Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
05/03/2019 01:00 PM House 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| HJR18 | |
| HB110 | |
| HJR18 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 2019
1:22 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to electric-assisted bicycles."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the Alaska permanent fund and to appropriations from
the Alaska permanent fund.
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the transfer of a title to a boat on the
death of the owner; relating to the transfer of a title to a
vehicle, including certain manufactured homes and trailers, on
the death of the owner; allowing a person to act for the
surviving spouse of a decedent to enforce liability against real
property transferred at death; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to absentee voting; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WOOL
04/05/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/19 (H) TRA, JUD
04/16/19 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/16/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/16/19 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/18/19 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/18/19 (H) Moved HB 123 Out of Committee
04/18/19 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/22/19 (H) TRA RPT 4DP
04/22/19 (H) DP: STORY, TALERICO, DRUMMOND, WOOL
05/03/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 18
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV;EARNINGS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
04/24/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/24/19 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/25/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/25/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/30/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/30/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/01/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/01/19 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/02/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/02/19 (H) Moved HJR 18 Out of Committee
05/02/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/03/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLES/BOATS: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
03/25/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/19 (H) STA, JUD
04/11/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/11/19 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/18/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/18/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/18/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/23/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/23/19 (H) Moved CSHB 110(STA) Out of Committee
04/23/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/24/19 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 5DP 2NR
04/24/19 (H) DP: WOOL, SHAW, STORY, KREISS-TOMKINS,
FIELDS
04/24/19 (H) NR: VANCE, LEDOUX
05/03/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNE RITGERS, Staff
Representative Adam Wool
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Summarized the provisions of HB 123 on
behalf of Representative Wool, the prime sponsor.
CARY SHIFLEA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 123.
WILLIAM HARRINGTON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 123.
KEVIN HIGGINS, Assistant Attorney General
Labor & State Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
123.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 18 as prime sponsor.
KEVIN MCGOWAN, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on HJR 18 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, the prime sponsor.
ALEXEI PAINTER, Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 18.
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced and presented on HB 110 on
behalf of Representative Spohnholz, the prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 110 as prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:22:36 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:22 p.m. Representatives Stutes, Wool,
Shaw, and Claman were present at the call to order.
Representatives Eastman, LeDoux, and Claman arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 123-ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
1:23:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "An Act relating to electric-assisted
bicycles."
1:23:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL introduced HB 123 as prime sponsor. He said
that the impetus for the bill was an incident during which a
constituent was pulled over and told he could not operate an
electric-assisted bicycle without a driver's license.
Representative Wool noted that motorized vehicles are defined by
statute, but electric-assisted bicycles are not. He said HB 123
would define electric-assisted bicycles and stipulate that they
be treated the same as bicycles. He explained that this means
an operator would not need a driver's license or helmet and that
the electric-assisted bicycle would not need to be registered.
He added that a municipality would be allowed the discretion to
impose different rules on electric-assisted bicycles.
1:25:28 PM
ANNE RITGERS, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, Alaska State
Legislature, began her PowerPoint presentation [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She addressed slide 1 and
said the objective of HB 123 is to regulate electric-assisted
bicycles as bicycles, to update statute to reflect technological
advances, and to clarify the law for consumers and retailers.
MS. RITGERS addressed slide 2. She said the definition of an
electric-assisted bicycle can be found in section 8 of the bill.
She explained that an electric-assisted bicycle is a bicycle
that is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in
contact with the ground, has fully operative pedals for human
propulsion, and is equipped with an electric motor that has a
power output of not more than 750 watts, provides assistance
only when the rider is pedaling, and ceases to provide
assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 miles per
hour.
1:26:45 PM
MS. RITGERS addressed slide 3, which featured a map of the
United States displaying the 36 states that have some type of
electric bicycle definition in statute. She noted that Alaska
is not one of those states.
MS. RITGERS addressed slides 4 and 5, which featured
illustrations of electric-assisted bicycles. She highlighted in
one photo the battery pack mounted on the main frame and the
motor located in the hub. She restated that all electric-
assisted bicycles have fully operable pedals. She noted that
some electric-assisted bicycles have the battery and motor
within the frame, making them appear more like normal bicycles.
MS. RITGERS addressed slide 6, which featured a photo of an
electric scooter and a photo of a moped. She clarified that HB
123 draws a distinction between electric-assisted bicycles and
electric scooters or mopeds. She noted that the latter do not
have fully operative pedals and have larger gasoline engines.
1:27:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW acknowledged the note made during the
presentation about the maximum speed of 29 miles per hour. He
noted that there is language on page 3, line 26 that reads "not
more than 15 miles an hour." He asked if this is conflicting
language.
MS. RITGERS said the definition to which Representative Shaw is
referring is of an "electric personal motor vehicle," which is
different from an electric-assisted bicycle.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW thanked her for clarifying that there are
two definitions.
1:28:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for an example of an electric personal motor
vehicle, defined in section 5 of the bill and in AS
28.90.990(a)(12).
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said the drafters deduced that the statute
refers to a two-wheeled, non-tandem personal vehicle like a
Segway.
1:29:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if electric-assisted bicycles are
currently regulated.
MS. RITGERS said electric-assisted bicycles fall into a gray
area because they do not fit any current definitions of a
vehicle in Alaska statute. She restated that the purpose of the
bill is to clearly define them.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the problem is that HB 123 is
attempting to fix.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL restated that the bill was conceived after
one of his constituents was pulled over while riding an
electric-assisted bicycle. He explained that the constituent's
driver's license had been revoked and the electric-assisted
bicycle being used to commute. He said the constituent was told
he could not operate it without a driver's license.
Representative Wool noted that there are motorized vehicle
regulations in statute that refer to a 50cc gasoline motor or
larger. He said electric motors are not currently defined and
HB 123 would fix that. He said the bill would also distinguish
between electric-assisted bicycles and other bicycles that do
not require pedaling. He said the latter would not be
categorized as "e-bikes" under state law. He restated the
intention to define electric-assisted bicycles and to treat them
like bicycles.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX mused that HB 123 would exclude electric-
assisted bicycles from regulation rather than regulate them.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that HB 123 would define them as a
class of bicycle not to be confused with scooters or other
motorized vehicles without pedals.
1:31:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that HB 123 would establish a statutory top
speed of 28 miles per hour. He asked what happens if the
industry decides to change the standard top speed to 30 miles
per hour. He asked if they those bicycles would all be treated
as motorized vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said there are different classifications of
pedal-assisted electric bicycles. Some, he explained, cease to
assist when the bicycle reaches 20 miles per hour while others
cease at 28 miles per hour. He said if there were a new
generation of electric-assisted bicycles that went up to 35
miles per hour with pedal assist, then - assuming HB 123 becomes
law - they would be classified in a different category of
motorized vehicles where helmets, registration, and a driver's
license are required for operation.
1:32:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the passage of HB 123 would
affect a situation in which Representative Wool's constituent is
pulled over again.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL remarked that, if the constituent is riding
an electric-assisted bicycle that fits the new definition and
the police officer is aware of the definition, then there would
be no reason why the constituent could not ride his electric-
assisted bicycle on roads just like a normal bicycle.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said it seems the legislature has not
given discretion to traffic officers to pull over people for
riding electric-assisted bicycles. He asked, "Shouldn't the
response just be 'this isn't a vehicle'?"
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he thinks there is confusion about
vehicles with a motor that should not be treated as motorized
vehicles. He restated that electric motors are not directly
addressed in statute. He said HB 123 would make 750 watts
about 1 horsepower - the maximum size for electric motors.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how a police officer would be able
to tell the different between a 750-watt motor and something
larger or smaller. He asked if there is some sort of visual
cue.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he does not have a definitive answer to
that question. He said a 2,000-watt motor would make the
vehicle larger, heavier, and allow it to go faster. He
suggested that a police officer who suspects that an electric-
assisted bicycle rider is going too fast could pull the rider
over to investigate. He mused that the officer would take a
commonsense approach to enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there would be a speed limit for
electric-assisted bicycles should HB 123 become law.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said they would be treated like bicycles and
there is no speed limit for bicycles. He said if someone hits
45 miles per hour riding a bicycle down a hill, that is legal.
He said the rider should be wearing a helmet, but it is not
required by state law. He said the same would apply for
electric-assisted bicycles.
1:36:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what happened to Representative
Wool's constituent who was pulled over.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he does not know. He said he thinks
the constituent was forced to walk home. He said he would
follow up to get the exact details.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she is attempting to figure out
whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed in statute,
or if it is a matter of ensuring police officers are aware that
a driver's license is not necessary for the operation of an
electric-assisted bicycle.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said it would be great to ensure police
awareness. He said most states have statutes that address
electric-assisted bicycles for the purpose of eliminating
confusion about what is and isn't a motorized vehicle. He
argued that HB 123 would clearly define what is an electric-
assisted bicycle.
1:38:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 123.
1:38:57 PM
CARY SHIFLEA said he owns an electric bicycle store but is
testifying as an individual. He said he has been riding
electric bicycles since 2012 and has found that they allow him
to get out more than he typically would. He said it is
important to clarify the state law and to avoid lumping
electric-assisted bicycles with 50cc motors, which he argued
would not survive litigation as electric motors do not have a
cubic centimeter displacement value. He said he supports
aligning state law with the Municipality of Anchorage's electric
bicycle law, which he explained HB 123 would do. He said it
would also align with the federal definition of what an electric
bicycle is through the Consumer Product Safety Act. He noted
that an industry standard enacted in 2016 ensures that electric-
assisted bicycles are stamped with a class 1, 2, or 3
distinction. He said 90 percent of the electric-assisted
bicycle industry is building to the 20 miles per hour limit
while only a few are building to the 28 miles per hour limit or
higher. He stated that if an electric-assisted bicycle goes
faster than 28 miles per hour or has a larger motor than what is
deemed fit, then it should be classified as a motor vehicle. He
said an electric-assisted bicycle that goes 28 miles per hour or
less should be treated like a traditional bicycle.
1:41:00 PM
WILLIAM HARRINGTON said electric vehicles of all type are
"really going gang." He suggested changing the term "bicycle"
to "personal wheeled electric vehicle, a PWEV." He noted that
electric skateboards and electric scooters are becoming more
popular. He said electric-assisted bicycles are not the same as
pedal bicycles just like a speed boat is not the same as a
rowboat. He stated that personal injury can only be worse in an
accident when a helmet is not worn. He said helmets should be
required for use. He asked how many tragic accidents will be
necessary before state legislators upgrade safety requirements.
He discussed the electric scooter companies Lime and Bird and
said their products should be included in the present discussion
as they will become more popular in the future. He argued that
electric-assisted bicycles should be licensed, registered, and
have a state-issued title.
1:43:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 123.
1:43:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if police officers should currently
be stopping people who ride electric-assisted bicycles.
KEVIN HIGGINS, Assistant Attorney General, Labor & State Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said, "That is a
much more complicated question than just yes or no." He said
the answer depends on the circumstances of the interaction
between the officer and the person riding the [electric-assisted
bicycle].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she does not understand that answer.
She said it is either considered a motor vehicle under state law
or it is not, regardless of the interaction between the officer
and rider.
MR. HIGGINS said the issue stems from the opaque definition of
-bikes" in statute. He said they are treated as motor
vehicles in one section, as motorcycles in another, and as
"motor-driven cycles" in yet another. He said they are not
currently regulated as bicycles or "off-highway vehicles." He
noted that the term "motorized bicycle" appears in some public
safety regulations, but that term is never defined. He stated
that, as it currently stands, electric-assisted bicycles must be
registered and insured.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for confirmation that HB 123 is
necessary to clarify whether electric-assisted bicycles should
be stopped.
MR. HIGGINS said he believes the bill would help clarify things.
He highlighted language located in section 3 on page 2, lines 10
through 13. He said the language is important because it would
allow the municipalities to develop their own regulations and
ensure that local law enforcement knows how to enforce them.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she thought the Municipality of
Anchorage already has regulations. She asked how it has
regulations if HB 123 is necessary to allow it to regulate.
MR. HIGGINS said he is not entirely clear about the Municipality
of Anchorage's regulations. He clarified that section 3 would
make it explicit that state regulation could not prohibit the
use of an electric-assisted bicycle, but this limitation would
not apply to municipal regulation
1:47:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if state law requires the use of a
helmet for motorcycle riders.
MR. HIGGINS said he believes it is not required for people over
the age of 18.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there are any rules about bicycle
helmets under state law.
MR. HIGGINS answered, "not under state law.
1:48:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the committee would hold HB 123 for
further review.
1:48:48 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
HJR 18-CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV;EARNINGS
1:49:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the Alaska
permanent fund and to appropriations from the Alaska permanent
fund.
1:50:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, said HJR 18 would do two things. First, he said,
it would roll the Permanent Fund earnings reserve account (ERA)
into the principal so that the entirety of the Alaska Permanent
Fund is constitutionally protected. Second, he said, it would
provide for an annual 5 percent of market value (POMV) draw from
the new, combined, and constitutionally protected Permanent Fund
that cannot be broken and cannot be overdrawn by the
legislature.
1:51:10 PM
KEVIN MCGOWAN, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, said it is worth noting that the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation has issued four resolutions
that mention support for a constitutionalized POMV: Resolutions
00-13, 03-05, 04-09, and 18-04. He quoted Resolution 04-09:
"Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Trustees that
the Board reaffirms its commitment to a constitutional amendment
that provides for protection of the Fund by application of a
POMV payout mechanism."
1:51:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why this is being presented as an
amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said there are two reasons, the
first of which is that the current structure of the Permanent
Fund is susceptible to risk. He said a "rough patch in the
economy or the markets" could cause the ERA to dramatically
contract and potentially hit zero. He noted that this nearly
happened during the Great Recession. He said that, under Senate
Bill 26 [Passed during the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature],
a zeroed-out ERA would mean an inability to fully distribute
Permanent Fund dividends (PFDs) and/or pay for certain public
services. He opined that HJR 18 would resolve the unnecessary
risk of having a volatile ERA and simply hoping it can survive
market downturns. He said the second reason for introducing a
constitutional amendment is for the legislature to resolve never
to draw more than a sustainable amount from the permanent fund.
He said 5 percent would be the cap and this would forever
protect the Permanent Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what he anticipates the impact of
the constitutional amendment to be on the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said there would be no direct
impact on the PFD and noted that the PFD is not mentioned in the
amendment. He stated he does not mean to pretend that there are
not indirect impacts to the PFD. He said, "When we talk about
the Permanent Fund [and] ... the state budget, everything is
interconnected." He said that, ultimately, HJR 18 would leave
it to the Legislature to decide what the PFD should be. He
said, if it were the will of the legislature, it could continue
to pay the full statutory amount of the PFD. He noted that this
year's dividend amount is approximately $1.9 billion and the 5
percent POMV draw is approximately $2.9 billion. He said HJR 18
intentionally does not address the question of the PFD. He
stated it is not his intent to promote a dividend of a certain
size through the amendment. He said his primary concern is that
there might not be dividends in coming decades if the Permanent
Fund is not fully constitutionally protected.
1:56:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HJR 18. After
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, he closed
public testimony.
1:57:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN highlighted language located in section 3
on page 2, line 8 of HJR 18. He observed that the proposed
constitutional amendment would take the unencumbered balance of
the ERA, which pays dividends, and deposit it in the corpus. He
asked why.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that section would
effectively roll the ERA into the principal of the Permanent
Fund. He said it is worth mentioning that the constitutional
amendment proposed in HJR 18 would not take effect until June
30, 2022. He said this means the Permanent Fund would remain as
currently structured for a few more years, so a future
legislature could elect to transfer funds from the ERA to the
principal or another account.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there is about $18.4 billion in the
ERA. He asked, assuming that amount moves to the corpus and the
state operating budget remains similar in size, whether the POMV
draw restriction would effectively reduce the size of the PFD
during a down year.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said there are two answers to that
question: one political, the other mechanical. Mechanically, he
said, the answer is no, as HJR 18 would do nothing to affect the
size of the dividend. He noted that Representative Eastman's
question is premised on the operating budget remaining
unchanged. He said that is a question of what the legislature
does and what Alaskans want. He spoke to the difference between
his personal priorities and those of Governor Michael J.
Dunleavy. "But," he continued, "nothing changes from present,"
as the legislature is currently determining how much money goes
to state services and how much goes to PFDs. He stated that,
should HJR 18 pass, it would mean that the legislature could not
draw an unsustainable amount of money out of the Permanent Fund
for any reason not for dividend funds and not for state
services. He said HJR 18 is agnostic in its reasoning; it
simply seeks to protect the Permanent Fund from an unsustainable
draw.
2:02:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the PFD is currently calculated
based on a 5-year rolling average so one bad year flanked by
good years would be averaged out. He suggested that, should HJR
18 pass and PFDs be limited by a sustainable draw, then a down
year could result in a small dividend or no dividend at all,
regardless of political will, as the rolling average could not
be factored.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Alexei Painter from
the Legislative Finance Division. He said, "HJR 18 looks at a
5-year average ... [and would not] change the statutory formula
for the dividend, so that would also remain a 5-year average."
2:04:48 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
Alaska State Legislature, said it is theoretically possible that
the dividend calculation would exceed the 5-year moving average
of 5 percent, though observed, "I think you would have to be
stretching the bounds of realistic investment growth, so that
you would have so much realized income that the dividend formula
exceeded that 5 percent." He opined that it would be extremely
difficult for the Permanent Fund to grow quick enough so that
the 5-year average would be insufficient. He noted that
previous down years caused the PFD to decrease much more
drastically than the moving average of the balance. For
example, he said, during the 2008-2009 recession, the dividend
calculation decreased from approximately $1,800 to about $800
because the one bad year brought the average down so far. He
noted that the value of the Permanent Fund decreased by less
than 20 percent during that bad year, so a calculation based on
the POMV would be more than adequate to pay for the PFD even if
there was a down year. He observed that the dividend will be
more volatile than the POMV will be, so bad market issues should
not cause any issues.
2:06:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN established a hypothetical scenario in
which a market crash results in no positive return on the
Permanent Fund. He asked how much would be available for
payment of a dividend and where the legislature would go for
that money.
MR. PAINTER asked him to clarify whether he is referring to the
current constitutional construct or--
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interjected that he meant his scenario to
occur after the passage of HJR 18.
MR. PAINTER said the 5-year average balance would still be a
positive number even if there is one year with no earnings. He
commented that changes in earnings should not significantly
affect the POMV draw because the draw would be based on balances
and not earnings.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said, "Let's say we have a year like this
year [except] we're not making any money because the market
crashed." He asked how much would be available to the
legislature to spend on the budget "and still draw a dividend
from that amount."
MR. PAINTER said, if HJR 18 were in effect, even if the earnings
were zero, the POMV draw would be based on balances through the
end of fiscal year 2018, so the full POMV draw of $2.9 billion
could still be spent. He said that represents the stability of
a POMV draw because there is still a balance available even if
there is a downturn in earnings.
2:09:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for verification that HJR 18 would
essentially eliminate the ERA and that earnings would simply
roll into the Permanent Fund. He continued, "Then ... if there
were $100 billion in the fund and the rate was 5 percent ...
then there would be $5 billion for the legislature to
appropriate as it sees fit." He added that the legislature
would also have revenue to spend, and from that sum would issue
dividends of a value based on its own determination.
MR. PAINTER said that is correct. He said the earnings amount
would not be the controlling factor, rather it would be the POMV
calculation.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether other accounts including the
Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) and the Statutory
Budget Reserve (SBR) Fund would be counted into the POMV
calculation, or if the draw only relates to the funds in the
Permanent Fund.
MR. PAINTER said it would only be the balances in the Permanent
Fund.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if it is true that the current POMV
calculation includes the "amounts in some of those other funds
that the Permanent Fund is managing"
MR. PAINTER said no, Senate Bill 26 specifically excludes from
the calculation "the Mental Health Trust money" and others that
are managed by the Permanent Fund.
2:11:21 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease from 2:11 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.
2:11:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that she heard HJR 18 in the House
State Affairs Standing Committee. She said she would not
support any legislation relating to the Permanent Fund until the
size of the dividend is determined.
2:12:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that HJR 18 attempts to enshrine
"budget strategy" and puts off determining the size of the
dividend "until everything else has been decided." He said that
is concerning to him, as it makes the dividend the lowest of the
legislature's spending priorities. He stated that his
constituents believe it should be a high priority.
2:13:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE Stutes moved to report HJR 18 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Stutes, and
Claman voted in favor of reporting HJR 18 out of committee.
Representatives LeDoux and Eastman voted against it. [Lacking
the required majority vote of the full committee membership, HJR
18 failed to move out of committee by a vote of 3-2; HJR 18 was
brought before the committee again at timestamp 3:07:36 PM.]
HB 110-VEHICLES/BOATS: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
2:14:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 110, "An Act relating to the transfer of a title
to a boat on the death of the owner; relating to the transfer of
a title to a vehicle, including certain manufactured homes and
trailers, on the death of the owner; allowing a person to act
for the surviving spouse of a decedent to enforce liability
against real property transferred at death; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 110(STA)
labeled 31-LS0422\U.]
2:15:10 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 110 on behalf of Representative
Spohnholz, the prime sponsor, and began the bill presentation.
She identified various people available to the committee for
questions.
2:16:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, said HB
110 would build upon the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death
Act (URPTODA) [House Bill 60, which passed in the Twenty-Eighth
Alaska State Legislature], which created the Transfer on Death
(TOD) deed. She said HB 110, which is similar to House Bill 273
introduced in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature and
carried by the late Representative Max Gruenberg, would extend
the TOD concept to titles for vehicles and boats. She explained
that HB 110 would allow an Alaskan to submit a form at the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to designate up to two
beneficiaries for his/her vehicle or boat. Upon death of the
owner, the beneficiary or beneficiaries would provide proof of
death to the DMV, submit a form, and pay associated fees to
receive a new title in their name or names. She said HB 110
would assist estate planners and simplify the estate planning
process so that families can avoid probate and other
difficulties related to passing down assets to beneficiaries.
2:18:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:18 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.
2:35:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ summarized her introduction from before
the at-ease. She explained that she is carrying the legislation
at the request of Representative Gruenberg's widow. She said
the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the Alaska
Automobile Dealers Association (AADA), and the Alaska Commission
on Aging (ACoA) all support HB 110. She noted that her office
has not received any formal opposition to the bill nor was there
opposition to House Bill 273.
2:37:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES observed that HB 110 calls for a two-step
process. She explained that, if she is the owner of the
vehicle, she would submit a form declaring a beneficiary who
would then return to the DMV after her death to submit another
form and claim the new title.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that is correct. She explained
that it would work like any other transfer of asset in which the
person bequeathing the asset indicates his/her beneficiary, who
then proves the death of the owner to claim the bequeathed
asset.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the process is different from the transfer
of a bank account upon death.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said it would require the presentation
of a death certificate as well as proof of identification. She
explained that the DMV wants there to be a form to document the
process.
2:38:48 PM
MS. HOLLAND began her PowerPoint presentation [hard copy
included in the committee packet] and addressed slide 2. She
spoke to the legislative history of HB 110 and similar bills in
other state legislatures. She noted that 18 other states have
TOD titles for vehicles and 7 authorize TOD titles for boats.
She characterized TOD titles as a national trend.
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 3. She said HB 110 addresses the
problem of probate, which can take anywhere from six months to
several years and can cost thousands of dollars in legal fees.
She noted that Alaska has a few existing remedies for non-
probate transfers of property, including joint ownership, which
requires a degree of forfeiture of certain ownership rights; an
affidavit for collection of personal property, which only
applies when the value of all vehicles is $100,000 or less and
when the value of all other personal property owned by the
decedent is $50,000 or less; and a living trust, which involves
naming a trustee to manage one's property after death and is
more complicated than a traditional will, meaning it is likely
to be more expensive. She said HB 110 seeks to avoid the
limitations and expenses associated with those options.
2:41:36 PM
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 4. She restated that HB 110 would
create TOD titles to reduce the need for probate, to provide
streamlined estate planning services to Alaskans at little cost
to the State of Alaska (SOA), and to expedite the transfer of
property to beneficiaries.
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 5. She noted that the information
displayed about the application process corresponds to the
earlier answer to Representative Stutes's question.
2:42:31 PM
MS. HOLLAND began a sectional analysis of the bill. She
addressed slide 6, which focused on sections 1 and 2 of HB 110.
She said section 1 would allow for owners of boats for which the
Department of Administration (DOA) issues titles to obtain a TOD
title. She noted that certain boats are exempt from the titling
requirements in AS 05.25.044, including boats less than 24 feet
long, boats federally documented by the United States Coast
Guard (USCG), homemade nonmotorized umiaks, and foreign vessels
passing through Alaskan waters in less than 90 days. She added
that, under AS 05.25.056(f), owners of boats less than 24 feet
long are still able to apply for a title through the DMV, so a
TOD title would be available to them should HB 110 become law.
She explained that section 2 of the bill would add TOD title
transfers of boats and vehicles to the existing list of
properties that can be transferred outside of probate.
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 7, which focused on section 3. She
explained that section 3 would create the mechanism of TOD
titles for boats and vehicles titled through the DMV. She
pointed to a photo of a motor home and said the DMV issues
titles for some manufactured homes that are transportable
without a permanent foundation and have plumbing, heating, and
air-conditioning. She said much of the language in section 3
was pulled from or is similar to the Uniform Law Commission's
language related to URPTODA, which created the TOD deed. She
discussed the processes through which TOD titles would be
obtained, changed, or revoked through the DMV and noted that the
legislation does not allow for the titles to be altered in any
other way. She clarified that the TOD title would automatically
be revoked if the vehicle or boat is sold. She said section 3
would also subject TOD titles to the decedent's creditors,
contracts, and liens, and lays out how liability would be
enforced upon TOD titles. She stated that it would work similar
to TOD deeds and that "the debt follows the asset," so the debts
and contracts associated with a bequeathed boat would be
transferred to the new owner. She said section 3 would also
establish that the owner retains full ownership rights until
death and that beneficiaries have the right to disclaim interest
in the boat or vehicle should they wish not to receive it after
the owner's death.
2:47:02 PM
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 8, which focused on sections 4
through 6. She said section 4 would clarify that a person
acting on behalf of the surviving spouse of the decedent may
demand to enforce liability against the decedent's property.
She said section 5 would allow customers to authorize the DMV to
automatically change their mailing address to match the address
used by the United States Postal Service (USPS). She explained
that many people who move to a new house change their address
through USPS but fail to do so through the DMV, resulting in the
DMV receiving a high volume of returned mail. She spoke to the
cost of having to send multiple copies of a document to multiple
addresses. She said section 5 is "an efficiency" supported by
the [DMV]. She noted that section 5 was added to the bill by
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
2:48:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP identified a 1970s-era vehicle pictured on
slide 8. He asked if the vehicle represents how long
Representative Gruenberg had been pushing this legislation.
After some laughter from the committee, he asked how long
Representative Gruenberg had advocated for this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ provided some historical context
including her understanding that Representative Gruenberg was
very active with the Uniform Law Commission as relates to
contracts. She provided additional information about URPTODA.
2:49:53 PM
MS. HOLLAND continued to section 6, which she explained would
clearly state that owners of vehicles for which the DMV issues
titles may obtain a TOD title.
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 9, which covered sections 7, 8, and
9. She explained that section 7 would give DOA the authority to
develop necessary regulations to implement TOD titles. She said
section 8 would apply an immediate effective date to section 7,
while section 9 would apply an effective date of July 1, 2020,
for all sections other than 7 and 8.
2:51:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, assuming HB 110 becomes law, what
the differences would be between death transfers for boats
versus real estate.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ answered that the passage of URPTODA
[House Bill 60] in 2014 created the TOD deed which allows for
the transfer of real property using a deed. She said this is a
similar mechanism to the TOD titles proposed in HB 110. She
said the idea behind HB 110 is to allow people with smaller
estates to avoid the time-consuming probate process when
transferring assets. She said a TOD deed would be "just about
instant." She established a hypothetical scenario about a
family fishing business wherein the elder dies and the younger
person would like to assume immediate ownership of the boat.
She said HB 110 would allow the younger person to efficiently
take ownership and immediately begin fishing with full
responsibility for the boat.
2:52:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 110. He recognized
that there was meant to be an invited testifier from AARP who
had previously been present but is currently unavailable. He
noted that he would allow her the opportunity to testify in the
future. After ascertaining that no one else wished to testify,
Chair Claman closed public testimony on HB 110.
2:54:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that a hearing for HB 115 was scheduled for
today, but time constraints will prevent the bill from being
heard. He announced his intention to hear HB 115 on Monday, May
6.
2:54:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he appreciates that HB 110 addresses
what can be a major hassle for people. He recognized that this
legislation would benefit Alaska's military service members and
their families. He spoke to his experience with the probate
process and observed that HB 110 introduces concepts that are
much needed in Alaska law.
2:55:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the bill distinguishes between
those acting in good faith and those who are not.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ answered that HB 110 would not affect
debt resolution issues. She noted that any responsibility
related to money owned on a vehicle would be transferred to the
beneficiary, so financial responsibilities could not be
circumvented through a TOD title. She added that proof of death
is required for an asset to transfer, so "fraud would still be
fraud."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked a question based on a hypothetical
scenario in which a relative with heavy debts dies and bequeaths
his truck to a survivor via a TOD title.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ answered that the purpose of HB 110 is
to create an opening for people who do not need to go through
the probate process. She said there would still be
responsibilities for liabilities if the decedent's estate has
liabilities. She suggested that the specifics of Representative
Eastman's scenario would be better addressed by a representative
from the Department of Law or the Alaska Bar Association's (ABA)
Estate Planning & Probate Law section.
2:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she would like to hear
testimony from ABA. She said it is her understanding that if an
item of property transfers automatically and does not have a
lien on it, then it is not part of the estate. She said it
would not matter if the estate owes $500,000 and a $500,000 boat
without liens is automatically bequeathed to a beneficiary, as
the beneficiary would not be liable for the debts of the estate.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that is also her understanding.
She noted that if there is a debt associated with the boat, then
the beneficiary would be responsible for that.
2:59:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is any cap on the value of
what can be automatically transferred. She remarked that the
issue is a major policy question of whether an estate and its
beneficiaries should be able to avoid [liability]. She
established a scenario in which a person operates a fishing
enterprise and owns the fishing boat "free and clear," but has
many other debts. Upon death, the spouse inherits the boat and
does not have to pay those debts.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he believes this bill only applies to boats
registered with SOA and specifically exempts vessels registered
with USCG. He noted that the typical fishing boat would be
registered with USCG and that there are not likely any vessels
registered with SOA that are as valuable as the one in
Representative LeDoux's scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said the boat in her hypothetical was just
one example. She said there could be items of considerable
value that get automatically transferred, leaving the creditors
of the estate with nothing to pay the debts owed to them.
MS. HOLLAND said there is no cap in HB 110 for value of vehicles
or boats that can be transferred upon death. She stated that
creditors can use a boat or vehicle as collateral to ensure
debts are payable. She established a scenario in which an
expensive car is automatically transferred to a beneficiary and
is thus removed from the probate process. In the scenario, she
continued, the individual who has died had considerable debts
and the value of the decedent's estate is not sufficient to
satisfy those allowed claims. She said the creditors would be
able to reclaim the value of the debt through the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she does not believe that is correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN concurred with Representative LeDoux.
3:03:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there could be scenarios in which
vehicles of very high value are transferred. He asked whether
HB 110 would clash with federal law as pertains to money/asset
transfers. He said he does not want to create a scenario in
which an Alaskan who acts in compliance with Alaska law is
surprised to find the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking
payment.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ suggested that the question would be
better answered by a representative from the National
Association of Estate Planners & Councils (NAEPC) or the Alaska
Bar Association's (ABA) Estate Planning & Probate Law section.
She said there are valid "policy call" discussions to be had.
She repeated that the purpose of the bill is not to allow people
to avoid responsibility for debts owed, but to find a
streamlined way for people with modest assets to avoid the
probate process. She addressed the earlier discussion about how
fishing vessels tend to be licensed through USCG and said HB 110
deals more with personal use boats. She expressed that she is
not clear whether a high-end yacht would or would not be
registered with USCG. She suggested bringing in an expert to
answer that question. She opined that it would be perfectly
reasonable for the committee to decide to place a cap on the
value of an asset that is eligible for a TOD title. She said
she wants to see a practical way of addressing high-value assets
that still allows people who own trailers, small boats, and
vehicles to transfer their assets to beneficiaries without the
use of an attorney.
3:06:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that part of the goal of estate planning
is to "plan ahead" and noted that estate planning attorneys
often advise people to transfer moderate and large assets during
their lifetime. He spoke about the process of securing loans.
He announced that the committee would hold HB 110 for further
review.
HJR 18-CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV;EARNINGS
3:07:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to rescind the committee's previous
action on HJR 18.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that rescinding
action would mean the committee would vote again on HJR 18.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, HJR 18 was before the committee.
3:08:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report HJR 18 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Kopp, and
Claman voted in favor of moving HJR 18 out of committee.
Representatives LeDoux, Eastman, and Shaw voted against it.
Therefore, HJR 18 failed to move out of committee by a vote of
3-3.
3:10:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB123 ver M 5.3.19.PDF |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Sponsor Statement 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Sectional Analysis ver M 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Supporting Document-Letters 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 PowerPoint Presentation 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Fiscal Note DPS-COM 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB110 ver U 5.3.19.PDF |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sponsor Statement 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sectional Analysis ver U 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Explanation of Changes ver M to U 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Document-Affidavit for Collection of Personal Property, ACS 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Document-Senior Voice Article 4.24.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Document-DoA Boat Titles 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Document-Questions and Answers 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Document-Trusts, ACS 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Document-URPTODA Summary 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Document-Letters 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 PowerPoint Presentation (Updated) 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 5.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB115 ver A 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Sponsor Statement 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Supporting Document-Alaska Absentee Ballot Application 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Supporting Document-Hawaii Permanent Absentee Application 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Supporting Document-Vote at Home Letter 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Additional Document-Alaska Permanent Absentee Voter Regulation 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Additional Document-Alaska Sample By-Mail Return Ballot Envelope 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Additional Document-Municipality of Anchorage Response to Security Questions 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Additional Document-Municipality of Anchorage Sample Ballot 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Additional Document-NCSL Absentee and Early Voting 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Supporting Document-Alaska Commission on Aging Letter 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Amendments #1-6.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
HB 115 |
| HJR018 ver S 5.1.19.PDF |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HJR018 Sponsor Statement 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HJR018 Sectional Analysis ver S 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HJR018 Supporting Document-APFC Resolution 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HJR018 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HJR018 Supporting Document-Public Comment 5.3.18.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HB123 Supporting Document-Public Comment 5.3.18.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |