language  used  to  describe  juvenile  facilities                                                                    
     operated by the department.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 32.  AS 47.14.040: Deals with  the authority to                                                                    
     maintain and  operate facilities. Updates  the language                                                                    
     used  to describe  places  the  department can  operate                                                                    
     juvenile  facilities   to  reflect  the   diversity  of                                                                    
     Alaskan communities and entities,  such as the need for                                                                    
     airports  that   operate  "temporary   secure  juvenile                                                                    
     holding areas."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section 33.  AS 47.14.050(a): Deals with  the operation                                                                    
     of  homes and  facilities.  Repealed  and reenacted  to                                                                    
     update   the  language   used   to  describe   juvenile                                                                    
     facilities.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 34.  AS 47.14.050(b): Deals with  the operation                                                                    
     of homes  and facilities.  Updates language  to reflect                                                                    
     the  diversity  of  Alaska   communities  that  may  be                                                                    
     authorized to operate juvenile detention facilities.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section  35.  AS   47.14.990(7):  Social  Services  and                                                                    
     Institutions  Definitions.  Updates the  definition  of                                                                    
     juvenile detention facilities                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section  36.   AS  47.14.990(14):  Deals   with  Social                                                                    
     Services  Institutions  and  Definitions.  Updates  the                                                                    
     definition of minor.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section 37.  AS 47.14.990:  Deals with  Social Services                                                                    
     Institutions and Definitions.  Adds new definitions for                                                                    
     juvenile   probation    officer,   juvenile   treatment                                                                    
     facility, and temporary secure juvenile holding area.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:12:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section  38.  AS  47.14.020(a):  Deals  with  mandatory                                                                    
     reporting  of child  abuse and  neglect. Adds  juvenile                                                                    
     probation officer, office staff,  and staff of juvenile                                                                    
     facilities to the list of mandatory reporters.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Section   39.  AS   47.28.15.176:  Repealers.   Repeals                                                                    
     revocation  of juvenile  driver  licenses for  offenses                                                                    
     involving  a  controlled  substance that  were  handled                                                                    
     informally  by the  division.  Repeals definitions  for                                                                    
     the terms "juvenile detention  home" and "juvenile work                                                                    
     camp" and "treatment facility.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Section 40.  AS 11.41.425(b)(1)  Applicability section.                                                                    
     Applies  to sections  of the  bill related  to criminal                                                                    
     offenses.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section   41.  Authorizes   the  department   to  adopt                                                                    
     regulations   to   implement   the   changes   of   the                                                                    
     legislation.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section   42.    Effective   date    for   regulations.                                                                    
     Immediately, allows DJJ to begin making changes.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:13:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that he had had the opportunity to go                                                                 
through the bill with its sponsor, a number of his questions                                                                    
were answered at that time and he will study the bill further.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered her appreciation to the bill                                                                    
sponsor for meeting with her and answering her questions.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:14:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 351.  After                                                                          
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony                                                                  
on HB 351.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[HB 351 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          HJR 38-AK RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT; CONVEYANCES                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:15:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE JOINT  RESOLUTION NO. 38,  Relating to  certain conveyances                                                               
to  the Alaska  Railroad  Corporation under  the Alaska  Railroad                                                               
Transfer Act of 1982.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:16:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP presented  PowerPoint, "HJR  38 -  Restoring                                                               
Property  Rights," and  described HJR  38 as  the most  important                                                               
piece of property rights legislation  this session.  It is within                                                               
this legislature's  purview to  weigh in  on this  matter because                                                               
the  Alaska Railroad  Corporation  is an  instrumentality of  the                                                               
state  and properly  subject to  the legislature's  oversight and                                                               
guidance.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  turned to slide  2, "Purpose"  and explained                                                               
that  this  resolution  is targeted  at  recent  Alaska  Railroad                                                               
claims to an  exclusive use easement conveyed over  more than 200                                                               
homestead patents.   Except,  he pointed  out, the  United States                                                               
did not  conclusively hold that  interest in the  right-of-way at                                                               
the  time of  the transfer  from  federal to  state ownership  in                                                               
1983.  By  way of background history, he offered  that the Alaska                                                               
Railroad Act  of 1914 put  the standard railroad  easement across                                                               
the nearly  500 miles of track  in Alaska, and that  the railroad                                                               
easement is  for rail, telegraph and  telephone, and above-ground                                                               
co-located utilities.  This, he explained, was the initial re-                                                                  
reserved  limited   interest  easement.    Today,   this  limited                                                               
interest  right-of-way  easement   provides  the  foundation  for                                                               
approximately  80  percent  of all  railroad  tracks  in  America                                                               
because  the 1875  United States  Congress  stopped allowing  fee                                                               
simple  interest   ownership  in  rights-of-way   for  railroads.                                                               
Initially, he  explained, the fee  simple interest  ownership was                                                               
to  incentivize the  East/West route  across  the United  States.                                                               
Except,  he  advised,  legislative   history  revealed  the  many                                                               
problems with  railroads charging  outrageous fees,  and blocking                                                               
landowners from  accessing a  crossing to get  to the  other side                                                               
with regard to  ranchers and then later with  homesteaders as the                                                               
country expanded West.   That denial of shared use  of the right-                                                               
of-way,  in any  capacity,  lead to  the  United States  Congress                                                               
decision to  stop offering  fee simple  interest ownership.   The                                                               
General  Railroad Act  of 1875  provided for  a surface  easement                                                               
only,  an   easement  across  another  person's   property.    He                                                               
explained  that this  Act was  relied upon  by the  United States                                                               
Interior Board of  Land Appeals in 1982 when  Alaska was properly                                                               
making  its  statehood land  claims  under  the Alaska  Statehood                                                               
Compact [(72 Stat.  339) Public Law 85-508, 85th  Congress, H. R.                                                               
7999,  July 7,  1958].   The State  of Alaska  made claim  to the                                                               
rights-of-way along  the railroad tracks, and  the railroad said,                                                               
"You can't  select this,  this has  already been  appropriated or                                                               
reserved to us, we own it, state, you can't select it."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:19:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  the "House Joint  Resolution 38                                                               
Meeting Packet" booklet and its yellow  tab, and noted that it is                                                               
the Interior  Board of Land  Appels 81-426 ruling.   He explained                                                               
that  the  ruling on  this  case  went  directly to  the  General                                                               
Railroad Right-of-Way  Act of 1875,  showing how it  was directly                                                               
connected to the 1914 Alaska  Railroad Act.  The General Railroad                                                               
Right-of-Way Act of  March 3, 1875, granting  a similar right-of-                                                               
way for railroad  across public lands outside of  Alaska has been                                                               
held to convey only an easement  and not a fee simple interest in                                                               
the land.  The Interior Board  of Land Appeals (IBLA) relied upon                                                               
the 1875  case telling the  railroad that it  did not have  a fee                                                               
simple  interest; therefore,  the state  could select  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad right-of-way  in its statehood lands  selection, and the                                                               
railroad lost the  case.  Thereby, Alaska was able  to make those                                                               
statehood  land selections  because the  law was  clear that  the                                                               
railroad did  not have fee  simple interest in  the right-of-way,                                                               
it  had  surface  easement  only.    He  paraphrased  the  IBLA's                                                               
decision as follows:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          These  cases decided  under other  railroad right-                                                                    
     of-way statutes persuade us that  the lands embraced in                                                                    
     the appellant's  right-of-way should not  be considered                                                                    
     to be  appropriated or  reserved at  the time  of State                                                                    
     selection  so  has  to  be  excluded  therefrom.    The                                                                    
     decision  correctly   held  that  a   right-of-way  for                                                                    
     railroad  shall  be  reserved in  any  State  selection                                                                    
     patent issued.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          Accordingly, pursuant  to the  authority delegated                                                                    
     to the  Board of Land  Appeals by the Secretary  of the                                                                    
     Tnteiim,  43 CFR  4.1, the  decision  appealed from  is                                                                    
     affirmed.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP advised  that  the state  was  able to  make                                                               
those  selections of  state land  and reserve  the 1914  standard                                                               
easement.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:20:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  turned to  slide 3,  "What's the  Harm?" and                                                               
answered that  hundreds of landowners  along the  Alaska Railroad                                                               
Corporation's  right-of-way   have  had  their   property  rights                                                               
confiscated and  a cloud put  on their  title of land  through an                                                               
unlawful "exclusive use" easement  claim that the Alaska Railroad                                                               
makes to  the entire  right-of-way.  On  that point,  he advised,                                                               
the entire right-of-way is over  470 miles of track, and hundreds                                                               
of miles of  that right-of-way have gone  into private ownership,                                                               
from 1914 through  1983, when it was transferred to  the State of                                                               
Alaska.  Therefore, everyone with  a homestead patent during that                                                               
period of  time are  the people who  had received  their 160-acre                                                               
Homestead  Patent from  the federal  government, and  they had  a                                                               
"Federal  Patent,"  a   deed  to  the  land   where  the  federal                                                               
government   totally  divested   themselves   of  ownership,   he                                                               
explained.   (Indisc.)  the federal  government never  claimed or                                                               
exercised  an exclusive  use easement  on  that private  property                                                               
because  it was  considered  (indisc.) right-of-way,  and no  one                                                               
disputed   that   the   underlying  landowner   was   still   the                                                               
homesteader.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related that that  claim to the entire right-                                                               
of-way brings HJR 38 before this  body because some of the issues                                                               
that drove that  claim were highlighted on page 8  of the 4/25/14                                                               
letter  to  John Pletcher  from  Andy  Behrend, Senior  Attorney,                                                               
Alaska  Railroad  Corporation.    He paraphrased  the  letter  as                                                               
follows:    "Regardless  of what  ...  the  federal  government's                                                               
interest   is  in   the  right-of-way,   the  obligation   exists                                                               
regardless  of what  the  United  States owned  at  the time,  to                                                               
transfer this exclusive use easement to the entire right-of-                                                                    
way."  He  said (indisc.).  Representative Kopp  pointed out that                                                               
the Alaska Railroad's  attorney advised, "We don't  care what the                                                               
federal  government   owned,  they  could  still   transfer  this                                                               
interest to  the state even  if they didn't  own it."   Also, the                                                               
railroad  (indisc.) outright  ownership  to the  entire strip  of                                                               
land  for all  470 miles  of the  right-of-way, he  offered. This                                                               
assertion must be squared under  Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v.                                                             
United  States, 572  U.S. ___  (2014), decision  when the  United                                                             
State  Supreme  Court  reaffirmed  that  railroads  have  surface                                                               
easements  only, and  when those  easements are  no longer  being                                                               
used,  they  revert  to  the  underlying  landowner.    When  the                                                               
railroad stopped using  that easement, it reverted  to the Marvin                                                               
Brandt  Revocable Trust  and, he  commented, the  Alaska Railroad                                                               
will advise there is no connection.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:24:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP,  in response  to Chair Claman,  advised that                                                               
the yellow tab was the 1982  IBLA case, and the 4/25/14 letter to                                                               
John  Pletcher   from  Andy  Behrend,  Senior   Attorney,  Alaska                                                               
Railroad Corporation is contained within the committee packet.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:25:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised  that the second point on  slide 3 is                                                               
that HJR 38  addresses a violation of state statute  such that in                                                               
2005  and   2006,  the  Alaska  Railroad   circumvented  required                                                               
legislative  approval  by  apply  for, and  receiving  from,  the                                                               
United  States  Department  of   the  Interior,  Bureau  of  Land                                                               
Management  land  patents  within  a  municipality,  specifically                                                               
Anchorage.    These  land  patents  overlaid  original  homestead                                                               
federal land  patents that  go all  the way  through the  core of                                                               
Anchorage, and run  all the way up  through the Matanuska-Susitna                                                               
Valley toward Talkeetna, and continuing  on, he said.  The Alaska                                                               
Railroad's  position  is  that  it   did  not  have  to  ask  the                                                               
legislature for this  because the exclusive use  easement was the                                                               
federal governments to give to  the railroad.  Except, he pointed                                                               
out, the  Alaska Railroad  is accountable to  state law,  and the                                                               
state  said that  the  Alaska  Railroad is  required  to ask  the                                                               
legislature  before  it  can  accept or  receive  such  a  grant.                                                               
Further,  he  said,  the  law  is clear  that  an  exclusive  use                                                               
easement was  never contemplated in the  Alaska Railroad Transfer                                                               
Act to be  considered across all 470 miles of  track.  He related                                                               
that it was  only in areas where the  federal government actually                                                               
owns such  an easement, such as  the Denali Borough and  in areas                                                               
where  federal land  is among  contested Native  Corporation Land                                                               
Claims.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:26:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  turned to  slides 4-6,  titled "What  HJR 38                                                               
Does,"  and  advised  that the  resolution  provides  legislative                                                               
approval  for the  Alaska Railroad  or the  governor to  disclaim                                                               
unlawfully acquired  property by the state.   Representative Kopp                                                               
explained as follows:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Disclaim  means,  we're   not  touching  that  property                                                                    
     interest  because  we consider  it  a  hot interest,  a                                                                    
     possibly stolen interest.   And so, we --  we walk away                                                                    
     from that because we do  not want to incur liability to                                                                    
     the state by making a  property interest claim that the                                                                    
     state does not lawfully have.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  explained  that   HJR  38  directs  that  a                                                               
property interest was not available  to the Alaska Railroad under                                                               
federal law and  ownership, and it certainly is  not available to                                                               
the Alaska Railroad now.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  noted that HJR  38 also calls  upon Alaska's                                                               
congressional delegation to help resolve claims to the right-of-                                                                
way  as a  result of  the misapplication  of the  Alaska Railroad                                                               
Transfer  Act.    He  pointed  out  that  Alaska's  congressional                                                               
delegation has  been helpful and  responsive as a result  of this                                                               
effort.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:27:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  turned to  slides 7-9,  titled "HJR  38 Does                                                               
Not," and  advised that  it does not  remove the  Alaska Railroad                                                               
Corporation's  ability and  duty to  police and  keep tracks  and                                                               
rights-of-way safe, affect  its speeds, as so forth.   He advised                                                               
that the  Alaska Railroad  "put out  a narrative"  and encouraged                                                               
people  to say  that if  HJR 38  passes, it  will have  to reduce                                                               
speeds  and   will  possibly   not  meet   schedule  commitments.                                                               
Representative Kopp  stressed that nothing could  be further from                                                               
the  truth, the  Alaska  Railroad has  operated  with a  standard                                                               
railroad  easement.   Under the  Memorandum  of Understanding  in                                                               
1983,  Governor  Jay  Hammond   signed  that  the  1914  Standard                                                               
Railroad  easement   would  be   the  easement  for   all  future                                                               
expansions of the railroad.   He offered that the Alaska Railroad                                                               
has been  moving jet fuel  and all manner of  hazardous materials                                                               
under  that right-of-way  easement.   Eighty percent  of railroad                                                               
tracks in America  operate under the same easement  and only pre-                                                               
1987 railroads have fee simple  titles.  Almost every operational                                                               
railroad today  does not  have an  exclusive use  easement, "none                                                               
that I know  of."  Secondly, HJR 38 does  not affect any lawfully                                                               
obtained property  of the Alaska Railroad  Corporation, including                                                               
any  right,  title, or  interest  passed  from federal  to  state                                                               
ownership  in   1983.  This  resolution   does  not   impact  the                                                               
railroad's  ability  to  profit  or  impact  its  economic  model                                                               
because  he  does want  the  Alaska  Railroad to  be  successful,                                                               
except it will tell the committee that  it must run a train at 20                                                               
mph across  100 miles  of homestead land  due to  the possibility                                                               
that  something might  happen.   Currently, he  said, the  Alaska                                                               
Railroad  has,  and  always  has  had,  full  authority  to  stop                                                               
anything in the right-of-way that  is dangerous.  This resolution                                                               
will  not affect  its  ability  to obtain  an  injunction on  any                                                               
interfering  or competing  use  of the  right-of-way,  as it  has                                                               
always done since 1923 when the Alaska Railroad was completed.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:30:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  turned to  slides  10-11,  titled "A  Brief                                                               
History,"  regarding the  1914 Alaska  Railroad Act,  and advised                                                               
that  the  federal  government  owned  and  operated  the  Alaska                                                               
Railroad and some  of the land over which  the railroad operated.                                                               
However,  he  noted,  much   railroad  right-of-way  passed  into                                                               
private  hands that  was in  non-federal  ownership because  many                                                               
Alaskans  received   homestead  patents.    When   those  patents                                                               
included  land crossed  by the  railroad, the  federal government                                                               
still  transferred ownership  of  the land  to  the citizen,  but                                                               
reserved  for  itself a  specific  property  interest called  the                                                               
"right-of-way" so  it could use  100 feet  on either side  of the                                                               
centerline of  the railroad to  operate the railroad, as  well as                                                               
telegraph  and telephone  lines.   The 1914  Alaska Railroad  Act                                                               
gave the  railroad a right  to use the  land owned by  others, as                                                               
identified  in each  federal patent,  but it  did not  transfer a                                                               
right to own and control a  property in a manner unrelated to the                                                               
patent reservation.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:31:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP turned  to slide  12, and  advised that  the                                                               
federal  government cannot  transfer a  property interest  to the                                                               
State of  Alaska if it never  owned the property interest  in the                                                               
first place.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  turned to slides  13-15, and advised  that a                                                               
standard railroad  easement is not  fee simple ownership  of land                                                               
or necessarily  the right  to exclusivity, it  is an  interest in                                                               
land owned  by other people.   The standard railroad  easement is                                                               
usually limited  in the extent of  occupancy and use, and  it can                                                               
involve a general or specific portion  of the property.  This, he                                                               
explained, was  the limited interest  the United  States Congress                                                               
allowed all railroads to have  after 1875.  The "rail properties"                                                               
granted  to  the  state  include  only  the  "right,  title,  and                                                               
interest" which  belonged to  the United States  in 1983.   Other                                                               
than  within the  Denali  Borough,  and on  a  few other  federal                                                               
parcels  of land,  there was  no  outright exclusive  use in  the                                                               
Alaska Railroad  Transfer Act (ARTA)  related to other  areas, it                                                               
was  only where  the federal  government actually  possessed that                                                               
interest.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:31:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP explained  that the  exclusive use  easement                                                               
discussion allows the holder to  exclude all others, including to                                                               
fence and bar off any other user  of the land whether or not that                                                               
use is a  safety issue.  He reiterated that  there is no question                                                               
the Alaska Railroad did have  an exclusive use in Denali National                                                               
Park  and Preserve  and  in areas  subject  to unresolved  Native                                                               
claims because the  federal government owned that  property.  Due                                                               
to a fundamental mis-reading of  ARTA, the Alaska Railroad claims                                                               
that at  least an exclusive use  easement must be granted  to the                                                               
state in the entire right-of-way  "regardless of what the federal                                                               
interest was  in the right-of-way  over private  property," which                                                               
was stated  in the letter  to Mr. Pletcher.   Representative Kopp                                                               
stated that  no credible argument  can be made that  an exclusive                                                               
use easement belongs to the  Alaska Railroad without establishing                                                               
what  the private  parties and  the  federal government  actually                                                               
owned in  1983.  He  pointed out  that in 1996,  Phyllis Johnson,                                                               
legal counsel  for the Alaska  Railroad said, and  he paraphrased                                                               
as  follows: "We,  the  railroad,  might not  have  owned all  we                                                               
thought we had  owned, and that we have to  do a parcel-by-parcel                                                               
search to  know what the  property interests were before  we came                                                               
along."   Except, something  took place  after 1996,  wherein the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad's current  legal  counsel moved  away from  that                                                               
statement because it  is easier to claim  that a parcel-by-parcel                                                               
research is not necessary, that  an entire exclusive use easement                                                               
was  given to  the "right-of-way"  even  if it  cannot be  proved                                                               
through our  title recording system.   While, he pointed  out, it                                                               
may  be easy  for  the  railroad, it  is  wholly  foisted on  the                                                               
state's innocent property owners along  the track, and that claim                                                               
was made  without notice or  recourse for the property  owners to                                                               
contest otherwise.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:33:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  turned  to  slides  16-18,  which  read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          BE IT  RESOLVED that the Alaska  State Legislature                                                                    
     believes, as  it pertains to privately  held properties                                                                    
     in the state that contain  or are required to contain a                                                                    
     reservation  for the  purposes  set out  in the  Alaska                                                                    
     Railroad Act,  all conveyances  to the  Alaska Railroad                                                                    
     Corporation under  the Alaska Railroad Transfer  Act of                                                                    
     1982   that  purport   to   convey  an   "exclusive-use                                                                    
     easement"  as defined  in 45  U.S.C. 1202(6),  in which                                                                    
     associated  rights,  titles,   or  interests  were  not                                                                    
     conclusively  owned by  the federal  government at  the                                                                    
     time of the transfer, are contrary to law; and be it                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          FURTHER   RESOLVED    that   the    Alaska   State                                                                    
     Legislature   believes  that   any  right,   title,  or                                                                    
     interest   not  conclusively   owned  by   the  federal                                                                    
     government at the time of  the Alaska Railroad Transfer                                                                    
     Act  of  1982  that  was erroneously  conveyed  to  the                                                                    
     Alaska Railroad  Corporation, and certain  interests in                                                                    
     land  conveyed  to   the  Alaska  Railroad  Corporation                                                                    
     without  the  legislative  approval required  under  AS                                                                    
     42.40.285,  should be  disclaimed as  a matter  of law;                                                                    
     and be it                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          FURTHER   RESOLVED    that   the    Alaska   State                                                                    
     Legislature urges the Alaska  delegation in Congress to                                                                    
     recognize  the views  of the  Alaska State  Legislature                                                                    
     expressed in  this resolution  and to  take appropriate                                                                    
     action  to encourage  the recognition  of validly  held                                                                    
     private property  rights that  were not  conveyed under                                                                    
     the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:34:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP 19  turned to slide 19, and  advised that the                                                               
supporters of this resolution are not limited to the following:                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Adventure 60 North,  Seward; Municipality of Anchorage;                                                                    
     Alaska Association  of Realtors;  Anchorage Association                                                                    
     of Realtors;  The Bradley Company  Construction; Dimond                                                                    
     Center;  Flying  Crown Homeowners  Association;  Lynden                                                                    
     Air   Cargo;  National   Association  of   Reversionary                                                                    
     Property   Owners;  Old   Seward  Oceanview   Community                                                                    
     Council;  South  Anchorage  Red  Robin;  Taku  Campbell                                                                    
     Community   Council;   Talkeetna  Historical   Society;                                                                    
     Tantikil Unlimited   Land  and Resource Management; and                                                                    
     countless  private property  owners along  the Railroad                                                                    
     Right-of-Way                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:35:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP turned  to slides  20-22, titled,  "Property                                                               
Owners  Speak Out,"  and advised  that the  property owners  have                                                               
been denied access  to their properties and this issue  has put a                                                               
cloud  on their  titles.   In 2005  and 2006,  the United  States                                                               
Department of the Interior land  patents were issued "over on top                                                               
of"  federal  homestead  patents   without  notification  to  the                                                               
landowners.  The  property owners began to realize  that in 2012,                                                               
the residential  right-of-way use  permits were being  rolled out                                                               
to bite  down on the  exclusive use  claim.  The  property owners                                                               
further realized that  they, in fact, had a  land patent overlaid                                                               
on their  homestead patent.   He asked  the committee  to imagine                                                               
having a land  patent for 50-years and suddenly  a federal patent                                                               
is overlaid  on your land  patent making  a claim that  was never                                                               
previously issued.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:36:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ERICK CORDERO  GIOGANA, Staff, Representative Chuck  Kopp, Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature, stated  that (indisc.)  contains a  sample of                                                               
homestead  patents and  a  current  (indisc.) on  top  of it  for                                                               
review.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:37:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked  who pays the property  taxes on this                                                               
property.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP answered  that  she would  have  to ask  the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad because  he  was unsure.    In South  Anchorage,                                                               
specifically the Ocean  View neighborhood, that issue  has been a                                                               
point  of contention  because the  size of  the lot  includes the                                                               
right-of-way,  he  said.   Whether  that  right-of-way should  be                                                               
taxed is a  separate issue, but it has been  pointed out that the                                                               
lot size "goes over into the right-of-way," he offered.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:38:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  surmised  that  currently  the  (indisc.)                                                               
property tax on that right-of-way.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP responded  that (indisc.)  does go  into the                                                               
right-of-way where they are being assessed value.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:38:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony on HJR 38.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:39:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM  O'LEARY,   President/Chief  Executive   Officer,  Alaska                                                               
Railroad Corporation,  advised that he represents  600 employees,                                                               
numerous customers, and 500,000  passengers carried every year by                                                               
the  Alaska Railroad.    On  their behalf,  he  said  that he  is                                                               
speaking in opposition  to HJR 38, and that  the numerous reasons                                                               
for  this opposition  fall into  two primary  categories, safety,                                                               
and  legal  issues.    He   said  he  would  explain  why  safety                                                               
necessitates that  the Alaska Railroad  have that  exclusivity in                                                               
the  right-of-way,  and  the  impacts to  the  railroad  and  its                                                               
customers should it not have  that exclusive use of the right-of-                                                               
way.   He  commented  that as  was noted  in  past discussion  by                                                               
members of  the House Judiciary  Standing Committee,  House State                                                               
Affairs  Standing  Committee,  and   by  several  member  of  the                                                               
Anchorage Assembly  recently, this  is an  issue that  belongs in                                                               
court.   When reasonable people  disagree about the nuances  of a                                                               
law, the decision of  that law should be made in  a court of law.                                                               
Simply  put, he  offered,  safety is  the  Alaska Railroad's  top                                                               
priority, (indisc.)  safety as seriously  as it should,  and that                                                               
the  number  of  fatalities  (indisc.)  YouTube  videos  shot  on                                                               
railroad tracks  every day and  year bears out the  safety issue.                                                               
Each year,  almost 500  people are killed  in this  country while                                                               
trespassing  on railroad  property,  time and  time again  people                                                               
vastly  underestimate the  danger to  themselves and  others when                                                               
trespassing  on railroad  rights-of-way,  drive  around gates  at                                                               
crossings,  or put  structures in  the  rights-of-way.   Fourteen                                                               
people have been killed trespassing  on the Alaska Railroad since                                                               
its transfer  in 1985,  including a  23-year old  woman (indisc.)                                                               
since  the last  hearing  on this  resolution,  and every  single                                                               
death was avoidable.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:41:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  O'LEARY  remarked that  loss  of  exclusive control  of  the                                                               
right-of-way  could  be  detrimental  to  the  operation  of  the                                                               
railroad, its  customers, passengers, business partners,  and the                                                               
people  of Alaska  who  are  the ultimate  owners  of the  Alaska                                                               
Railroad.  As it is  currently, (indisc.) the railroad can assume                                                               
control  in  all  areas  of  its  right-of-way  and  assumes  its                                                               
professionally  trained   security  personnel,   track  managers,                                                               
maintenance crews, on-board personnel, to  name a few, are making                                                               
certain  the  tracks  and  right-of-way   are  clear,  safe,  and                                                               
operational.     The  Alaska  Railroad   has  full   control  and                                                               
discretion to remove anything and  everything that poses a safety                                                               
hazard to  its operations, yet  in the event the  right-of-way is                                                               
turned into a  checkerboard of control from  Seward to Fairbanks,                                                               
the safety assumption cannot be  made and it may become necessary                                                               
to  reduce  track speeds  in  the  areas without  the  railroad's                                                               
complete control, he  related.  In the event there  is one parcel                                                               
of  land that  is not  under the  control of  the railroad  along                                                               
miles of  the long  stretches of track,  the Alaska  Railroad may                                                               
have to reduce speeds along  that entire stretch, thereby, making                                                               
it impossible to meet its  commitments, get passengers or freight                                                               
to  wherever  they  are  traveling in  a  timely  and  economical                                                               
manner.   This resolution  also brings up  the question,  who can                                                               
control  what  goes  in  the  right-of-way,  can  the  railroad's                                                               
neighbors store junked cars leaking  oil, which has happened, can                                                               
they  plow snow  berms so  the people  approaching or  stopped at                                                               
railroad crossings  can't see an  oncoming train, can  they store                                                               
hazardous materials  on the right-of-way,  remove a swing  set 30                                                               
feet from  the tracks,  or the  railroad remove  it if  the party                                                               
refuses, he asked.  The Alaska  Railroad's train cars are 80 feet                                                               
long and  in a case  of derailment,  having a 100-foot  buffer on                                                               
each  side of  the  track is  critical.   He  commented that  the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad has  had to  take  its neighbors  to court  when                                                               
performing something that is unsafe.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:43:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY  posed the  question of what  is actually  allowed in                                                               
the  right-of-way,   and  offered  that  the   Alaska  Railroad's                                                               
neighbors may  disagree with a  public trail being in  the right-                                                               
of-way,  such  as the  Coastal  Trail.    The railroad  has  been                                                               
working  with   the  Municipality  of  Anchorage   and  Turnagain                                                               
Community  Council regarding  the  Fish Creek  Trail.   He  asked                                                               
whether  "they  can  stop"  a community  from  building  a  trail                                                               
specifically  allowed  for  in  state law,  or  a  gas  pipeline,                                                               
electric line,  highway, or street  that might use  the right-of-                                                               
way, can  they demand outrageous  (indisc.) small section  of the                                                               
right-of-way, he  asked.   This ambiguity  could tie  up projects                                                               
for  years,  decades,  or  even   kill  them  altogether  due  to                                                               
questions  of ownership.    He related  that  HJR 38  incorrectly                                                               
describes  the rights  held  by the  federal  government and  the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad  right-of-way;  it mis-interprets  the  property                                                               
rights that  the federal government  transferred to the  State of                                                               
Alaska and the court cases  regarding railroad rights-of-way.  He                                                               
reiterated that  this is  an issue  for the  courts to  decide in                                                               
order  to  determine the  legal  answer,  and he  encouraged  the                                                               
committee to not support HJR 38.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:45:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  commented  that  last  year  his  family                                                               
traveled  on  the  Alaska  Railroad and  he  could  not  remember                                                               
anytime  during or  after, when  the railroad  asked them  any of                                                               
their thoughts "on this matter."   Customarily, he said, it would                                                               
be  best to  either  obtain  permission or  obtain  some idea  of                                                               
(indisc.)  committee.   As someone  who does  support HJR  38, he                                                               
asked that  Mr. O'Leary not  speak on his  behalf or that  of the                                                               
other passengers.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:45:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Mr.  O'Leary to address traditional                                                               
homestead use,  recreation, and why  the railroad would  not want                                                               
the legislature's approval when it is a state corporation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  O'LEARY   responded  that  he   was  unsure   he  understood                                                               
Representative Reinbold's  question, and offered that  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad's  concern  is  with  its  ability  to  operate  a  safe                                                               
railroad and have exclusive control of the right-of-way.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:46:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that  his response  is obvious                                                               
because everyone wants safety.   However, she asked, how does the                                                               
railroad deal with  the traditional users that  were living there                                                               
prior  to   the  Alaska  Railroad,   and  to  also   address  why                                                               
legislators would not want to participate in this issue.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY  replied that the  Alaska Railroad is not  opposed to                                                               
people recreating  because it understands and  bisects this state                                                               
to a large degree.  The  railroad is a large operating entity and                                                               
its  primary concern  is safety,  and then  its concern  is about                                                               
being able to  run an economical railroad in this  situation.  He                                                               
acknowledged that he  does not have a great answer  because he is                                                               
unsure he fully understands the question.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:48:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  offered the example that  a correctional                                                               
facility is located in her  neighborhood, and male prisoners were                                                               
recently admitted into that female  prison.  She related that the                                                               
community  council passed  a resolution  against that  occurrence                                                               
because [the  prison system]  was not being  a good  neighbors in                                                               
addressing those concerns, which causes a  red flag for her as to                                                               
this issue.   She commented that the railroad needs  to be a good                                                               
neighbor, there  are historical traditional uses  that took place                                                               
far before the  Alaska Railroad, and the churches  recrate in the                                                               
area.  As  to the 14 incidents since 1982,  she asked whether any                                                               
of those  deaths were deemed  suicide.  As  a state, it  needs to                                                               
lead  by example  and  be good  collaborative  neighbors and  not                                                               
impose  rights  above  the  traditional  rights  of  others,  she                                                               
offered.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY answered  that the Alaska Railroad's desire  is to be                                                               
a  good  neighbor  and  there  have  been  situations  where  the                                                               
railroad rightly  or wrongly has  been painted with "not  being a                                                               
good neighbor."   It is important  to the railroad and  its board                                                               
that  it  does  work  collaboratively  and  well  with  the  many                                                               
different  organizations, but  for  the railroad  to  run a  safe                                                               
operation  there are  certain  things wherein  it  must draw  the                                                               
line.  He commented that that  is similar to airports who want to                                                               
be good neighbors but  they are all fenced off and  no one can be                                                               
on the tarmac to recreate.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:50:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  referred to  his example of  the airport                                                               
and pointed out that an airport  is a small area and the railroad                                                               
runs through  traditional use and  recreational properties.   She                                                               
reiterated  that she  would like  to know  whether the  14 deaths                                                               
were the  railroad's fault where  it hit something on  the track,                                                               
or whether the deaths were  suicides, and what caused the deaths.                                                               
She asked whether  there are areas with  signage, awareness, fees                                                               
imposed if  violated, can be put  up to reduce the  danger if Mr.                                                               
O'Leary  is  claiming   that  there  is  danger.     Wherein  the                                                               
traditional uses, such as homesteads,  recreational areas, and so                                                               
forth, are  still allowed to have  their use or even  people that                                                               
are paying property taxes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY responded  that it is the  Alaska Railroad's position                                                               
that while  he does not  have the  specifics, the 14  people were                                                               
trespassing on the railroad when they were killed.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  offered his  understanding  that  the most  recent                                                               
death was when a  woman was asleep on the track  at night, and by                                                               
the time she was spotted it was too late to stop the train.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:51:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that 500  miles is a long swath                                                               
between  critical habited  areas, and  she wants  "us to  be good                                                               
respectable  neighbors"  that  honor  historic  traditions  while                                                               
still  maintaining safety.   She  said she  was unsure  where she                                                               
stood  regarding   this  resolution   but  as   legislators  with                                                               
oversight,  it  appears  to  be a  reasonable  resolution.    She                                                               
related that she has worked on  trails for many years and for the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad to  come forward  and say,  "this is  ours, it's                                                               
exclusive use," appears harsh.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:53:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether  Mr. O'Leary had said                                                               
there have been 14 fatalities since the transfer in 198[5].                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY  replied that  there have been  14 fatalities  on the                                                               
Alaska Railroad since the 1985 transfer.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:53:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  noted that the train  cars are 80-                                                               
90 feet long.  He asked  whether it was Mr. O'Leary's belief that                                                               
the railroad  must manage the  right-of-way for  any hypothetical                                                               
situation.  For  example, at any point along  the right-of-way, a                                                               
car may  derail and travel  entirely perpendicular to  the tracks                                                               
and wipe  out everything.   Therefore, the railroad  must prepare                                                               
for every inch  of the right-of-way wherein a train  car might be                                                               
snowplowing along and  everything needs to be  removed from those                                                               
margins  along the  tracks.   He  related that  he  is trying  to                                                               
better understand the context of Mr. O'Leary's comments.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.   O'LEARY  responded   that   from   the  Alaska   Railroad's                                                               
perspective, it has 100 feet on  either side of the centerline of                                                               
the track as right-of-way.   From a purely safety perspective, he                                                               
said,  "yes, I  would  say that  we would  like  to protect  that                                                               
right-of-way very  seriously" because that is  something that can                                                               
happen,  and it  has  happened.   When  heavy  freight trains  or                                                               
railcars derail, they can  take up to a mile to  stop and can cut                                                               
quite a swath of damage and destruction.  (Audio difficulties.)                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:55:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  related  that   he  is  from  the                                                               
Southeast and  is not familiar  with the railroad's history.   He                                                               
asked, during the  history of the Alaska  Railroad, whether there                                                               
has  been  a   derailment  and  a  train  car  cut   a  swath  of                                                               
destruction, such  as Mr. O'Leary described,  wiping out property                                                               
or causing someone's death.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY answered  that he was unsure whether  anyone has been                                                               
killed in the  right-of-way as a result of a  derailment, and his                                                               
initial  response  is  that  it  has not  occurred  but  he  will                                                               
research  the issue.   As  with  every railroad  over the  years,                                                               
there have been serious and  horrific derailments in the past and                                                               
derailment is taken seriously.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:56:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES referred  to the  4/5/18 letter  from Doug                                                               
Chapados, CEO/President  of Petro  Star, Inc., directed  to Chair                                                               
Claman, and  noted that the letter  was written on behalf  of the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad  Corporation.    She pointed  to  the  following                                                               
language,   "denying   ARRC   an  exclusive   ROW   will   impede                                                               
developments  to connect  Anchorage to  the Interior,"  and asked                                                               
Mr. O'Leary to speak to that assertion.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.   O'LEARY  responded   that   from   the  Alaska   Railroad's                                                               
perspective,  it moves  freight between  Anchorage and  Fairbanks                                                               
and throughout  the state, and  without having  exclusive control                                                               
of the  right-of-way, it needs  to know  what is around  the next                                                               
corner.   He reiterated that  it is important  to run a  safe and                                                               
economical railroad  in control of  that right-of-way, and  if it                                                               
is not in control, there  could easily be operational impacts and                                                               
it  could impact  the economics  of the  abilities of  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:58:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  referred  to Mr.  O'Leary's  comment  about                                                               
taking  property  owners to  court  to  resolve differences,  and                                                               
asked the last time the Alaska  Railroad went to court to resolve                                                               
an issue between a property owner and the Alaska Railroad.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY  deferred to  Andy Behrend,  attorney for  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:58:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANDY BEHREND,  Chief Legal Counsel, Alaska  Railroad Corporation,                                                               
advised  that he  is unaware  of any  court action  that actually                                                               
occurred  in order  to resolve  differences between  the railroad                                                               
and property  owners.  During  his tenure of eight  years working                                                               
for the railroad,  he recalled at least  three situations wherein                                                               
commercial entities used the right-of-way  for their own business                                                               
without  permission   and  without   a  permit.     During  those                                                               
occasions, the railroad engaged  with the commercial entities and                                                               
discussed  removing their  business  from the  right-of-way.   He                                                               
offered that  junk cars  were leaking oil  and the  Department of                                                               
Environmental Conservation (DEC) had to  get involved.  As to the                                                               
three  cases, he  advised, the  railroad directed  several "cease                                                               
and  desist"  types  of  letters,  then  drafted  complaints  and                                                               
advised that the complaints would  be filed within 30-days if the                                                               
companies  did not  cooperate, and  all three  entities left  the                                                               
right-of-way.   As to residential  property owners, he  said that                                                               
he is  not aware  of any  court actions  the Alaska  Railroad has                                                               
taken.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:00:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out that  HJR 38 primarily deals with                                                               
homestead patent areas that are  primarily residential.  He asked                                                               
whether  it  would  be fair  to  say  that  it  is a  "very  rare                                                               
occurrence"  when the  court has  to get  involved to  resolve an                                                               
issue.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BEHREND acknowledged  that  the court  getting involved  has                                                               
been  rare,   and  the  railroad  has   worked  with  residential                                                               
landowners  in  an attempt  to  put  together a  residential  use                                                               
policy and  permit policy.  The  policy was passed by  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad Board of Directors, except  it was controversial and has                                                               
since been rescinded.  Generally  speaking, he opined, there have                                                               
been issues with  drainage or erosion in the  right-of-way due to                                                               
over-watering and  through discussions have "generally  worked it                                                               
out."   He explained  that when the  Alaska Railroad  talks about                                                               
going  to court,  if  there  is a  legal  dispute about  property                                                               
rights,  the  courts  are  the  correct  venue  to  answer  those                                                               
questions.   As far as  residential uses of the  right-of-way, he                                                               
offered that  the railroad  does its best  to work  through those                                                               
issues.   He  acknowledged the  issues of  property owners  being                                                               
there  before  the   Alaska  Railroad,  but  in   many  of  those                                                               
situations  the federal  railroad mainline  has been  there since                                                               
1919-1923 when  the full  railroad was  completed.   Despite that                                                               
fact,  he said  the railroad  made an  attempt to  regulate those                                                               
residential  uses, which  is something  the railroad  contends is                                                               
its right  and the exclusive  use easement allows.   He explained                                                               
that it  is a  mechanism where the  railroad, at  its discretion,                                                               
regulates what happens with the right-of-way.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:03:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained  that HJR 38 simply  reads that the                                                               
current understanding  is of a standard  railroad easement, which                                                               
the Alaska Railroad  has not asserted more than  that before 2012                                                               
in any widespread  manner.  He asked whether  the railroad's fear                                                               
is   that   by   continuing    a   standard   railroad   easement                                                               
understanding, the landowners will suddenly  rise up with new and                                                               
unsettling behavior  that will threaten the  safety and existence                                                               
of the railroad.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY answered that the  Alaska Railroad does not know what                                                               
HJR 38 means, but it can see issues with the resolution.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:04:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  referred to  the  Anchorage  area property  owners                                                               
adjacent to  the railroad,  and asked  whether the  railroad pays                                                               
any  property  taxes on  those  easements  and how  the  easement                                                               
affects  the  property evaluation  paid  to  the Municipality  of                                                               
Anchorage.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.   O'LEARY  answered   that   the  Alaska   Railroad,  as   an                                                               
instrumentality of  the State of  Alaska, is a  tax-exempt entity                                                               
and is exempt from such taxes.   He related that he is unaware of                                                               
any part of the right-of-way  that adjacent homeowners are paying                                                               
property taxes.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:05:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND  advised that  the proponents of  HJR 38  assert that                                                               
the  federal  government  transferred  exclusive  rights  to  the                                                               
Alaska Railroad right-of-way that  the federal government did not                                                               
own, and further assert that  the Alaska Railroad right-of-way is                                                               
a  non-exclusive easement  that adjoining  landowners can  use in                                                               
any  manner that  does not  interfere  with railroad  operations.                                                               
These  assertions are  incorrect, he  stated, because  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad  does have  exclusive control  of  its right-of-way  for                                                               
several reasons.   First, he said, as the  United States Congress                                                               
expressly  found when  considering the  Alaska Railroad  Transfer                                                               
Act  in 1982,  the federal  government owned  most of  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad right-of-way in  fee simple title which  it had acquired                                                               
as  a result  of  the  1914 Congressional  Act  that created  the                                                               
Alaska Railroad.   Second, he stated,  specifically guaranteed in                                                               
the Alaska  Railroad Transfer Act (ARTA),  the federal government                                                               
transferred  at least  an exclusive  use easement  in all  of the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad  right-of-way  to the  state-owned  railroad  in                                                               
1985.   Third, even if the  Alaska Railroad had not  received fee                                                               
simple title  or an exclusive  use easement in  the right-of-way,                                                               
railroad easements have consistently been  held by the courts for                                                               
well over  100 years to  provide railroads with  exclusive rights                                                               
in the right-of-way.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:07:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BEHREND  referred  to  Alaska  Railroad  Memorandum  titled,                                                               
"Ownership and  Exclusive Control  of the Alaska  Railroad Right-                                                               
of-Way"  [contained in  the committee  packet]  and advised  that                                                               
while  he does  not have  time to  explore all  of the  issues in                                                               
depth,  he would  highlight some  of the  most important  issues.                                                               
Mr.  Behrend offered  that  the origins  of  the Alaska  Railroad                                                               
exclusive rights  in its  right-of-way trace back  to the  Act of                                                               
March  12,  1914, which  authorized  and  directed the  location,                                                               
construction, and operation of a  railroad route in the Territory                                                               
of Alaska.   He paraphrased  the intention of the  railroad route                                                               
of the 1914 Act, as follows:                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     To  provide transportation  of coal  for  the Army  and                                                                    
     Navy, transportation of troops,  arms, and munitions of                                                                    
     war, the  mails, and for other  governmental and public                                                                    
     uses.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND stated  that the 1914 Act  also granted rights-of-way                                                               
through  federal  lands  for that  railroad  and  authorized  the                                                               
federal  government  to  establish   rules  and  regulations  for                                                               
control and operation of the railroad.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:08:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND  explained that the Alaska  Railroad right-of-way was                                                               
designated and  construction was completed  in 1923, and  for the                                                               
next  60-years, the  federal government  owned  and operated  the                                                               
Alaska Railroad  using it  as both  as a  railroad and  a utility                                                               
corridor.  When  the United States Congress  began discussing the                                                               
concept of  transferring the  railroad to  another entity  in the                                                               
early  1980s, Congressional  committees determined  that most  of                                                               
the Alaska  Railroad land, including  its right-of-way,  was held                                                               
in fee simple title by the  United States.  He paraphrased one of                                                               
the Congressional  committees as to  the intent of  Congress "was                                                               
that ARTA  would convey to the  state a fee interest  in the 200-                                                               
foot strip  comprising the railroad track  right-of-way amounting                                                               
to roughly  12,000 acres.  This  fee estate is recognized  by the                                                               
committee  to be  the  current interest  of  the Alaska  Railroad                                                               
derived from  common practice and  authorized under Section  1 of                                                               
the  March 12,  1914  Alaska Railroad  Act."   He  said that  the                                                               
committee went on to explain  that "conveying the right-of-way in                                                               
fee was  required so that the  state can continue to  operate the                                                               
railroad."   The United States  Congress also  recognized, during                                                               
the process of looking at  the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act, that                                                               
some  Alaska  Railroad  lands could  be  subject  to  third-party                                                               
claims.   Therefore,  Congress  included in  ARTA  a process  for                                                               
determining  such  claims, but  still  providing  the state  with                                                               
exclusive  control  of the  right-of-way.    Senator Ted  Stevens                                                               
confirmed this on the floor of  the United States Congress just a                                                               
few weeks  before ARTA  passed the  Congress, and  he paraphrased                                                               
Senator Stevens' statement as follows:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  concept  of  an exclusive  use  easement  also  is                                                                    
     introduced in  the substitute.   This  defined interest                                                                    
     represents  the  minimal  interest   the  state  is  to                                                                    
     receive in  the Alaska Railroad  right-of-way following                                                                    
     completion of the expeditated adjudication process.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND  advised that  Senator Stevens  went to  describe the                                                               
purpose of  this exclusive use  easement being proposed  in ARTA,                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Essentially, the  exclusive use easement is  defined to                                                                    
     ensure  that  the  state-owned  railroad  will  receive                                                                    
     exclusive and complete control  over lands traversed by                                                                    
     the right-of-way.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:10:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND offered that within  the enacted version of ARTA, its                                                               
plain  language confirms  that the  state-owned  railroad was  to                                                               
receive  exclusive  control  of  the  entire  right-of-way.    He                                                               
paraphrased a provision of ARTA, as follows:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Congress finds  that exclusive control over  the right-                                                                    
     of-way by  the Alaska Railroad, has  been and continues                                                                    
     to  be necessary  to afford  sufficient protection  for                                                                    
     safe and economic operation of the railroad.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BEHREND  explained  that this  exclusive  control  provision                                                               
specifically applied to  any areas of the  right-of-way that left                                                               
federal  ownership prior  to  the  enactment date  of  ARTA.   He                                                               
pointed out  that this  gets to the  discussion of  the homestead                                                               
patents, and paraphrased a provision of ARTA, as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Where lands within the right-of-way  or any interest in                                                                    
     such lands  have been  conveyed from  federal ownership                                                                    
     prior to January 14, 1983, or  is subject to a claim of                                                                    
     valid existing rights  by a party other  than a village                                                                    
     corporation,  the  conveyance  to   the  state  of  the                                                                    
     federal  interest   in  such  properties   pursuant  to                                                                    
     Section 1203(b)(1)  or (2) of  this title,  shall grant                                                                    
     not  less  than  an  exclusive  use  easement  of  such                                                                    
     properties.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND advised that consistent  with the above language from                                                               
ARTA,  the  transfers,  the  conveyances,  were  made  of  Alaska                                                               
Railroad  land to  the state-owned  newly formed  Alaska Railroad                                                               
Corporation.   He said that  consistent with the  above language,                                                               
the  interim conveyances  issued  in January  1985, conveyed  the                                                               
right-of-way  to  the state-owned  railroad  and  also the  final                                                               
patents that followed  later, and they all  expressly conveyed an                                                               
exclusive use  easement as  that defined  in the  Alaska Railroad                                                               
Transfer Act (ARTA).                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:12:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BEHREND related  that his  third  point is  that the  Alaska                                                               
Railroad right-of-way  would be held exclusively  by the railroad                                                               
even  if ARTA  had not  guaranteed  this minimal  interest of  an                                                               
exclusive use easement as defined  in that statute.  He explained                                                               
that his statement is true  because courts have consistently held                                                               
for  over 100  years,  that railroads  have  exclusive rights  to                                                               
their right-of-way.   He referred to the  memorandum, pages 9-11,                                                               
and advised that some of  those authorities are discussed in both                                                               
court  cases, legal  treatise, commentators,  and so  forth.   He                                                               
said that he would quote from  a couple of the cases that explain                                                               
what  the  courts  have done  with  these  railroad  right-of-way                                                               
easements, as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Midland  Valley R.  Co. v.  Sutter, et  al. 28  F.2d at                                                                  
     167-68 (1928)                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     The decisions of the national  courts and a majority of                                                                    
     the  state jurisdictions  however,  are  to the  effect                                                                    
     that the railroad company is  entitled to the exclusive                                                                    
     use  and possession  of its  right-of-way and  that the                                                                    
     owner of  the servient  estate has  no right  to occupy                                                                    
     the surface  of the land conveyed  for right-of-way, in                                                                    
     any  mode, or  for  any purpose,  without the  railroad                                                                    
     company's consent.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND  advised that  the court  went on  to talk  about the                                                               
reasons for that rule, as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     The  basic reason  for the  majority rule  is that  the                                                                    
     exclusive  possession   is  necessary  to   enable  the                                                                    
     railroad company to safe conduct  its business and meet                                                                    
     the duty of  exercising that high degree  of care which                                                                    
     the general  law and  administrative rules  enjoin upon                                                                    
     it.  ... These duties  require it to have the exclusive                                                                    
     possession of its right-of-way.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:15:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND acknowledged  that some of the cases are  old and the                                                               
memorandum  provided   cases  up   through  recent  date.     The                                                               
proponents of HJR  38 talk a lot  about the 1875 Act,  and a 2014                                                               
case talks  about this  question as  to whether  the right-of-way                                                               
was exclusive under the 1875 Act.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
      Union Pacific R.R. v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines 231                                                                    
     Cal.App 4th 134, 163 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     As  to rights-of-way  granted by  Congress in  1875 and                                                                    
     beyond,  the  railroad  has  exclusive  rights  to  the                                                                    
     surface and in addition,  broad and extensive rights of                                                                    
     sub-lateral   and   subjacent   support   to   prohibit                                                                    
     interference with railroad operations and maintenance.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:16:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP referred  to  Mr.  Behrend's statement  that                                                               
ARTA's plain  language requires transfer of  the federal interest                                                               
in the  right-of-way, and asked where  in ARTA does it  read that                                                               
something   the  federal   government  does   not  own   must  be                                                               
transferred.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND  opined that there is  no language to that  effect in                                                               
ARTA,  but there  is language  that says  the federal  government                                                               
must transfer  at least an  exclusive use easement as  defined in                                                               
ARTA.   He stressed  that that  is clear,  that interest  must be                                                               
conveyed and it does not  talk about interest being conveyed that                                                               
is not  owned.  Clearly,  he said, from the  legislative history,                                                               
Congress appears to  believe that the federal  railroad had these                                                               
exclusive rights to transfer.   Therefore, the real point is that                                                               
Congress  found that  exclusive control  was necessary  to run  a                                                               
safe  and economic  railroad, and  Congress determined  that that                                                               
minimum interest  must be transferred,  and those  interests were                                                               
transferred.  He pointed out that  it does not say that interests                                                               
that  (indisc.)  owned   have  to  be  transferred.     From  the                                                               
legislative history,  it is clear  that the statute  was premised                                                               
on  the fact  that the  federal railroad  actually did  own those                                                               
rights.   He  added that  the  Alaska folks  negotiating for  the                                                               
transfer of the railroad were  clear that exclusive rights to the                                                               
right-of-way  were  necessary  for  them  to  take  the  step  of                                                               
purchasing a  railroad which had  dated infrastructure,  had been                                                               
losing money under the management  of the federal government, and                                                               
that  they   clearly  believed  that  Congress   had  found  that                                                               
exclusive  control  of the  right-of-way  was  necessary to  have                                                               
"this  going  concern  railroad."    All  of  those  issues  come                                                               
together to  where there is not  only the direction to  convey an                                                               
exclusive use easement to the  state-owned railroad, but also the                                                               
federal  government saying  that if  any party  brings an  action                                                               
challenging  the railroad's  title to  its property,  the federal                                                               
government  will step  in and  defend that  title.   He commented                                                               
that it is  an unusual provision, but it shows  the importance of                                                               
that issue.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:19:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether  Mr. Behrend was confident that                                                               
the  federal government  possessed an  interest strong  enough to                                                               
pass an exclusive use easement  of the entire right-of-way to the                                                               
state.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BEHREND answered  that the Alaska Railroad believes  it has a                                                               
strong  argument to  that effect  and  it does  not question  the                                                               
sincerity  of  those folks  arguing  on  the  other side  of  the                                                               
argument.   Except,  he remarked,  the Alaska  Railroad disagrees                                                               
that the 1914  Act provided the same title as,  for instance, the                                                               
1875 Act.   One reason it is much different,  he offered, is that                                                               
the 1875 Act,  as Representative Kopp correctly  pointed out, was                                                               
an  Act  which  basically  went  from  granting  what  is  almost                                                               
basically  fee  interest  to  an Act  which  granted  a  railroad                                                               
easement.   In the case of  the 1914 Act that  created the Alaska                                                               
Railroad, the  federal government  was not  directing a  grant to                                                               
private railroad  companies.   The real  problem before  1875 was                                                               
that private railroad companies tied  up large swaths of land and                                                               
blocked people from its use,  he reiterated.  The Alaska Railroad                                                               
Act of 1914 directed the president  to create up to a 1,000-mile-                                                               
long Alaska  Railroad.  The Act  also directed "them to  bring in                                                               
resources from the  Panama Canal Project" to help  get the Alaska                                                               
Railroad built, it  did so as a way of  opening up and developing                                                               
the  State of  Alaska,  and this  was to  be  a federally  owned,                                                               
federally  operated, railroad.   It  was not  a grant  of federal                                                               
land  to a  private company,  he  explained, it  was the  federal                                                               
government designating land  to be used for a  railroad, which is                                                               
a   much   different  (indisc.).      In   further  response   to                                                               
Representative Kopp's question of  comfort, he advised that these                                                               
cases which  show that railroad  rights-of-way, even  where there                                                               
is   an 1875 Act  easement, it  does provide exclusive  rights to                                                               
the railroad.   There is no question that  the federal government                                                               
ran  the  Alaska Railroad  for  60  years,  it moved  trains  and                                                               
utility uses  were made of the  right-of-way, he advised.   It is                                                               
the  Alaska Railroad's  belief that  that argument  is more  of a                                                               
backup  argument, but  it is  an additional  argument that  shows                                                               
there were  exclusive rights  of the  right-of-way that  could be                                                               
conveyed, he further explained.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:22:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that lawyers are  good at speaking a long time                                                               
and they  are also  good at  following time  limits, he  would be                                                               
putting time limits on Mr. Behrend's answers.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:22:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP offered  that HJR  38 simply  read that  the                                                               
federal government cannot transfer an  interest to the state that                                                               
the federal  government does  not own.   He  related that  if Mr.                                                               
Behrend  is confident  that that  did not  happen, why  would the                                                               
Alaska Railroad be in opposition to this resolution.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BEHREND   replied  that  the   Alaska  Railroad   does  feel                                                               
comfortable  with  its position,  and  that  is the  position  it                                                               
depends  upon every  day to  operate  the railroad.   The  Alaska                                                               
Railroad  believes there  have been  examples from  his testimony                                                               
where it  disagreed with  some of  the premises of  HJR 38.   The                                                               
other piece to  the railroad's confidence is that  it appears HJR                                                               
38 is  seeking to ask Congress  to take some sort  of action, but                                                               
there is no  specification as to the description  of that action.                                                               
He reiterated  that while the  Alaska Railroad  strongly believes                                                               
it  is  correct on  the  law,  the constituents  supporting  this                                                               
legislation believe they  are correct on the law.   Therefore, he                                                               
pointed out,  the court is  the correct venue for  review because                                                               
these are complex legal issues.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:23:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that  if the railroad must run,                                                               
for example,  five minutes longer, that  is not a huge  amount of                                                               
delay to  lock up  the whole area  for exclusive  easement rights                                                               
forever.   She requested a ball  park figure of the  total amount                                                               
of  public  funds that  the  Alaska  Railroad  has used  for  the                                                               
corporation since 1985.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  O'LEARY answered  that as  a  matter of  course, the  Alaska                                                               
Railroad does not  request state funds.  In the  1990s, there was                                                               
approximately  a   $10  million  appropriation  related   to  the                                                               
purchase of  railcars for  the Wishbone  Hill Project,  which did                                                               
not quite materialize.  He  opined that approximately $80 million                                                               
was related  to the bridge over  the Tanana River as  part of the                                                               
Northern Rail  Extension, and  approximately $34  million related                                                               
to  the  unfunded  federal mandate  of  positive  train  control.                                                               
(Indisc.) over large  projects that are not  necessarily a matter                                                               
of  daily  business  for  the   railroad  has  state  money  been                                                               
requested or received.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:26:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD commented  that she  thought the  Alaska                                                               
Railroad  should  have gone  to  the  federal government  for  an                                                               
unfunded federal  mandate, and  she was  upset that  the railroad                                                               
"made us  use state funds"  when the  state was facing  a crisis.                                                               
She asked how profitable the  Alaska Railroad is as a corporation                                                               
and whether any money ever come back to the general fund.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  O'LEARY  said (indisc.)  our  financials  look more  like  a                                                               
private enterprise, it  measures net income and on  an average of                                                               
10 years  is somewhere in  the $12-$14 million range.   (Indisc.)                                                               
capital intensive.  The Alaska  Railroad believes it is necessary                                                               
to  put  upwards  of  $40  million per  year  into  its  existing                                                               
infrastructure,  without  any  type  of expansion,  to  keep  the                                                               
wheels on  the wagon.   He stated  that the Alaska  Railroad does                                                               
not pay any money into the general fund.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:27:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  requested a description of  the entities                                                               
with oversight over the Alaska Railroad.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. O'LEARY  responded (indisc.) oversees  at this point  as well                                                               
as  all   of  the  regulatory   agencies;  the   Federal  Transit                                                               
Administration; a  seven-member board  of directors  appointed by                                                               
the  governor  with  specific statutory  requirements  for  those                                                               
board  members; the  Alaska Railroad  reports to  the legislature                                                               
and  is   required  to  go   to  the  legislature   for  specific                                                               
activities; and  two members  of the  board are  commissioners of                                                               
the governor's cabinet.  He commented, "We serve many masters."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:28:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Mr.  O'Leary is aware of any                                                               
other  United  States property  law  where  a property  owner  is                                                               
paying taxes  on their property,  but someone else  has exclusive                                                               
use to a portion of that property and is not paying taxes.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BEHREND  answered  that  he  had  not  participated  in  the                                                               
response to  the taxation issue, and  was not aware of  the issue                                                               
regarding the Flying Crown.  Although,  he said, he has looked at                                                               
the tax  lot situation in most  of the Potter Hill  area in South                                                               
Anchorage,  consistent with  the platting  of those  subdivisions                                                               
which show the lots only going  up to but not across the boundary                                                               
of the right-of-way, and he is  only aware of one situation where                                                               
a property  owner is being taxed  on a lot  in that area.   As to                                                               
the remainder  of the whole  Potter Hill area, the  residents are                                                               
not paying taxes on the right-of-way.   He offered the example of                                                               
a  taxpayer who  showed the  Alaska Railroad  that she  was being                                                               
taxed on  the right-of-way;  the railroad  advised that  it could                                                               
not directly assist her.  The  railroad offered to write a letter                                                               
on her  behalf to the  Municipality of Anchorage advising  of its                                                               
belief that this person should  not be taxed because the property                                                               
belongs to the  Alaska Railroad, and she  declined the railroad's                                                               
assistance.   He commented that  he is  not aware of  any similar                                                               
situations, and  that the railroad  believes the  property owners                                                               
along the  right-of-way are  not paying  those types  of property                                                               
taxes, but the  Alaska Railroad would be happy to  write a letter                                                               
on behalf  of any  taxpayer paying  property tax  on part  of the                                                               
railroad's right-of-way.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:31:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked, other  than the cases  Mr. Behrend                                                               
referred, whether  he was aware  of any other examples  in United                                                               
States property law of such situations.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BEHREND responded  that  his answers  are  based on  whether                                                               
property  owners  are  paying   taxes  on  right-of-way  property                                                               
subject to  the exclusive use  easements.  Outside of  Alaska, he                                                               
said that he  does not know what typically takes  place and he is                                                               
not  aware of  anything in  other jurisdictions,  but he  has not                                                               
researched the issue.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:33:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ERROL  CHAMPION, Chairman,  Legislative Issues  Committee, Alaska                                                               
Association of  Realtors, advised that the  Alaska Association of                                                               
Realtors believes benefit  will come if the  resolution is passed                                                               
and put into place.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:34:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATE BLAIR, Manager, Government  and Public Affairs, ENDEAVOR fka                                                               
Tesoro   Corporation,   advised   that   ENDEAVOR,   fka   Tesoro                                                               
Corporation, is  an integrated  refining logistics  and marketing                                                               
company with  assets across  the United  States; it  operates ten                                                               
refineries and  owns a series  of pipelines, tank  farms, marine,                                                               
rail; and a network  of fuel stations.  This is  its 49th year of                                                               
operating   in  Alaska,   refining   Alaska's   crude  oil,   and                                                               
transporting  fuels and  home  heating fuels  for  Alaskans.   In                                                               
2016, ENDEAVOR  purchased assets in Anchorage  and Fairbanks from                                                               
Flint Hills Resources  and a main driver for  that investment was                                                               
the  rail facilities  at either  end.   The Alaska  Railroad also                                                               
moved ENDEAVOR's products into the  Interior of Alaska in a safe,                                                               
reliable,  and economic  manner.   She  expressed the  ENDEAVOR'S                                                               
concern with  the resolution is  the impact it  could potentially                                                               
have on the  railroad's commercial operations and  its ability to                                                               
run  the train  at higher  speeds.   As the  Alaska Railroad  has                                                               
asserted, the  unrestricted use of the  right-of-way by adjoining                                                               
residents and the  public would require lower train  speeds of 20                                                               
mph or 16  mph in some areas.   She offered that  that a slowdown                                                               
would mean  a significant  change in the  current travel  time to                                                               
Fairbanks,  and  would  change  the  schedule  and  economics  of                                                               
deliveries into the  Interior.  While it is  not ENDEAVOR's place                                                               
to  weigh in  on  the  property or  landownership  issues of  the                                                               
right-of-way;  however, if  changes  are made  in  the manner  in                                                               
which the railroad  has to operate, it is  important to recognize                                                               
that those changes would in  turn affect ENDEAVOR's fuel delivery                                                               
and make transportation into the Interior more expensive.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:35:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Ms.  Blair to distinguish what would                                                               
legally require the operator to  travel at those slower speeds so                                                               
he can  explain to  his constituents that  it is  not politically                                                               
motivated.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAIR  pointed out that ENDEAVOR  is not the operator  of the                                                               
Alaska Railroad,  it works  with the  railroad and  is ENDEAVOR's                                                               
operator.  In  the event the railroad tells ENDEAVOR  that due to                                                               
safety through the right-of-way, it  must travel at slower speeds                                                               
then ENDEAVOR  must trust the Alaska  Railroad's decision because                                                               
safety is ENDEAVOR's number one core value.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:37:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA  HUFF-TUCKNESS,  Director, Governmental  and  Legislative                                                               
Affairs, Teamsters  Local 959, advised  that the  Teamsters Union                                                               
is opposed to HJR 38 because  legal arguments should be left with                                                               
the attorneys.   There should be concern regarding  the safety of                                                               
not only the  Teamster memberships working for  the railroad, but                                                               
also for the public.   This resolution, as written, threatens and                                                               
undermines the protections offered  by an exclusive use right-of-                                                               
way,  and  it  could  create uncertainty  as  well  as  potential                                                               
financial  liability for  the railroad.    The Alaska  Railroad's                                                               
full  control  of   its  access  to  the   right-of-way  and  the                                                               
particular buffer,  is important  to the successful  operation of                                                               
the  trains when  traveling at  higher  speeds when  transporting                                                               
passengers  and freight  through  the state.    She advised  that                                                               
reducing  the  effectiveness of  the  trains  by reducing  speeds                                                               
would have  a huge negative  impact on the railroad's  ability to                                                               
meet delivery times and force many  people to look at other means                                                               
of transportation, she  pointed out.  Alaska does not  have a lot                                                               
of  roads  and  there  has always  been  a  working  relationship                                                               
between the  truckers and  the railroad as  to how  the different                                                               
goods   and   services   are  transported   around   the   state.                                                               
Additionally, she  said, the elimination of  exclusive control of                                                               
the  right-of-way  reduces revenues  for  the  railroad and  also                                                               
creates an unsafe situation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:40:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  whether her  concern was  based on                                                               
her own legal analysis, or  was she simply taking the perspective                                                               
of  the Alaska  Railroad as  far as  the requirement  for reduced                                                               
speeds and so forth.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS  answered that  it is  not a  legal perspective                                                               
and  that  she  is  not  an  attorney.    She  advised  that  the                                                               
perspective  of the  Teamsters  is due  to  its discussions  with                                                               
members  that  actually work  on  the  railroad,  and it  is  her                                                               
understanding that the reduced speeds  would be throughout all of                                                               
the  miles of  the track  itself.   She advised  that she  took a                                                               
train ride  this summer and  it took  eight hours to  travel from                                                               
Anchorage to  Denali, and  there were areas  where the  train did                                                               
slow down which was possibly to view wildlife.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:41:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that she heard  testimony that                                                               
slowing  the train  down  to  20 mph  would  increase safety  and                                                               
possibly  slowdown delivery  times,  but she  could  not see  how                                                               
arriving five minutes  later was a huge crisis  and prevented the                                                               
railroad from working  with the property owners and  being a good                                                               
neighbor.   She  asked  how  slowing a  train  down could  impact                                                               
safety.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS  opined that the  Teamster's counsel  read this                                                               
resolution  and   noted  that  it  asks   Alaska's  congressional                                                               
delegation to  actually re-interpret the  law.  In the  event the                                                               
law  was to  be  re-interpreted and  one side  did  not like  the                                                               
decision,  the parties  would ultimately  end up  in court.   The                                                               
safety part  would be  a requirement  and a  concern that  if the                                                               
railroad did not  have any control over those  areas of right-of-                                                               
way any  longer, to  make certain children  were not  running out                                                               
into the middle of the track  or cars traveling through, if there                                                               
were not any  crossings or any protections  for that right-of-way                                                               
area.  From her perspective, she  said, the slowdown would be for                                                               
protection  because the  railroad no  longer had  control of  the                                                               
right-of-way.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:43:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  asked  whether  she  could  imagine  why  a                                                               
property owner would opt for conduct  that would cause a spill on                                                               
their property  or a  disaster on their  property that  would get                                                               
them hurt or killed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS replied that she  was unsure how to answer that                                                               
question, she knows  that individuals have been  killed wherein a                                                               
child was killed  the Municipality of Anchorage  where fences had                                                               
been constructed.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:45:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHARLES DILLARD,  Inspector, Brotherhood Railway  Carmen, advised                                                               
that he  is a 50-year  employee of  the Alaska Railroad,  and has                                                               
worked on  railcars almost  his entire  life.   He noted  that he                                                               
represents  the  40 members  of  the  Brotherhood Railway  Carmen                                                               
Division  of  the   Transportation  Communications  International                                                               
Union (TCU)  at the Alaska Railroad,  of which he is  member.  On                                                               
behalf of  the members of TCU,  he asked the committee  to oppose                                                               
HJR  38 because  it is  an incredibly  important issue  for those                                                               
working at the  Alaska Railroad, he described.   For the 50-years                                                               
he has  worked at this job,  he pointed out that  safety has been                                                               
its highest  priority, and making  safety a priority is  what has                                                               
allowed him to arrive home  every night.  This resolution greatly                                                               
reduces the ability to operate  a safe railroad, it asks Congress                                                               
to remove the  Alaska Railroad's exclusive control  of the right-                                                               
of-way, and  after working for  50-years the railroad  has always                                                               
had exclusive  use.  This resolution  poses a safety risk  to all                                                               
of the Alaska  Railroad employees who work on  the tracks because                                                               
they would  not have a say  in what happens in  the right-of-way.                                                               
The  resolution also  poses a  threat to  their jobs  because the                                                               
railroad  would  have to  significantly  reduce  speeds in  areas                                                               
without  its  exclusive  control.   This  could  make  it  nearly                                                               
impossible to move passengers and  freight in a timely manner and                                                               
it  would  cause  the  railroad  to  lose  business.    (Indisc.)                                                               
encouraged the committee to vote no on HJR 38.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:47:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES  ABITZ,   Brotherhood  Railway  Carmen,  advised   that  he                                                               
represents  the  40 members  of  the  Brotherhood Railway  Carmen                                                               
Division  of  the   Transportation  Communications  International                                                               
Union (TCU)  and asked the committee  to oppose HJR 38.   He said                                                               
that this is  an incredibly important issue for  those working at                                                               
the Alaska Railroad  and this resolution asks  Congress to remove                                                               
the Alaska  Railroad's exclusive  control of the  right-of-way of                                                               
which it  has always possessed.   This resolution poses  a safety                                                               
risk to  all of  the Alaska  Railroad employees  who work  on the                                                               
tracks because  they would not have  a say as to  what happens in                                                               
the right-of-way.   It also poses a threat to  their jobs because                                                               
the railroad would  have to significantly reduce  speeds in areas                                                               
without  its  exclusive  control.   This  could  make  it  almost                                                               
impossible to move passengers and  freight in a timely manner and                                                               
would  cause the  railroad to  lose business  and it  could cause                                                               
many  members to  lose their  jobs.   He asked  the committee  to                                                               
recognize that  the disagreement  over who  owns the  land should                                                               
take place  in the courts to  legally determine who is  right and                                                               
who is wrong.  He said that  it is not something that should take                                                               
place politically by going back and  changing the law to suit the                                                               
desires of some people.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:49:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VERN  GILLIS,  Conductor,  Alaska  Railroad  Corporation,  United                                                               
Transportation Union  Representative, advised that he  has worked                                                               
in the  transportation industry for  28 years, he is  a conductor                                                               
with the  Alaska Railroad, and  it is his responsibility  to move                                                               
passengers  and  freight safely  and  efficiently.   He  said  he                                                               
represents  150  members  who  strongly  oppose  HJR  38  due  to                                                               
concerns that opening up the  right-of-way will only increase the                                                               
dangers to the public and the  railroad.  As a conductor, he said                                                               
that  one of  the worst  feelings  he has  experienced is  coming                                                               
around a  curve and looking into  the eyes of trespasser  who has                                                               
no idea whether they  should move to the left or  to the right to                                                               
escape the train.  In most  cases, he said, people freeze and are                                                               
unable  to move,  parents teach  with instincts,  and one  of the                                                               
most  important things  parents teach  their children  is not  to                                                               
play in  the road, and to  not play in the  right-of-way of which                                                               
he is trying to work.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:50:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LEE  DAVIS,  Conductor/Engineer,   Alaska  Railroad  Corporation,                                                               
United Transportation Union Officer, advised  that he has been an                                                               
engineer for  25 years (indisc.)  interactions.  He  then offered                                                               
one of his most frightening  experience as an engineer working in                                                               
Girdwoood  wherein  a   man  was  walking  with   his  two  young                                                               
daughters, one  five years and  one younger, and when  they heard                                                               
the whistle, the  man stepped off the tracks on  one side and his                                                               
daughter  stepped on  the other  side.   The few  seconds between                                                               
when they  started blowing  the horn, the  older daughter  made a                                                               
few steps to the  tracks and cut across in front  of the train to                                                               
get back her father  while he was telling her to  stay.  On March                                                               
13, 2018,  23-year old Skyler  Luke was  struck and killed  by an                                                               
Alaska Railroad  train between "C"  Street and  Arctic Boulevard.                                                               
Immediately, the engineer  blew the horn, rang  the bell, applied                                                               
the  brakes, and  he  was that  engineer,  he related.  (Indisc.)                                                               
fatalities  (indisc.)  nationwide (indisc.)  employees  volunteer                                                               
for  training   to  assist  crew  members   involved  in  serious                                                               
accidents, and  they have  that support  at the  Alaska Railroad.                                                               
Each time a  train makes an emergency stop, there  is a risk that                                                               
the  train will  break  apart and  cause  derailment.   (Indisc.)                                                               
involve (indisc.).   There  are many more  examples of  people on                                                               
the tracks  who are  killed or  injured, it  is certainly  a more                                                               
dangerous  place than  it appears.    He asked  the committee  to                                                               
leave  control of  the right-of-way  in the  hands of  the Alaska                                                               
Railroad in order to provide  a safe environment for himself, his                                                               
co-workers, and the citizens living along the tracks.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:53:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TOM MEACHAM,  Attorney, advised  that he  does not  represent any                                                               
party involved in  the HJR 38 issue, but he  is familiar with the                                                               
statute   that  transferred   the  railroad   from  the   federal                                                               
government to  the state.   He related that Mr.  Behrend, perhaps                                                               
conveniently,  ignored  the  fact  that the  only  two  areas  of                                                               
substantive operative law in the  Alaska Railroad Transfer Act in                                                               
which exclusive use easements are  imposed, are the federal lands                                                               
in  the Denali  National  Park and  Preserve  and the  unresolved                                                               
Native  Land   Claims.    He  opined   that  Representative  Kopp                                                               
accurately outlined the  situation here and explained  why HJR 38                                                               
is  necessary.   He  pointed  out that  during  70  years of  the                                                               
operation of  the Federal Alaska  Railroad, without  it asserting                                                               
an explicit  exclusive use  easement, was  successful.   In fact,                                                               
the portion of the exclusive  use easement that upset most people                                                               
is the  fact that the railroad  (indisc.) can fence the  land and                                                               
prevent any other use, even  use that is compatible with railroad                                                               
operations.    Another point,  he  emphasized,  is that  under  a                                                               
specific provision  in ARTA, any unresolved  issues regarding the                                                               
rights  of   the  railroad  and  other   properties,  owners,  or                                                               
claimants, are to  be resolved by the Secretary  of the Interior.                                                               
He commented  that Representative Kopp asked  the Alaska Railroad                                                               
for  a  list of  all  conflicting  claims resolved  through  this                                                               
provision, and  he has not  yet received  the list.   Mr. Meacham                                                               
related  that he  ventures to  say that  none of  the 200-private                                                               
homesteader-type landowners  along the railroad were  involved in                                                               
any such adjudications because they did not take place.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:55:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  PLETCHER advised  that he  is  a resident  of Anchorage,  a                                                               
member  of the  Old Seward/Oceanview  Community Council  Railroad                                                               
Committee, and his  website is www.railroadedAlaska.com regarding                                                               
the background of the exclusive  use easement issue.  He referred                                                               
to the  mention of  trespassers, and  stated that  trespassers do                                                               
not get  on the  tracks over  private property,  they get  on the                                                               
track  via  road  crossings,  of  which is  a  public  area,  and                                                               
somewhat via parks.  Several years  ago, he recalled, a woman got                                                               
out of  her car in the  Potter area, walked up  onto the railroad                                                               
tracks, took a picture, and was run  over by a train.  He related                                                               
that "all  of this"  has nothing  to do with  HJR 38  because the                                                               
resolution only goes  to the issue of how  the federal government                                                               
managed  to convey  property rights  that the  federal government                                                               
did  not  own.    The   property  rights  owned  by  the  federal                                                               
government  across   homestead  land   is  the   reservation  for                                                               
railroad, telegraph,  and telephone  found in every  federal land                                                               
patent  along  the tracks.    While  thoroughly researching  this                                                               
issue, he  said he  found that  (indisc.) railroad  telegraph and                                                               
telephone  easement  was what  Governor  Jay  Hammond called  the                                                               
"Standard Easement  in Alaska" for  railroads.   Governor Hammond                                                               
explained  that it  was  a national  standard  created under  the                                                               
General Railroad Act of 1875.   In a letter of March (indisc.) to                                                               
the United States  Congress, during the time the  "Fence Act" was                                                               
pending, "He  said that he hoped"  it would be the  easement even                                                               
for rail extensions, such as going  into Canada.  There is no way                                                               
that Governor Hammond would have  gone along with changing it, he                                                               
stressed,  and  offered that  during  his  interview with  United                                                               
States Representative Don  Young, he confirmed that  there was no                                                               
intention to  change this "vested  property rights  and homestead                                                               
patents."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:58:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN  MCALPINE   advised  that  he  is   with  the  Regulatory                                                               
Commission  of Alaska;  however,  he was  speaking  as a  private                                                               
individual.   He related that  he was the Lieutenant  Governor at                                                               
the  time  the  Alaska  Railroad Transfer  Act  (ARTA)  had  been                                                               
finalized and  the state  was securing the  actual transfer.   He                                                               
said  that he  could assure  the members  of the  House Judiciary                                                               
Standing  Committee,  the  Alaska  Legislature,  and  the  Alaska                                                               
public  that an  overriding concern,  one of  the most  important                                                               
concerns  they experienced,  was that  the Alaska  Railroad would                                                               
have  an  exclusive  easement.   When  pondering  the  issue,  he                                                               
related, Alaska  is one of the  few states with an  easement that                                                               
runs  "clear across  the state"  from Prudhoe  Bay to  Fairbanks,                                                               
travels on to  Valdez with the Trans-Alaska  Pipeline System, and                                                               
down  to Seward  with the  Alaska Railroad.   This  resolution is                                                               
actually a  license to trespass,  he stressed, and one  could say                                                               
it almost  rises to the level  of advocating larceny.   The court                                                               
is the venue where "these people  should go" if they believe ARTA                                                               
is  contrary to  law  because in  every  other circumstance,  the                                                               
court is  where legal  disputes are settled.   He  expressed that                                                               
the intent  of this resolution  is for the Alaska  Legislature to                                                               
adopt  a resolution  in support  of the  proponents' position  so                                                               
they can  take it  to the  United States  Congress and  parade it                                                               
before the federal body saying that  they have the support of the                                                               
State of Alaska and to go back and amend ARTA.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:00:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
FRED ROSENBERG,  Owner, Dimond Capital  Company, advised  that he                                                               
owns the Dimond Capital Company  on Dimond Boulevard in Anchorage                                                               
where  the  Red  Robin  Gourmet  Burgers  is  currently  located.                                                               
Everyone  wants safety,  he commented,  but  the Alaska  Railroad                                                               
says  that  it  needs  the exclusive  right-of-way  to  be  safe.                                                               
Except, he  pointed out, this is  not a question of  its need, it                                                               
actually  is  a  question  of  property  ownership  and  property                                                               
rights.  This  resolution is simple because  property owners have                                                               
a  fee simple  ownership  dating  back to  the  lineage and  real                                                               
estate title  from a patent.   The federal and  state governments                                                               
apparently  tried   to  transfer  certain  rights,   "or  did  it                                                               
unclearly," but  [the federal government]  didn't have  the right                                                               
to transfer.   It is like  a person owning their  home and having                                                               
someone  else transfer  rights to  the person's  property without                                                               
their knowledge  or proper authority.   Simply put,  he remarked,                                                               
the  conveyances being  discussed  infringe  on private  property                                                               
rights, they  are not valid,  and the titles to  these properties                                                               
in question  and the railroad's  claim should not  be considered.                                                               
Those  claims  should be  expunged  to  not impair  the  property                                                               
rights  of  private property  owners.    The railroad  refers  to                                                               
"other  issues or  other railroads"  around the  Lower-48, except                                                               
the properties  in Alaska  have fee simple  ownership due  to the                                                               
manner  in which  it  came about  and  are not  the  same as  the                                                               
properties in the  Lower-48.  Alaskans have  fee simple ownership                                                               
dating back  to an  original federal  patent and  no one  has the                                                               
right to abridge that right of the property owner, he stated.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:02:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HUGH ASHLOCK, Owner,  Dimond Center Mall, advised  that on behalf                                                               
of (indisc.)  annual customers and  his family (indisc.)  over 40                                                               
years, they  are concerned  about the cloud  this creates  on his                                                               
family's  title   because  his  father  purchased   the  property                                                               
(indisc.) homesteader.   Through the Alaska Homestead  Act he has                                                               
rights that  are (indisc.) worth  in excess of $100  million, and                                                               
they  recently  invested  an  additional  $40  million  into  the                                                               
shopping center so they have a large economic concern.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:03:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JODI  TAYLOR,  Church  of  Jesus Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,                                                               
advised  that the  Church of  Jesus Christ  of Latter  Day Saints                                                               
owns  80 acres  of property  located in  Willow, Alaska,  and the                                                               
church has  approximately 34,000  members in Alaska,  and several                                                               
youth camps, salmon  camps, young adult camps  use that property.                                                               
The  Alaska Railroad  runs through  part of  its property  and in                                                               
early 2000,  the railroad mandated  that the church install  a 6-                                                               
foot high fence 500 feet on  either side of the railroad, and the                                                               
church would receive  one mandate on either side  of the property                                                               
to let people come in and travel  out with one vehicle gate.  The                                                               
Alaska  Railroad, in  2005, asked  the  church to  rip down  that                                                               
fence and  put in another  fence.   She explained that  the first                                                               
mandate from  the railroad was that  the fence was to  be 50-feet                                                               
off the  center of the  tracks, and  the second mandate  was that                                                               
the fence was to be 100-feet off  the center of the tracks.  Both                                                               
of these mandates were at the  church's expense, the church put a                                                               
padlock on  the vehicle gate,  and the railroad cut  the church's                                                               
padlock  off and  put  its own  padlock on  the  gate.   Thereby,                                                               
preventing the  church from  access to  the lakefront  portion of                                                               
the property  it owns.   (Indisc.) with youth, young  adults, and                                                               
families, and  if a problem were  to arise at the  lakefront, the                                                               
church  could not  provide access  for the  first responders,  or                                                               
otherwise, to  get through to  the lakefront property  to assist.                                                               
She said the  church supports the right for the  railroad to have                                                               
safety,  but it  also believes  that this  resolution provides  a                                                               
common-sense  solution to  letting property  owners manage  their                                                               
property.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:05:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT TIMMINS advised that he  echoed everything Jody Taylor had                                                               
to  say about  HJR 38,  and that  he is  in full  support of  the                                                               
resolution.  He said  he is also a member of  the Church of Jesus                                                               
Christ  of Latter  Day  Saints,  has been  to  the  camp, and  he                                                               
realizes  the  injustice  this   resolution  will  resolve.    He                                                               
encouraged  the  committee  to understand  the  veracity  of  Ms.                                                               
Taylor's testimony.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:06:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on HJR 38.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:06:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  referred to  HJR 38,  page 3,  lines 28-31                                                               
and page 4, line 1, and  commented that the entire intent of this                                                               
resolution is  to encourage Congress  to recognize  "validly held                                                               
private property rights  that were not conveyed  under the Alaska                                                               
Railroad Transfer Act of 1982."   Except, she related, whether or                                                               
not there  were validly  held private  property rights  that were                                                               
not conveyed under  the Alaska Railroad Transfer  Act (ARTA) does                                                               
not  actually  seem  to  be something  Congress  can  do  because                                                               
Congress is not a court that  makes legal decisions about what is                                                               
validly held  and what was  not conveyed.   Representative LeDoux                                                               
acknowledged that she is a lawyer  but not a property lawyer, and                                                               
described  that the  discussions  sound like  a  bunch of  "legal                                                               
gobbledy  goop"  about  rights-of-way.    She  related  that  she                                                               
doubts,  other  than the  property  attorneys  listening to  this                                                               
hearing,  that  anyone actually  knows  whether  the railroad  is                                                               
correct or Representative Kopp is  correct.  She related that she                                                               
will not  try to  keep this resolution  from moving  forward, but                                                               
she  is  unsure what  the  resolution  actually does  because  it                                                               
appears that this issue should be decided in the courts.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:09:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  advised (indisc.) knows the  Timmons and                                                               
Taylor  families  who have  been  outstanding  neighbors, and  to                                                               
think, see, and hear, what the  railroad is doing, and when these                                                               
"big  bullies" cut  the padlock  off the  fence, is  the type  of                                                               
actions  that  cause  her  to  lean  closer  to  supporting  this                                                               
resolution.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:10:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said (indisc.) contention is  that while the                                                               
Alaska  Railroad Transfer  Act (ARTA)  directed that  the federal                                                               
interest be  transferred to the  state, it was the  United States                                                               
Department  of   Interior  that  inexplicably   and  indefensibly                                                               
transferred more than what the  federal government owned in these                                                               
2005 and  2006 land  patents without any  notice to  the affected                                                               
landowners.  That,  he explained, is where  the misapplication of                                                               
a federal  agency became  involved and  Congress is  necessary to                                                               
resolve that issue.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[HJR 38 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:11:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  recessed the committee  to a  call of the  chair at                                                               
3:11 p.m.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
7:46:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  called the House Judiciary  Standing Committee back                                                               
to order at  7:46 p.m.  Representatives  Eastman, Kopp, Reinbold,                                                               
Stutes, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman were  present at the call back                                                               
to order.   Representative LeDoux  arrived as the meeting  was in                                                               
progress.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
             HB  75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:47:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 75, "An  Act relating to gun  violence protective                                                               
orders; relating  to the crime  of violating a  protective order;                                                               
relating to  a central registry  for protective  orders; relating                                                               
to  the  powers of  district  judges  and magistrates;  requiring                                                               
physicians,   psychologists,  psychological   associates,  social                                                               
workers,   marital   and    family   therapists,   and   licensed                                                               
professional  counselors  to  report   annually  threats  of  gun                                                               
violence;  and amending  Rules 4  and 65,  Alaska Rules  of Civil                                                               
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
[Before the  committee was the proposed  committee substitute for                                                               
HB 75,  labeled 30-LS0304\R, Martin,  3/26/18, and Version  R was                                                               
adopted as the working document on 3/26/18.]                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
7:48:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-                                                                   
LS0304\R.1, Martin, 3/27/18, which read as follows:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, lines 16 - 18:                                                                                                    
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 9. AS 22.35.030 is amended to read:                                                                         
          Sec. 22.35.030. Publication of Records [RECORDS                                                                 
     CONCERNING  CRIMINAL CASES  RESULTING  IN ACQUITTAL  OR                                                                  
     DISMISSAL]. The  Alaska Court System may  not publish a                                                                  
     court record of a                                                                                                          
               (1)  criminal case on a publicly available                                                                   
     website  if  60 days  have  elapsed  from the  date  of                                                                    
     acquittal or dismissal and                                                                                                 
               (A) [(1)]  the defendant was acquitted of                                                                    
     all charges filed in the case;                                                                                             
               (B) [(2)]  all criminal charges against the                                                                  
     defendant in the case have  been dismissed and were not                                                                    
     dismissed  as  part  of a  plea  agreement  in  another                                                                    
     criminal case  under Rule 11, Alaska  Rules of Criminal                                                                    
     Procedure;                                                                                                                 
               (C) [(3)]  the defendant was acquitted of                                                                    
     some  of  the criminal  charges  in  the case  and  the                                                                    
     remaining charges were dismissed; or                                                                                       
               (D) [(4)]  all criminal charges against the                                                                  
     defendant  in  the case  have  been  dismissed after  a                                                                    
     suspended entry of judgment under AS 12.55.078; or                                                                     
               (2)  gun violence protective order under                                                                     
     AS 18.65.815 or  18.65.820, unless  the court  grants a                                                                
     petition  under AS 18.65.815;  if  a  court grants  the                                                                
     petition,  the Alaska  Court System  shall publish  the                                                                
     court  record of  the proceeding  within 10  days after                                                                
     the date the protective order is issued."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:48:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD declared a point of order.  She said                                                                    
that she wants her amendments to be timely and asked when                                                                       
amendments 1-7 were submitted.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS ruled that Representative Reinbold                                                                    
could speak with Chair Claman after the meeting.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
7:48:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN explained  that  Amendment  1 is  a  response to  a                                                               
clarification brought  forward by  the Alaska Court  System (ACS)                                                               
to be certain  the language read that a  publication on CourtView                                                               
would only  occur if there  was a "contested order,"  which meant                                                               
that the individual had a right to  be heard.  In the event an ex                                                               
parte  order hearing  took place  and a  gun violence  protective                                                               
order was  issued, it would  not be listed on  CourtView [because                                                               
the respondent was  not present at that hearing.]   The only time                                                               
a CourtView record  of this proceeding would occur  would be when                                                               
the individual had a chance to be  heard and the court had made a                                                               
ruling.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:49:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what language is deleted.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  asked  that  Nancy Meade  come  forward  to                                                               
respond to committee questions.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:50:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY  MEADE, General  Counsel, Administrative  Staff, Office  of                                                               
the Administrative Director, Alaska  Court System, advised that a                                                               
Version R  sentence read that  the Alaska court System  (ACS) may                                                               
not publish  a court record of  a protective order on  a publicly                                                               
available website.   She related that she was  seeking clarity in                                                               
order for the ACS to  perform exactly what the committee desired.                                                               
Therefore,  Amendment  1 clarifies  that  what  the ACS  will  do                                                               
(indisc.) only  if (indisc.) when the  long-term protective order                                                               
is issued.   In the  event there is  a petition for  a short-term                                                               
order,  ACS  would handle  the  case  in  the normal  course  but                                                               
nothing would be  posted to CourtView because  the proceeding was                                                               
ex parte.   She pointed out that until and  if, a long-term order                                                               
was  issued, which  only occurs  after the  respondent has  had a                                                               
chance  to  appear  in  court   and  receive  full  due  process.                                                               
Amendment  1 clarifies  that that  is the  process the  ACS would                                                               
perform, which  she believed was  the intent of the  "less clear"                                                               
wording in the original version of the bill.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
7:51:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Amendment  1, page 1, line 22,                                                               
which  read:   "proceeding  within  10 days  after  the date  the                                                           
protective order is issued."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how  the 10-day language compares or                                                               
contrasts to "other things" posted on CourtView.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  answered  that  this  language  is  a  bit  different                                                               
because,  typically,  (indisc.)  CourtView with  few  exceptions.                                                               
The  exceptions,  she  explained,  are located  in  the  existing                                                               
language of  AS 22.35.030,  above the  newly inserted  wording at                                                               
the bottom  of page 1 of  the amendment.  She  explained that ACS                                                               
does  remove  criminal  cases,  but  the  default  is  always  to                                                               
(indisc.) if they are public  records, 60 days after an acquittal                                                               
or dismissal of  all charges if that is what  occurs.  Typically,                                                               
she said, protective orders are  posted on CourtView, even the ex                                                               
parte, and  it was the  intent of  the sponsor and  the committee                                                               
that these  could implicate  some sensitive matters.   At  the ex                                                               
parte stage,  in particular, it  may not be fully  appropriate to                                                               
publicize that  this was occurring  without full due  process for                                                               
the respondent.   After  the full due  process, she  pointed out,                                                               
the ACS  would post  it on  the website,  and the  10-days simply                                                               
gives ACS a chance to get the record together to post.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:52:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  that  when the  ACS  deals with  a                                                               
domestic violence  protective order, whether the  deadline is 10-                                                               
days or whether it carries a different deadline.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that the  ACS posts everything about domestic                                                               
violence protective orders the minute  they are filed.  Amendment                                                               
1 reflects  what she  believed was the  committee's intent  to be                                                               
more  protective in  these protective  order proceedings  because                                                               
they  do implicate  a  bit  more of  a  privacy  interest of  the                                                               
respondent.   Therefore, the  ACS would  delay and  perhaps never                                                               
post these  proceedings unless and  until that whole  due process                                                               
hearing had taken place.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
7:53:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  asked the  standard the  court uses  to make                                                               
the finding on the 6-month protective order.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  answered that that is  what she had been  referring to                                                               
as  the longer-term  order, covered  under HB  75, Section  7, AS                                                               
18.65.815(a).   The long-term protective order  proceeding is not                                                               
ex parte;  the respondent has  notice of  the hearing and  can be                                                               
present.   She then referred  to page 4, lines  13-15, subsection                                                               
(b) which read as follows:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence                                                                        
     that the respondent is a dangerous individual,                                                                             
     regardless of whether the respondent appears at the                                                                        
     hearing, the court may order relief available under                                                                        
     (c) of this section.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
7:54:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that with  this amendment it is only                                                               
after  the long-term  protective  order is  issued,  and at  that                                                               
point the protective order would be available for publication.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  answered that  10-days  after  the issuance  of  that                                                               
protective order, it would be posted within those 10-days.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:54:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES withdrew her objection to Amendment 1.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to the adoption of Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:55:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that this  still allows this to go                                                               
up on CourtView, there is not a (indisc.).                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE reiterated that, if  and when, the six-month protective                                                               
order  is granted  by  the  court, it  would  then  be posted  on                                                               
CourtView.   She explained that  up until that time,  Amendment 1                                                               
would advise  the court to  not post the protective  order, which                                                               
is  an  exception  to  the   normal  rule  of  generally  posting                                                               
everything.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that it would  be appropriate to                                                               
post a long-term protective order  on CourtView if the protective                                                               
order is  because Person A  stated they  would blow up  Person B.                                                               
Except, possibly Person  A is severely depressed  and is thinking                                                               
about killing  themselves.  That  posting process strikes  her as                                                               
wrong and  she said she did  not know whether there  was a manner                                                               
in which to "separate things."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE responded  that there  is truly  no way  of separating                                                               
them from the case; however,  the information posted on CourtView                                                               
is  not the  content of  the order  or the  petition listing  the                                                               
allegations, or  any facts about  the case.   CourtView is  not a                                                               
screen shot of  anything filed in the case, she  explained, it is                                                               
a docket  sheet and  contains the  date of  the petition  for the                                                               
long-term  gun  violence protective  order,  and  the date  order                                                               
issued.    It would  not  disclose  any  of  the facts  in  which                                                               
Representative LeDoux was concerned, she explained.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
7:57:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed,  and she argued that  anyone who is                                                               
curious enough  to look  on CourtView might  find someone  with a                                                               
gun  violence  protective  order  and  lead  the  person  to  the                                                               
courthouse  [to review  the court  file].   Whereas, she  pointed                                                               
out, if it  was not posted on CourtView, the  person may not have                                                               
been led to the courthouse.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE replied  that  that would  be a  policy  call for  the                                                               
legislature to advise  the court of the process it  desired.  The                                                               
default for the  Alaska Court System (ACS) is  that everything is                                                               
published  unless  there  is  a specific  guidance  not  to  post                                                               
something.   For  example, divorce  cases can  oftentimes contain                                                               
"interesting  or  even  salacious"  information  and  people  can                                                               
always come  to the courthouse  and review  the record.   The ACS                                                               
views the  records as  public records,  which is  the price  of a                                                               
democracy wherein people  are allowed to review  records and hold                                                               
the court  accountable by looking,  and so  forth.  She  said she                                                               
recognizes there is another side to this issue.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:58:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  acknowledged   Ms.  Meade's  explanation,                                                               
except the concern is that  the committee is currently struggling                                                               
with whether  to allow the  gun violence protective order  in the                                                               
first place.   She stated that  she wants to make  certain that a                                                               
person  who is  thinking  of causing  harm to  self,  and not  to                                                               
others, is not posted, and she asked how to reach that goal.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded  that that would be  "extremely difficult and                                                               
problematic for the court," as  it has no precedence for deciding                                                               
what to post  or not post depending upon the  actual facts of the                                                               
case.    The  problem,  she   explained,  is  there  could  be  a                                                               
discrepancy depending  upon someone's view  of the case,  and the                                                               
court system does not prefer  the possible direction that, "if it                                                               
would be  X, then posted  it, and if  it wouldn't be,  don't post                                                               
it."  In  other words, she offered, the court  system can perform                                                               
the black and white line of  full acquittal cases being taken off                                                               
CourtView.    Except,  if the  posting  requires  discretion  and                                                               
analyzing the facts of the case, that becomes a problem.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:00:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that the legislature  could also                                                               
remove suicides from CourtView as a policy call.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  answered that the  legislature could make  that policy                                                               
call.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:00:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he  had been considering the number                                                               
of tragic  suicides he has  worked, and  how difficult it  is for                                                               
families to accept "suicide" on  the Death Certificate.  Suicide,                                                               
he described,  is an awful  scourge in  Alaska.  He  offered that                                                               
when considering the  merits of this discussion, if  the risk, as                                                               
Representative LeDoux  pointed out,  is strictly  toward oneself,                                                               
and a  loved one wants to  remove a temptation and  possibly bide                                                               
more time to  find help for the individual, it  all comes down to                                                               
the  definition   of  "dangerous   individual"  and   under  what                                                               
circumstance a  case would be  posted on CourtView.   He referred                                                               
to Amendment 1, page 1,  lines 20-22, and suggested inserting "in                                                               
cases  of  immediate risk  of  injury  to others,"  between  "the                                                           
petition"  and  "the Alaska  Court  System",  thereby "making  it                                                       
clear that  if the only  sense of harm,  and it can  be immediate                                                               
where the court  would issue it, but in those  cases for possible                                                               
mental  health  reasons."    He opined  that  the  mental  health                                                               
professional treatment community would  probably be supportive of                                                               
not having  those cases  posted because it  might help  people to                                                               
not be singled  out for what may be a  temporary traumatic event.                                                               
He  commented that  he is  empathic with  Representative LeDoux's                                                               
position on this issue.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:03:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  Ms.  Meade  whether  Title  47  involuntary                                                               
commitments are posted on CourtView currently.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that they are not posted.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:03:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered a  scenario of an  individual who                                                               
was known  to be depressed and  suicidal at certain times  of the                                                               
year due to  losing a loved one  at that time.  He  asked that if                                                               
it is known  that someone will be  "in a bad way"  for a specific                                                               
period  of time,  how would  the court  respond to  that type  of                                                               
situation.   He  asked whether  that scenario  would be  under AS                                                               
18.65.815 or 18.65.820,  and if it is under AS  18.65.820 and the                                                               
person is known to be dangerous  "but not yet," whether the court                                                               
would entertain  an AS 18.65.820.820  in that type  of situation,                                                               
or would it determine that it must go the AS 18.65.815 route.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE pointed  out that the person  files whatever protective                                                               
order they desire, they can check a  box and ask for an ex parte,                                                               
they  can  solely  ask for  the  six-month  long-term  protective                                                               
order,  or ask  for  both protective  orders.   At  least in  the                                                               
domestic violence protective order  situation, it is not uncommon                                                               
for the  court to advise that  they would not grant  the ex parte                                                               
because  "I don't  think you  need it  within the  next 20  days;                                                               
however, I'll hold  it over for the hearing on  the long-term and                                                               
in two weeks, or 19 days.   We'll have the long-term hearing; the                                                               
respondent  will be  there  and it  will be  a  full due  process                                                               
hearing and we can work out whether  you need it for the next six                                                               
months."  She reiterated her  previous testimony wherein ex parte                                                               
hearings are  looked at  with the knowledge  that being  ex parte                                                               
and one party is not present,  the judicial officer must think of                                                               
all  of   the  consequences  and  ramifications   of  granting  a                                                               
protective order  in the absence of  one of the parties.   In the                                                               
event  someone  comes in  in  October  requesting the  short-term                                                               
protective  order  because  the  person may  have  a  problem  in                                                               
December,  she imagined  the court  would determine  that the  ex                                                               
parte  proceeding was  not necessary  and would  set a  long-term                                                               
proceeding, she reiterated.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:06:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  offered  another scenario  regarding  AS                                                               
18.65.815 where  it was known  that during the week  of Christmas                                                               
it would be  "very bad" and possibly this  individual crosses the                                                               
threshold  and becomes  a  dangerous individual.    He asked  the                                                               
discretion the court holds in  that type of situation, under this                                                               
bill, if the  court wants to make it only  for a particular week,                                                               
and whether the  court has the discretion to set  solely for that                                                               
period of time.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that  this bill  reads  that the  protective                                                               
order  expires six  months after  its  issuance unless  dismissed                                                               
earlier by the  court at the request of the  peace officer or the                                                               
respondent via  a hearing.  In  that sort of situation,  she said                                                               
that she  feels certain  a judicial officer  would say  that they                                                               
have concerns  about this week, and  to look at this  order again                                                               
on January  6th to  determine whether it  was necessary  that the                                                               
protective order stay in effect.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
8:07:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that if  the court decided at the                                                               
end  of  Christmas  week  that  there was  not  a  need  for  any                                                               
additional time, but that person  did receive an AS 18.65.815 and                                                               
it lasted  7 days.  He  said he assumed from  this amendment that                                                               
that person's name would be posted on CourtView.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE agreed, and she pointed  out that Amendment 1 tells the                                                               
court system to  post it once the order is  issued, that would be                                                               
a long-term order and it would be posted.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:07:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection to Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
8:08:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   offered  that  she  was   considering  a                                                               
conceptual amendment  to Amendment  1 in  line with  the language                                                               
suggested by Representative Kopp.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  Amendment 1,  page 1,  line 21,                                                               
and recommended  adding one  more situation  where the  court may                                                               
not publish a court record,"  Sec. 22.35.030(2), which would read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     The Alaska Court System may  not publish a court record                                                                    
     of a  gun violence protective order  under AS 18.65.815                                                                    
     or 18.65.820  unless the court grants  a petition under                                                                    
     AS 18.65.815  or a respondent  who is determined  to be                                                                    
     dangerous to  others; if a  court grants  the petition,                                                                    
     the Alaska Court System shall  publish the court record                                                                    
     of the  proceeding within  10 days  after the  date the                                                                    
     protective order is issue.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that in  the above manner, it could                                                               
not be  misread that the  language is  not talking about  harm to                                                               
self.  The  reason for the language "dangerous to  others" is due                                                               
to the definition for "dangerous  individual," and he paraphrased                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          An  individual  is  considered  dangerous  if  the                                                                    
     individual  represents an  immediate  risk of  personal                                                                    
     injury to self or others.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP opined  that  in those  few  words it  would                                                               
direct the  court that if  the gun violence protective  order was                                                               
issued  due to  a self-harm  threat, it  would not  be posted  on                                                               
CourtView.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:09:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS  asked   Chair  Claman   whether  he                                                               
preferred to  continue down the  conceptual amendment path  or to                                                               
hold Amendment 1 in order to redraft the amendment.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  Ms. Meade  whether an  amendment such  as is                                                               
being proposed  is  even  manageable for the Alaska  Court System                                                               
(ACS) because  it sounded like  ACS is not accustomed  to digging                                                               
into the details  of any particular order prior  to deciding what                                                               
is and is not posted on CourtView.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that Chair  Claman was  correct because  the                                                               
decision of posting on CourtView  is determined by an IS clerical                                                               
person who  simply looks at  a case number  and knows that  it is                                                               
posted 10  days later.   The proposed conceptual  amendment would                                                               
cause someone to have to open  the file and that is not something                                                               
the court system could do, and  she did not know whether it would                                                               
take money,  and how many of  these cases there would  be, but it                                                               
is not something  the court system has  ever performed previously                                                               
and it would cause a bit of a problem.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:10:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  surmised  that  the  proposed  conceptual                                                               
amendment would  require someone  reading almost every  case, and                                                               
it could bring on a huge fiscal note.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that she was  afraid that may be the case and                                                               
she  would  have   to  seriously  consider  how   that  might  be                                                               
accomplished.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:11:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  surmised  that basically  the  cases  are                                                               
posted through Anchorage  and the clerks have no  way of telling,                                                               
by the information they receive, how to perform the posting.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE answered that Representative  Stutes was correct, there                                                               
could be  some type  of solution  such as  indicating that  an AS                                                               
18.65.815 protective order  was for suicide.  To  possibly add "a                                                               
new thing" so  the administrative clerks know that only  if it is                                                               
an AS  18.65.815 is it  posted.   She suggested that  the suicide                                                               
cases  are separate  --  a whole  separate  proceeding from  "the                                                               
danger to  other ones."   In  the event it  was depicted  in that                                                               
manner, she  said that  she could  see the  administrative clerks                                                               
having  just  the  check  box for  which  protective  orders  are                                                               
posted, i.e.,  AS 18.65.815 protective  orders are posted  and AS                                                               
18.65.17 are never  posted, or something along that  manner.  She                                                               
stressed that  she has  only given thought  to this  issue during                                                               
these last few minutes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:12:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   agreed,  and  she   suggested  depicting                                                               
directly on  the form "danger to  self is not posted,  and danger                                                               
to others is posted."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  expressed that  that is indeed  on the  form; however,                                                               
there is not a picture or anything on Court View.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  expressed that she understands  that fact,                                                               
but when  the administrative  clerk is deciding  what to  post on                                                               
CourtView, what is  so difficult about looking at  this form that                                                               
could be  created that  read "danger  to self  is not  posted" in                                                               
large bold letters, and "danger to others is posted."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  related that she  did not want  to sound like  she was                                                               
putting  up roadblocks  because she  truly was  not, the  risk of                                                               
problems  with that  suggestion is  that there  are 42  different                                                               
court locations  and hundreds of people  inputting information on                                                               
CourtView.   The  court system  wants  to keep  it mechanized  to                                                               
minimize the  potential for errors  as the court system  does not                                                               
have  an audit  function in  CourtView  and if  something can  be                                                               
written into a  computer script and make it work,  then the court                                                               
system has confidence in what is  being posted.  In the event the                                                               
Barrow  administrative  clerk,  for  instance,  must  go  in  and                                                               
determine which box to check  and somehow get that factual matter                                                               
as opposed  to just a  statute directed  to the IS  department in                                                               
Anchorage who takes  information off of CourtView,  and so forth,                                                               
there could be problems.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:14:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  referred  to domestic  violence  protective                                                               
orders and offered the following:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     You know how it's just a  check the box for the judges,                                                                    
     and  they make  their findings,  and there's  only like                                                                    
     one little paragraph where there  is extra stuff they -                                                                    
     - they write in there as far as, you'll also take this                                                                     
     and this or help the victim with that.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE acknowledged that she is familiar with that form.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  noted  that  there  are  domestic  violence                                                               
protective orders  forms, and suggested  making a form for  a gun                                                               
violence protective order and the  findings would be "first check                                                               
boxes, immediate risk  of serious injury to  self, immediate risk                                                               
of serious  injury to  others."   It would  be user  friendly and                                                               
readily ascertainable  for a  court to know  whether or  not that                                                               
should be posted on CourtView, he offered.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  answered that the  court system absolutely  intends to                                                               
make such a form should this  bill pass, and it will create forms                                                               
that are  similar and  on the  same simple  reading level  as the                                                               
domestic  violence  protective  orders because  those  pieces  of                                                               
paper are taken by law  enforcement and served on the respondent.                                                               
The  issue,  she  explained,  is  how that  fact  is  input  into                                                               
CourtView because  it does not  have fields for typing  facts, it                                                               
would  require a  modification  to CourtView  because  it is  not                                                               
similar  to an  Excel  spreadsheet  where a  person  can type  in                                                               
different factors  or different  considerations.   CourtView does                                                               
have a field for a statute and  the court system would be able to                                                               
make AS  18.65.820 orders issued.   Again, she offered,  if there                                                               
was  an  AS 18.65.817  protective  order  that was  different,  a                                                               
danger to self  order or a suicide danger order  then it could be                                                               
done.   However, she related,  it would  take a rewriting  of the                                                               
bill,  because with  one order  covering  two different  possible                                                               
scenarios, the CourtView database  cannot distinguish between the                                                               
two scenarios.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:16:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  referred  to  CSHB  75, Version  R,  [Sec.  9,  AS                                                               
22.35.030(b)] page 10, lines 16-18, which read as follows:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (b) The Alaska Court System may not publish a                                                                         
     court record of a protective order issued under AS                                                                         
     18.65.820 on a publicly available website.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that this  amendment came about due to the                                                               
section  which read  that  the  court may  not  publish under  AS                                                               
18.65.820 ex  parte order.   The court system approached  him and                                                               
raised  questions because  it believed  this particular  language                                                               
was  ambiguous and  required clarity.    Therefore, the  question                                                               
this amendment raises  is not the grand issues of  CourtView.  He                                                               
reminded  the  committee  that   the  issues  of  CourtView  have                                                               
periodically  been  debated  in   the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee and  each time the  committee travels down  that rabbit                                                               
hole,  it discovers  that CourtView  is complicated,  many people                                                               
are unhappy  with some of  the information posted,  and CourtView                                                               
does  not  provide the  depth  that  some  people would  like  to                                                               
believe.   The more the committee  tries to direct the  clerks in                                                               
how  to post  in CourtView,  the committee  is actually  inviting                                                               
errors and  inviting people to  be incredibly unhappy  because an                                                               
administrative clerk in the courthouse  made a mistake.  The only                                                               
question  before  the  committee,  he stressed,  is  whether  the                                                               
committee  prefers  Sec.  9, AS  22.35.030(b)  giving  the  court                                                               
direction,  or  would the  committee  rather  have the  increased                                                               
clarity that comes with Amendment 1.   In the event the committee                                                               
wants to spend  more time on the CourtView  issue, this amendment                                                               
should be not  be finished, but if the committee  wants to decide                                                               
which of the two wordings to use,  it should vote now and move on                                                               
to the next amendment.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:18:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  pointed out  that this issue  is important                                                               
and she is  not willing to pass  a bill that will  post the names                                                               
of people with a "suicide" protective order.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that there  probably are not                                                               
the votes to pursue Amendment 1  as written, and he set Amendment                                                               
1 aside.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  commented that if there  are not the votes  to then                                                               
vote Amendment 1 down.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS ruled  that Amendment  1 would  be set                                                               
aside and the committee would proceed to Amendment 2.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:19:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  2, labeled 30-LS304\R.15,                                                               
Martin, 3/28/18, which read as follows:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 19, following "(a)":                                                                                          
          Insert "When a court issues an ex parte gun                                                                           
     violence  protective order  under AS 18.65.820,  if the                                                                    
     respondent's firearms  have not already been  seized, a                                                                    
     peace   officer  may   seize   any   firearms  in   the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
       the peace officer delivers the ex parte protective                                                                       
     order to the respondent.                                                                                                   
          (b)"                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete "AS 18.65.815 - 18.65.825"                                                                                     
          Insert "AS 18.65.815 or 18.65.825"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 24 - 27:                                                                                                     
          Delete "If the respondent's firearms have not                                                                         
     already  been seized,  a peace  officer  may seize  any                                                                    
     firearms in the possession,  custody, or control of the                                                                    
     respondent when the peace officer  delivers an ex parte                                                                    
     protective  order  issued  under  AS 18.65.820  to  the                                                                    
     respondent."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:19:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  explained  that  Amendment 2  is  in  response  to                                                               
concerns  raised  by  the Alaska  Department  of  Public  Safety,                                                               
Alaska  State Troopers,  and the  distinction between  an officer                                                               
serving  an ex  parte order  to  seize a  weapon, the  respondent                                                               
refusing to turn over their  firearms, and the 48 hours language.                                                               
The Alaska  State Troopers were  concerned that the  language may                                                               
actually lead  to peace  officers thinking they  had to  wait 48-                                                               
hours after serving notice that  the firearm would be seized, and                                                               
then  they had  to return  at a  later time.   The  Department of                                                               
Public   Safety  advised   that   this   language  would   create                                                               
significant increased  risk to peace  officers and it  asked that                                                               
the language  be made clear  that if  peace officers serve  an ex                                                               
parte  order  and  the  respondent refuses  to  turn  over  their                                                               
firearms,  that their  response would  be in  the same  manner as                                                               
when serving a domestic violence  protective order.  In the event                                                               
the  respondent  refused  to  leave  the  house,  they  could  be                                                               
arrested for  failure to follow the  domestic violence protective                                                               
order.   In the same  sense here,  he offered, if  the respondent                                                               
refused  to turn  over their  firearms, that  refusal would  be a                                                               
basis for arresting  that respondent.  Amendment 2  is focused on                                                               
law enforcement's  safety and  it does not  change the  intent of                                                               
the bill language,  rather it makes it abundantly  clear that the                                                               
officer has authority to take  the firearm and for the respondent                                                               
to comply with the provisions of the ex parte order.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:21:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  that when  the ex  parte protective                                                               
order is issued, whether the  court would set forth exactly which                                                               
guns are  to be  seized, or  would the  peace officer  search the                                                               
house  for guns.   Otherwise,  she further  asked, how  would law                                                               
enforcement know  if someone had  five guns and only  turned over                                                               
four guns.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that  Amendment 2 deals solely with                                                               
the long-term protective order wherein  the person has been given                                                               
a 10-day  notice of  the hearing,  to come  to court  and present                                                               
their  case, and  the  judge  makes a  ruling  on  the clear  and                                                               
convincing evidence  standard, which  is when the  48-hours comes                                                               
into  play.   Obviously,  he  noted, there  was  not the  extreme                                                               
urgency in  these cases because  no one was arrested  and brought                                                               
to court.   The reality  is that most of  these cases will  be ex                                                               
parte orders and the case will  not start with a six-month order.                                                               
He explained  that the court  starts with an ex  parte proceeding                                                               
and it makes  a finding based on probable cause  that a person is                                                               
dangerous  to  self or  others  by  possessing  a firearm.    The                                                               
Department of Public Safety's concern  is that, in those ex parte                                                               
circumstances, the peace  officers do not want to  have to return                                                               
48-hours later  because if the  situation is truly  an emergency,                                                               
they may  return to a very  high-risk situation in order  to make                                                               
certain  the firearms  were sold,  given to  an authorized  third                                                               
party,  or whatever  provisions were  listed  in the  order.   It                                                               
becomes  riskier for  the  public and  law  enforcement when  law                                                               
enforcement must  return a  second time when  the person  had not                                                               
complied  with the  order and  is waiting  for law  enforcement's                                                               
return, he  pointed out.   The Department of Public  Safety, when                                                               
serving an  ex parte order, prefers  to take the firearms  at the                                                               
time of service to prevent a  second trip, and during the service                                                               
of the order to give notice  to the respondent that their hearing                                                               
is in 10  days and the judge will decide  whether law enforcement                                                               
is to return the guns right back to the respondent.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
8:24:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to  Representative LeDoux's question as                                                               
to what guns must be  surrendered, referred to Version R, Section                                                               
7, Sec. 18.65.830(a), page 4, lines 2-5, which read as follows:                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     The  petition shall  describe  the  number, types,  and                                                                    
     locations  of  any  firearms or  ammunition  the  peace                                                                    
     officer  believes   are  owned  or  possessed   by  the                                                                    
     respondent and the basis for the petition.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  then  referred  to  Version  R,  Section  7,  Sec.                                                               
18.65.815(a)] page 6, lines 19-24, which read as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     the court  shall order the  respondent to  surrender to                                                                    
     the appropriate  law enforcement  agency, to sell  to a                                                                    
     firearms  dealer, or  to  deliver  to a  court-approved                                                                    
     third  party  all  firearms  and  ammunition  that  the                                                                    
     respondent possesses                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that the order would  require a surrender                                                               
of all  firearms, and that  the above  language is not  the issue                                                               
Amendment 2 addresses.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:25:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  requested   confirmation  that  ex  parte                                                               
orders can only be obtained by a peace officer.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  responded that both  ex parte orders  and contested                                                               
orders  can   only  be  obtained  by   law  enforcement,  private                                                               
individuals cannot apply.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:25:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  offered  a scenario  of  someone  posting                                                               
threatening  comments  and "nutsy  things"  on  Facebook and  the                                                               
person appears  dangerous.   Unless the  person has  itemized his                                                               
firearm  inventory on  Facebook, how  would law  enforcement know                                                               
which firearms are in the respondent's possession, she asked.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  answered that to  some extent, law  enforcement may                                                               
not  know and  it  may  be that  law  enforcement  uses its  best                                                               
efforts while serving  an ex parte order.  They  may not actually                                                               
collect every  firearm in the  person's possession, as it  is not                                                               
possible  to legislate  people  to  be honest.    Amendment 2  is                                                               
specifically  making  it clear  under  Sec.  18.65.830, that  the                                                               
procedures that  would occur  when law  enforcement serves  an ex                                                               
parte order and  what happens if the person does  not comply with                                                               
the officer's instructions.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:27:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  explained  that  as  to  the  gun  violence                                                               
protective orders  if the firearms  had not already  been seized,                                                               
based  on this  ex parte  finding, law  enforcement would  have a                                                               
search  warrant.   He referred  to [CSHB  75, Sec.  18.65.820(b)]                                                               
page 5, lines 18-23, which read as follows:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (b)  If  the peace  officers  has  not seized  the                                                                    
     firearms of  the respondent before  filing an  ex parte                                                                    
     gun violence  protective order under this  section, the                                                                    
     peace officer  shall also request  a search  warrant to                                                                    
     search for and seize any  firearms in the possession of                                                                    
     the respondent.  The court  shall grant the request for                                                                    
     a  search warrant  if the  judicial officer  determines                                                                    
     that  there  is  probable  cause to  believe  that  the                                                                    
     respondent is a dangerous  individual and in possession                                                                    
     of a firearm.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP pointed  out that  law enforcement  does not                                                               
want to  go into a  house without a  search warrant, and  it must                                                               
convince the court  that it actually believes  there are firearms                                                               
in the house  and a search warrant is necessary.   Also, he said,                                                               
prior  to  receiving the  search  warrant,  law enforcement  must                                                               
convince the  court that less  restrictive alternatives  had been                                                               
tried and were ineffective, on page 5, lines 4-5.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:29:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN noted  that it  is the  responsibility of                                                               
law enforcement  to confiscate firearms,  "the court  shall grant                                                               
the request  for a  search warrant" and  asked whether  there are                                                               
any  sidebars  on  that  language.     He  offered  that  if  law                                                               
enforcement obtains  this protective order and  requests a search                                                               
warrant,  normally it  would  be  up to  the  judge to  determine                                                               
whether the  request was  too vague and  that the  person's 1,000                                                               
acres could not be search, for  example.  Yet, this language read                                                               
that whatever the peace officer  writes down, basically the court                                                               
is supposed to approve the search warrant.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN disagreed  that  the court  is  simply supposed  to                                                               
approve the search warrant request,  he reiterated that the court                                                               
must  make specific  findings  that there  is  probable cause  to                                                               
believe the  person is  a dangerous  individual and  they possess                                                               
firearms.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to  Vice Chair Kreiss-Tomkins that these                                                               
functions are  far beyond  the scope of  Amendment 2  because the                                                               
amendment is limited to creating  clarity about what happens when                                                               
an officer serves a protective  order.  He reminded the committee                                                               
that the substance  of the orders had  been extensively discussed                                                               
in  prior  hearings  and  these   questions  do  not  pertain  to                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  ruled that  Chair Claman's  point was                                                               
well taken.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:31:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN surmised  that  if the  firearms had  not                                                               
already  been confiscated,  they  could be  seized.   Except,  he                                                               
said,  that   appears  to  be  different   than  law  enforcement                                                               
proactively seizing  firearms when  someone is wearing  a firearm                                                               
on their  hip, for  instance.   In the event  the firearm  is not                                                               
visible, and law  enforcement serves the protective  order on the                                                               
respondent,  who  advises law  enforcement  that  he cannot  even                                                               
remember owning any firearms and  does not surrender any weapons,                                                               
what  is the  responsibility  of law  enforcement  at that  point                                                               
under Amendment 2.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  directed that  Representative Eastman  "is actually                                                               
pretty far afield  from the topic of  this particular amendment."                                                               
He  referred to  Sec. 18.65.830(a),  page 6,  lines 24-26,  which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     If  the respondent's  firearms  have  not already  been                                                                    
     seized, a peace  officer may seize any  firearms in the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
     the  peace  officer  delivers an  ex  parte  protective                                                                    
     order issued under AS 18.65.820 to the respondent.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  reiterated that subsection (b)  talks about "within                                                               
48  hours"  and  the  law   enforcement  agencies  believed  this                                                               
language  was confusing  and requested  clarity.   Therefore,  in                                                               
Amendment  2, the  first five  lines are  basically creating  new                                                               
subsection  (a) which  is  based  on the  language  in that  last                                                               
sentence  of  the  existing  subsection  (a) in  the  bill.    It                                                               
clarifies  that if  the firearms  have not  yet been  seized, law                                                               
enforcement may  seize any firearms  in the  possession, custody,                                                               
or control of  the respondent when the ex  parte protective order                                                               
is served.   He  pointed out  that it gives  the peace  officer a                                                               
basis within  which to advise  the respondent to turn  over their                                                               
firearms, and  if the respondent  refuses, that would be  a basis                                                               
upon which to arrest the respondent.   The remainder of "what was                                                               
now  subsection   (a),  and  the   first  sentence   will  become                                                               
subsection  (b), and  that becomes  the circumstance  under which                                                               
they serve the order after a  contested hearing, there is not the                                                               
situation of  officer safety involved,"  he explained.   He added                                                               
that  this is  a  specific  situation where  a  peace officer  is                                                               
serving  an  order  consistent   with  what  Representative  Kopp                                                               
described  on subsection  (b), page  5, lines  18-23, [previously                                                               
typed], peace  officers will have  a search warrant to  seize any                                                               
firearms  in  the  possession  of   the  respondent.    This,  he                                                               
reiterated, is  to clarify that  the failure to comply  with that                                                               
order  gives the  peace officer  a basis  within which  to arrest                                                               
someone  for  non-compliance,  and  if  it is  not  an  ex  parte                                                               
situation then more time is allowed to surrender the firearms.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:35:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred  to Amendment 2, page  1, lines 3-5,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     a  peace   officer  may  seize  any   firearms  in  the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
     the  peace officer  delivers  the  ex parte  protective                                                                    
     order to the respondent.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  pointed out  that  "may  seize" is  in  the                                                               
permissive  form rather  than "shall  seize,"  and the  provision                                                               
makes clear that there is  legal authority, should the context of                                                               
that  service indicate  that "seizure  of firearms  should occur"                                                               
based upon the service of an ex parte protective order.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:36:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to [CSHB 75,  Sec. 18.65.830(a),                                                               
page  6,] line  24, and  commented that  the 48-hour  language is                                                               
moot  because when  a peace  officer serves  notice on  a person,                                                               
they have 48  hours "to do what  they're going to do.   But we're                                                               
going  to bring  a search  warrant and  if they  don't turn  over                                                               
their guns, we're going to arrest that person."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to Amendment  2, page 1, lines  10-12, and                                                               
pointed out  that the section  applying to  48 hours is  under AS                                                               
18.65.815  the   contested  protective   orders,  and   under  AS                                                               
18.65.825 are modification  of the order.  He  explained that the                                                               
section with the 48 hours does  not apply to the ex parte orders,                                                               
which   as  amended,   would  only   apply  to   subsection  (a).                                                               
Subsection (a)  of this section  would relate to ex  parte orders                                                               
and subsection (b)  would relate to the contested  orders and the                                                               
modification  of the  orders  in  the 48  hours,  and what  would                                                               
become  subsection (c)  would only  relate to  the orders  issued                                                               
under the contested situation or modifications thereof.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:38:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  withdrew  his  objection  to  the                                                               
motion to adopt Amendment 2.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   objected  to   the  motion   to  adopt                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:38:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  referred to Amendment 2,  [page 1, lines                                                               
2-5], and she paraphrased as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          When  a  court  issues  an  ex  parte,  so  that's                                                                    
     without  due  process  for the  people  listening,  gun                                                                    
     violence  protective order  under AS  18.65.820 if  the                                                                    
     respondent's firearms  have not  already been  seized a                                                                    
     peace officer may seize any  firearm in the possession,                                                                    
     custody, or  control of the  respondent when  the peace                                                                    
     officer delivers  the ex parte protective  order to the                                                                    
     respondent.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  paraphrased the language "if  it has not                                                               
already" and  asked when the  opportunity to  confiscate happened                                                               
in the  first place  because it  sounds as  though there  are two                                                               
different opportunities to confiscate.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  commented  that   he  thought  the  committee  was                                                               
debating Amendment 2,  and referred to [CSHB 75, Sec.  3] page 2,                                                               
lines 17-21,  which provides  that when a  peace officer  faces a                                                               
dangerous individual  and believes  there is an  immediate danger                                                               
that requires  immediate action,  they have authority  both under                                                               
this statute and under existing  common law, to seize the weapons                                                               
and prevent a  dangerous situation from becoming  a problem where                                                               
someone is  severely injured  or killed.   He explained  that the                                                               
bill  provides  that  when  an  officer  performs  a  warrantless                                                               
seizure  such as  this, then  the officer  has a  duty within  72                                                               
hours to actually  file the paperwork to explain  the reasons for                                                               
the warrantless seizure, which is a  way of providing more for an                                                               
individual  who has  their firearms  than they  would have  today                                                               
under  existing  authority  to  seize weapons  in  a  variety  of                                                               
circumstances.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:40:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  argued that  it read "seize  any firearm                                                               
in  the possession,  custody, or  control" and  asked whether  it                                                               
could mean  a parent's house,  at work, a  cabin, a house  in the                                                               
Lower-48.   She described the  language as broad because  if they                                                               
are  already seizing  firearms without  due process  under an  ex                                                               
parte  order, she  paraphrased  "now it  says  anything in  their                                                               
possession,  custody,  or  control"  whether it  allows  a  peace                                                               
officer to go anyplace this person owns.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  reiterated to Vice Chair  Kreiss-Tomkins that these                                                               
questions are well  beyond the scope of Amendment 2.   (Indisc. -                                                               
Representative Reinbold speaking over  Chair Claman) referring to                                                               
subsection  (b) on  page 5,  [lines 18-23]  regarding the  search                                                               
warrant the peace officer would  offer for the search and seizure                                                               
of  any  firearms  in  the  possession of  the  respondent.    He                                                               
reiterated that it  is well established under  search and seizure                                                               
law that  the warrant  would have  to identify  the places  to be                                                               
searched and  the items to be  seized, and it would  not give any                                                               
peace officer broad authority to  wander the streets and look for                                                               
anything  anywhere  because  they  would  actually  have  a  very                                                               
specific place.   A  warrant that didn't  provide that  degree of                                                               
specification would  be subject to a  significant court challenge                                                               
and he  could not imagine  any judge in  this state or  any other                                                               
state  that would  issue  such  a warrant.    As to  out-of-state                                                               
properties, the jurisdiction of this  state court does not extend                                                               
to other states, he further explained.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:41:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   surmised  that  if  the   peace  officer                                                               
recognizes  that  there is  a  dangerous  individual, that  peace                                                               
officer can,  without the  judge giving the  peace officer  to do                                                               
so, seize the firearm.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted  that Representative LeDoux was  correct as it                                                               
has previously  been discussed,  and that  action can  take place                                                               
under a variety of circumstances.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX surmised  that the  peace officer  goes to                                                               
the court after seizing the firearm.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that the peace officer goes  to the court                                                               
afterwards,  but in  terms of  Amendment 2,  it is  regarding the                                                               
situation when the firearms have  not already been seized.  There                                                               
is  a gun  violence protective  order  and this  gives the  peace                                                               
officer  the authority  to seize  the  firearms if  they had  not                                                               
already been seized.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:43:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how  Amendment 2 changes the language                                                               
that is "on page 6 already?"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained that the  difference between  Amendment 2                                                               
and the language  on page 6 is not changing  the substance, it is                                                               
clarifying the  language.  He  reiterated that the  Department of                                                               
Public Safety (DPS) was concerned that  the way it was drafted on                                                               
page 6,  and the placement  of the second sentence  of subsection                                                               
(a) on page  6 in the same  paragraph "as the portions  in sub --                                                               
the first para -- sentence of subsection (a)."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred Representative LeDoux  to page 6 [lines 24-                                                               
27], and the second sentence, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     If  the respondent's  firearms  have  not already  been                                                                    
     seized, a peace  officer may seize any  firearms in the                                                                    
     possession, custody, or control  of the respondent when                                                                    
     the  peace  officer  delivers an  ex  parte  protective                                                                    
     order issued under AS 18.65.820 to the respondent.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that this is the ex  parte provision, and                                                               
when comparing that  language to what will  become subsection (a)                                                               
on Amendment 2,  that becomes subsection (a) and  that relates to                                                               
what happens  when peace officers serve  an ex parte order.   The                                                               
DPS indicated that by combining  the first sentence of subsection                                                               
(a) on page 6, which  merged in together AS 18.65.815, 18.65.820,                                                               
and 18.65.825 in one sentence,  DPS believed that the combination                                                               
was confusing and  raised issues as to whether or  not they could                                                               
immediately  seize  the  firearms.     At  the  request  of  DPS,                                                               
Amendment 2  is simply intended  to clarify the language  that is                                                               
already in CSHB  75, page 6, so law enforcement  is not confused,                                                               
and  the person  reading the  statute  after it  is amended  will                                                               
understand  the sequence,  he reiterated,  and  this is  changing                                                               
nothing of the substance of the bill.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:44:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  suggested  that law  enforcement  is  not                                                               
confused, but she is confused.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:45:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  summarized   that  for  purposes  of                                                               
clarity, Amendment 2 takes the  second sentence [CSHB 75, page 6,                                                               
lines 24-27]  of the current  section AS 18.65.830(a)  and breaks                                                               
it off as its own subsection.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:45:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  clarified that  this is a  complicated legal                                                               
process  for  lay  legislators  who do  not  normally  deal  with                                                               
domestic violence protective orders and  how they are tiered, and                                                               
questions  should be  expected.   In  response to  Representative                                                               
Reinbold's  question about  warrantless seizure  of firearms,  he                                                               
offered a classic example as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     You  get a  call 11:00,  12:00  at night,  1:00 in  the                                                                    
     morning from  a concerned family member  that says, 'My                                                                    
     adult son  is very  depressed, hasn't  come out  of his                                                                    
     room,  he's talking  about killing  himself.   Can  you                                                                    
     come  help  talk  to him?'    This  happens  regularly,                                                                    
     situations like  this.   So, you show  up at  the house                                                                    
     and you knock on the door  and, you know, 'Police.  I'm                                                                    
     here cause your  mom called or your dad  called.'  And,                                                                    
     they may not answer the  door so you're talking through                                                                    
     a closed  door hoping  they are  not armed,  and hoping                                                                    
     they are  not mad that  you're there.   And, you  get a                                                                    
     dialogue  going,  'Are  you going  to  hurt  yourself?'                                                                    
     'Well,  I'm  think about  it.'  'Do  you have  a  gun?'                                                                    
     'Yes.' And,  after a  dialogue, you --  the goal  is to                                                                    
     talk them not into hurting  themselves or you, and that                                                                    
     you  talk him  into  turning over  the  gun that  night                                                                    
     until they feel  better the next day.   And, that would                                                                    
     be  a  warrantless  seizure.   And,  that's  a  classic                                                                    
     example of how  law enforcement goes home.   Right now,                                                                    
     there  is no  process for  that person  to get  the gun                                                                    
     back  unless  -- the  officer  is  required to  make  a                                                                    
     report of  it right away  because he is dealing  with a                                                                    
     mental  health  situation and  that  would  have to  be                                                                    
     logged  into evidence  and all  that.   But, right  now                                                                    
     there is  no process other  than maybe the D.A.  or the                                                                    
     police chief saying the person  is probably fine to get                                                                    
     their gun back.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:47:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP described that  this bill actually reads that                                                               
within  72  hours the  peace  officer  must have  prepared  their                                                               
affidavit to the court, and the  court has to rule on whether the                                                               
peace officer  was correct to  remove the  firearm or to  give it                                                               
back.  Currently, while it  does happen that law enforcement will                                                               
take  guns  for  safekeeping,  under  those  circumstances  where                                                               
people are  at risk  to harm  themselves, there  really is  not a                                                               
process in  the law  for helping the  gun owner  actually receive                                                               
their firearm  back again,  and for  judicial oversight  in those                                                               
situations.    He explained  that  that  is  in response  to  the                                                               
warrantless situation.   As to the ex parte  protective order, he                                                               
offered a  scenario of a  peace officer  receiving a call  that a                                                               
someone's son  is going  to "shoot up  the neighbor's  house" and                                                               
they are concerned.  For  various reasons, the peace officer goes                                                               
to the courthouse  and advises the judge that  they just received                                                               
this call and they provide  a statement from the mother, requests                                                               
an  ex parte  protective order  and a  search warrant  to try  to                                                               
prevent this  person from shooting  up the neighbor's  house, the                                                               
mother advised  that her son owns  a .22 long rifle,  he has made                                                               
these threats before,  and she believes he is  serious this time.                                                               
The  judge  agrees and  issues  the  ex  parte order  and  search                                                               
warrant, the  peace officer serves  the documents on the  son and                                                               
advises the son that  in 10 days he would have  a hearing on this                                                               
issue, and the judge will  determine whether the firearm would be                                                               
returned.  That  standard is clear and convincing  evidence as to                                                               
whether  it should  be  retained,  if the  judge  decides at  the                                                               
hearing that  the son is  still a danger, the  case will go  to a                                                               
six-month protective order  or the court can  terminate the order                                                               
earlier  if it  so  chooses on  petition of  the  officer or  the                                                               
respondent and the request for hearing is filed, he explained.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:50:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS determined  that because Amendment 2 is                                                               
simply re-ordering sentences in the  bill and its scope is fairly                                                               
limited, he moved to committee discussion.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:51:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that  the substance of Amendment                                                               
2 is  on page 1,  lines 11-12, "we're  making a switch,  which is                                                               
page 6, line 20 of the bill, and  we are pulling out the ex parte                                                               
from  that, and  that is  a  substantive change.   It  not a  re-                                                               
ordering or  rephrasing.  We're  making it clear for  purposes of                                                               
the bill that the ex parte  protective order is not going to fall                                                               
under this same provision here on line 20."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:52:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that  before she makes her wrap                                                               
up  comments,   she  would  talk  about   the  Second  Amendment,                                                               
regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  advised Representative  Reinbold that                                                               
he had not  yet recognized her, and the committee  members have a                                                               
two-minute timeline for Amendment 2.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:52:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  and Representative Reinbold discussed                                                               
the scope of Amendment 2.]                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that  "it read that  the right                                                               
of the people  to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed, and                                                               
legislators swore to  uphold and defend the  constitution, as you                                                               
did."  (Indisc.) so when  reviewing the other amendments, "you're                                                               
not allowed  to do  this."   She remarked  that the  committee is                                                               
rushing something  that is in  complete violation, "if  you swore                                                               
to uphold  and defend the constitution."   She said that  she did                                                               
not know  what it says,  it says to  seize any (indisc.)  know if                                                               
that  means  "your  office,  I  don't know  if  that  means  your                                                               
mother's house,  I don't know what  it means when you  can search                                                               
and seize  warrantlessly as  long as it  is in  their possession,                                                               
custody, or  control."  She  described "this" as  extremely broad                                                               
and it is wrong to rush  something that is critical to what holds                                                               
this nation together.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:54:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP noted  that  he  agrees with  Representative                                                               
Reinbold's words  of caution in protecting  the Second Amendment,                                                               
but this is  not about warrantless searches.   This discussion is                                                               
about warrantless  seizures and  those can  only take  place when                                                               
the  nature of  the  circumstance demands  an immediate  response                                                               
based on the danger the  peace officer immediately observes, such                                                               
as  the  circumstance of  someone  saying  they are  thinking  of                                                               
killing themselves and  are holding a gun, and  the peace officer                                                               
is able  to talk them  out of  killing themselves and  allows the                                                               
peace officer  to seize the  gun.  He  stressed that this  is not                                                               
about a  warrantless search, a  search always requires  a warrant                                                               
and if  making a search  without a  warrant, the courts  frown on                                                               
that action.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:56:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    LEDOUX    related    that    she    understands                                                               
Representative  Reinbold's point  of  view and  concurs with  her                                                               
comments regarding the Second Amendment.   Except, she expressed,                                                               
even if  the committee does  not adopt  Amendment 2, the  bill in                                                               
itself uses the phrase "possession,  custody, or control" and she                                                               
will probably vote  in favor of the amendment, but  she still has                                                               
some concerns  about the bill with  or without Amendment 2.   She                                                               
offered understanding as to the concerns of the DPS officers.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:57:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD maintained her objection.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[VICE CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS and Representative  Eastman discussed                                                               
the fact that he had previously offered his comments.]                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:57:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  declared a  point of  order.   She said,                                                               
there are two  points of order, "it says, when  you rush there is                                                               
often unfairness, and two, you  have to have equality for members                                                               
and he's being denied.   He had a point of  clarity which is much                                                               
different than discussion."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  ruled  that he  opened the  committee                                                               
discussion by  offering each member  two minutes of  comments and                                                               
Representative  Eastman was  recognized first,  before any  other                                                               
member.  In the spirit  of equality, he will offer Representative                                                               
Claman  two minutes  to speak  to any  questions raised  by other                                                               
members.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:58:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN declared  a point of order.   He said that                                                               
his hand  had been raised for  quite some time and  he was passed                                                               
over several  times before  Vice Chair  Kreiss-Tomkins determined                                                               
that his next  statement would be his two-minute  wrap-up, and he                                                               
thought that was inappropriate.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS ruled, "Noted."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:58:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN,  in response  to Representative  Eastman's comments                                                               
and questions about clarity,  advised that Representative Eastman                                                               
was actually  mistaken when reading  the amendment and  the bill.                                                               
The bill does  not remove the ex parte  provisions, the amendment                                                               
on lines 10-12 simply removes the  second sentence of the bill in                                                               
subsection (a)  and makes it  a separate subsection.   Therefore,                                                               
the  ex parte  provisions  are  retained and  put  in a  separate                                                               
subsection, and  then subsection  (b) addresses the  non-ex parte                                                               
situation.   The whole purpose  of Amendment  2 is not  to debate                                                               
the merits  of ex parte orders,  but rather to make  the language                                                               
of  the bill  clear and  more easily  understood so  there is  no                                                               
confusion.  He stressed that it  does not change the substance of                                                               
the language at all, and  he commented that Representative LeDoux                                                               
was "right  on target,"  the question for  this amendment  is not                                                               
whether a member  supports the bill, the question  one should ask                                                               
is whether  this amendment, by  changing the language on  page 6,                                                               
beginning line 19, offers a  clarity for peace officers and court                                                               
officers.  Chair Claman opined that  it does.  For those reasons,                                                               
he urged the committee to vote in favor of Amendment 2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN, in  response to  Representative Reinbold,  advised                                                               
that he agrees  with her comments about being  very careful about                                                               
protecting Second Amendment rights, but  he never heard her ask a                                                               
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:00:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD declared a point  of order.  She referred                                                               
to "Section  85 says that we  have the fundamental right  to know                                                               
the intended  and unintended consequences  before we vote."   She                                                               
asked whether the intention is  that peace officers do not search                                                               
lodges, businesses,  homes, and so  forth, that it is  only where                                                               
that person resides at that time.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  ruled  that Chair  Claman made  clear                                                               
what he  sees as  the intended consequences  of Amendment  2, and                                                               
the committee would proceed to a vote.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:00:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote  was taken.   Representatives  Kreiss-Tomkins,                                                               
Kopp, Stutes, LeDoux,  and Claman voted in favor  of the adoption                                                               
of  Amendment  2.   Representatives  Reinbold  and Eastman  voted                                                               
against it.   Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by  a vote of 5-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
9:01:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel back to Chair Claman.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[HB 75 was held over.]                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:02:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB351 ver N 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Sponsor Statement 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Explanation of Changes 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Sectional Analysis 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Supporting Document-Letter from DJJ 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Additional Document-DJJ Responses to HSS Committee Questions 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 351
HB351 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 351
HJR38 ver J 4.6.18.PDF HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Sponsor Statement 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Reference Documents with Index 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Supporting Document-Letters & Public Comment 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Supporting Document-Alaska Snowmobile Club Letter 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Opposing Document-Letters 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Opposing Document-Petro Star Inc. Letter 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Opposing Document-ARRC Memo - Re ROW Ownership and Exclusivity 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HJR38 PowerPoint Presentation 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJR 38
HB075 Amendments #1-7 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75