Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1996 03:10 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 1996
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 479
"An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting
from equine activities."
- PASSED CSHB 479(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 118
"An Act relating to seafood marketing, to the definition of
`seafood' for purposes of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute,
and to an aquatic farm product marketing tax; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 118(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 487
"An Act amending the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
and the civil remedy of forcible entry and detainer as they relate
to mobile home park operators and mobile home park dwellers and
tenants."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 311
"An Act repealing the limitation on the hours a person may be
employed in a mine; and making a related technical amendment to
avoid changing the penalties for failing to make payments into an
employee benefit fund."
- PASSED CSHB 311(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 414
"An Act requiring conciliation panel review in a civil action
against an architect, engineer, or land surveyor; and providing for
an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 414(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 483
"An Act relating to the calculation of unemployment insurance
benefits; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 448
"An Act relating to eligibility for unemployment compensation
benefits."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 479
SHORT TITLE: IMMUNITY FOR EQUINE ACTIVITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/07/96 2650 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/07/96 2650 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/28/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/06/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 118
SHORT TITLE: SEAFOOD MARKETING/AQUATIC PRODUCT TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 131 (H) FSH, L&C, FIN
02/07/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/22/96 2853 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 3DP 1NR
02/22/96 2854 (H) DP: OGAN, ELTON, AUSTERMAN
02/22/96 2854 (H) NR: G.DAVIS
02/22/96 2854 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DCED, REV)
02/28/96 2942 (H) RES REFERRAL ADDED
03/06/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 487
SHORT TITLE: LANDLORD/TENANT TRAILER PARK ISSUES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROBINSON,Elton,Brown
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2692 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2692 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/12/96 2740 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON
02/19/96 2813 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BROWN
02/28/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/06/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 311
SHORT TITLE: CHANGE LIMIT ON HOURS EMPLOYED IN MINES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Toohey, Martin
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/18/95 1351 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/18/95 1351 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
01/24/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/24/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/07/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/14/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/28/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/28/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/06/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 414
SHORT TITLE: MANDATORY MEDIATION/DESIGN PROF LAWSUITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/12/96 2428 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/96 2429 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
01/29/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/29/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/31/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/07/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/21/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/21/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/06/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 479.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor for HB 118.
BRUCE SCHACTLER, Fisherman
United Fishermen of Alaska
Box 2254
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 465-4686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 118.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 114
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 487.
SHELDON WINTERS, Attorney
Lessmier and Winters
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 303
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 487.
BRAD BRINKMAN, Attorney
Botelho, Brinkman and Pearson
105 Municipal Way, Suite 300
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9455
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 487.
KAREN MORGAN
5905 Churchill, Number 62
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 780-4206
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 487.
SHEILA FOULKS
8477-60 Thunder Mountain
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 789-2935
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 487.
CHRISTINE BRITZA
P.O. Box 33046
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 487.
KAY MONTES
Box 20712
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6425
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 487.
JIM DAVIS, Attorney
Alaska Legal Services - Southeast Alaska
419 Sixth Street, Suite 322
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 487.
TRACI WALKE, Manager
Thunder Mountain Trailer Park
8479 Thunder Mountain Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-755
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 487.
WALLACE POWERS
Bering Straits Development Company
Box 1008
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-5252
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 487.
BEN MARSH, Executive Secretary
Alaska Manufacturers Association
2550 Denali
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 278-3615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 487.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSHB 311(L&C).
JOE THOMAS, Business Manager
Laborers, Local 942
315 Barnette Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-3139
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSHB 311(L&C).
DIXIE HOOD
Marriage and Family Therapist
9350 View Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-2068
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 311.
DON ETHERIDGE
Alaska AFL-CIO
710 West Ninth
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3737
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSHB 311(L&C).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-16, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was called to order
by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:10 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Sanders, Kubina, Elton and Kott.
Representative Porter arrived at 3:15 p.m., Representative Rokeberg
arrived at 3:25 p.m., and Representative Masek arrived at 3:27 p.m.
HB 479 - IMMUNITY FOR EQUINE ACTIVITIES
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the committee would address HB 479,
"An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting
from equine activities."
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor of HB 479, explained at the last
hearing on the measure there was testimony on the bill by affected
people. Those people have sent him some very appropriate
recommendations on how to amend the bill. He noted the committee
has a proposed committee substitute where lines 12 and 13 on page
2 were deleted because people who engage in equine activities, but
do not ride, train or drive an equine, such as a groomer, are
accepting the inherent risk involved with horses. Death or injury
of a spectator was not deleted. So the bill still exempts a
spectator that may be attending an equine activity.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 2, line 6, and said the word
"defective" was added as it related to equipment and tack. A
couple of the exemptions were combined into one.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 2, line 14, and said the
entire line was deleted and the word "product" was included after
"faulty or defective equipment or tack."
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 2, line 23, and said the
words "for sponsoring an equine activity," were included. There
was testimony that sometimes an organization may sponsor an
activity and not be related at all. They may just own a building
such as the old sports center in Anchorage which had some horse
shows. They only sponsored the event.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred the committee to page 2, line 30, and
said the wording, "or a person;" was added.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 1, line 9, and said the
wording "or an equine owner" was added to include those people who
own equines for personal use but does not provide them for an
equine activity as defined under "equine activity sponsor." He
said if somebody decides to sneak into a owners private barn and
decides to take a horse for a joy ride, the owner needs some
liability against this type of behavior.
Number 612
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved to adopt CSHB 479, Version C
dated 3/5/96. Hearing no objection CSHB 479(L&C), Version C, was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the committee substitute incudes the
recommended amendments he had just described.
Number 615
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA made a motion to move HB 479, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing
no objection CSHB 479(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Committee with the accompanying zero fiscal note.
HB 118 - SEAFOOD MARKETING / AQUATIC PRODUCT TAX
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Alan
Austerman, Alaska State Legislature, explained CSHB 118(FSH) brings
two new sources of revenue to the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI). First, the bill imposes an aquatic farm product
marketing assessment at .3 percent on the value of oysters. She
explained Representative Austerman was approached by Roger Painter,
and he wanted, on behalf of the mariculture industry, to be
assessed this amount to contribute to ASMI at the rate of .3
percent. Ms. Daugherty explained that also incorporated in the
bill is the 1 percent ASMI assessment to apply to cost recovery
salmon. According to information from the Department of Revenue
these fish are not currently assessed or taxed whatsoever. She
noted she has been assured that is the case by Paul Dick and Bob
Bartholomew. Ms. Daugherty pointed out according to the fiscal
note, it will only bring in $120,000 to ASMI. It is not a big
money maker and it is something that the fishermen approached
Representative Austerman on.
Number 931
BRUCE SCHACTLER, a fisherman from Kodiak, came before the
committee. He informed committee members he is testifying on
behalf of United Fishermen of Alaska. He said his organization is
getting towards the end of their annual legislative board meeting.
He explained he is a member of the Marketing Committee as well as
a member of the Aquaculture Committee, both of which have voted
unanimously to support HB 118. He said the Aquaculture Committee
as well as the entire board voted unanimously to support the bill.
Mr. Schactler pointed out that not all the hatcheries in the state
do cost recovery, but nearly all of them do. Those fish are caught
and sold on the open market to the same people who are buying all
the rest of the fish. The monies are used for the cost of running
the hatchery. He said he doesn't know where the $128,000 figure
came from because according to the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development there was $19.23 million worth of fish cost
recovered last year. At 1 percent, that comes out to $192,300.
The fishermen all support HB 118. Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association and Prince William Sound Aquaculture Association are
neutral on the bill. Mr. Schactler pointed out that all the
members of all the aquaculture associations are represented on the
Board of United Fishermen of Alaska.
MR. SCHACTLER referred to a previous hearing on the bill and said
there was opposition to the bill coming from the executive
directors of the aquaculture associations. Since that time, there
has been a lot of discussion. He said he didn't think any of the
corporations had met with their fishermen before the previous
hearing on the bill. He said the fishermen support this bill. He
urged that the committee talk with the people who are opposing the
bill, if any. Mr. Schactler said if anyone still opposes the bill,
it would probably be someone from management and not the people who
would actually be paying the bill. He said in Western Alaska,
which he considers the Kodiak area, there is an aquaculture
association where they do not do cost recovery. They are in the
black so they don't need to.
MR. SCHACTLER said, "The people from out West, I've spoken with the
people from Sand Point and King Cove. We feel that we're
subsidizing this batch of fish. Nineteen million dollars worth of
fish that is being put on the market and the other fish from
Alaska, from Nome all the way to the first guys in Cook Inlet that
do cost recovery, are paying for the marketing of those fish
through ASMI. So I believe this is a bill that is a winner for
everybody and I don't think you'll find any body in opposition of
it."
Number 1194
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to a provision in the bill and said
he thinks it is a foolish provision because it is just going to
take more fish and money out of fishermen's pockets. The
hatcheries can get as many fish as they need to run. He said it
doesn't make sense to tax nonprofit organizations.
MR. SCHACTLER said, "My only response is when we first brought this
to the floor, that was exactly the response we got from several
people from Southern Southeastern Aquaculture Association, in fact,
a representative of that organization. When you look at it from a
strictly regional point of view, that is correct. It is sort of
like just take it from this hand, put it in this hand. But when
you look at it on a statewide level from the perspective of my
presentation just now, you stood back and said, `You're right, I'm
wrong, I stand corrected.' Because it is -- we're dealing with a
worldwide market of fish and you have people in Alaska that are
supporting the marketing of those fish that are getting absolutely
no benefit from those fish. And the marketing, as you all know, is
in such sad shape that it needs all the help we can get."
Number 1372
There being no further testimony, REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a
motion to move CSHB 118, Version O, with attached fiscal notes and
individual recommendations out of committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSHB
118(FSH) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
HB 487 - LANDLORD/TENANT TRAILER PARK ISSUES
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 487,
"An Act amending the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
and the civil remedy of forcible entry and detainer as they relate
to mobile home park operators and mobile home park dwellers and
tenants."
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON, sponsor of HB 487, said she has
given the committee a proposed committee substitute.
Number 1455
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved to adopt CSHB 487, Version F, Cook,
2/28/96, for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSHB
487(L&C) was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the bill attempts to address problems
experienced by some owners of mobile homes which was brought to her
attention by residents in Juneau. She noted she has tried to
remedy these problems not interfering with landlord's absolute
right to collect space rent and balancing the concern of home
owners that they may lose their home and their investment in their
home without leaving a loophole for deadbeat tenants. Current
landlord tenant laws include a special section that relates only to
evictions from a mobile home park. The law includes this special
section because the legislature recognized that there is a big
difference between being evicted from an apartment you rent and
being evicted from a piece of land on which your home sets. She
explained HB 487 does three specific things. First, it allows the
court to take into consideration whether the landlord was adhering
to the spirit as well as the to the letter of the law. Currently,
courts are not permitted to consider whether or not the landlord
was motivated by a dishonest purpose or by a reason different than
the one given for the eviction.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained the second thing is it requires
the landlord to serve an eviction notice in one of three ways. The
first is to deliver it in person to an adult member of the
household. The second is to post it securely on the main entrance
of a home. The third is to send the notice by certified or
registered mail. Currently, landlords are allowed to simply post
the notice anywhere on the premise and also they can give it to
anyone at the trailer, including a child. Finally, it requires the
court to ask the homeowners how long it might take to move the
home. There is no specific time line set out in the current law.
It can be difficult and even impossible to move a mobile home,
especially if the home is an older home and/or if there is no place
to move it. It also gives you a time to sell the home.
Representative Robinson said the court should be able to allow a
reasonable period of time to sell or move a trailer. An important
aspect of the bill is that the homeowner must pay rent, in full,
and on time during this time.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she knows there are deadbeats out
there and there are probably too many of them. A majority of
mobile home park owners and landlords are honest hardworking people
who are trying to do their best for their tenants, but there are
some homeowners that have been the victims of the current law and
there are certainly some landlords who act with less than honorable
motives. Representative Robinson said we all know that life can
sometimes deal all of us a wildcard and that we've all probably, at
some time, asked for a break from a bill collector or the bank who
holds our mortgage or car payments. She said HB 487 attempts to
provide those special circumstances and to make sure that people do
not lose their homes due to one unfortunate circumstance. The bill
also tries to make sure that landlords are not stuck with a bad
tenant or situation that they've made every legal effort to
correct. In relation to that, she said she wanted to point out
that even though the committee substitute is not perfect, both
groups will be addressing the committee with some of their
concerns. She asked that the committee members work with her in
trying to get a fair piece of legislation through that takes into
account both the landlord and tenant.
Number 1653
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Robinson to address the changes
from the original bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to page 2, lines 21 through 23,
and said originally she had asked that 120 days be granted to
relocate the mobile home after eviction. Now it requires that for
an eviction the judge include a specific period of time to vacate
the space or to move or sell the mobile home. She said the section
speaks to what the judgement must include.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if those lines also correlated with paragraph
3 on page 2, lines 16 through 18.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained that is a new section which also
refers back to the (indisc.-coughing). She referred to page 3,
lines 1 through 4, and said it adds two additional ways for a
notice to be served. One is by securely posting the notice on the
main entry of the premises. In talking with landlords, they felt
that there are often situations where someone avoids receiving an
eviction notice. She said she believes the current practice is
that the notice can be placed anywhere on the premise. This change
would make it clear that it had to be securely posted on the main
entry of the premise or sending it by certified or registered mail.
Representative Robinson said the original version gave one means of
serving the notice which was in person to an adult.
Number 1757
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to leaving the period of time to be
determined by the court and said if the court elected to find out
how long it generally took to sell a trailer in Anchorage, and that
turned out to be six months, would she guess that the court would
then allow six months.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her original language was 120 days,
but after talking with the mobile home park owners in Juneau, they
felt that it was better to leave the decision in the hands of the
judge. She came up with the 120 days originally by talking to
different real estate agents where they were asked what the
approximate time is to sell a mobile home. Currently, in some
cases, people get only 30 days. That is adequate time to move a
mobile home if there is a place to move it to. In most cases,
especially if it is an older mobile home, there really is only one
option and that option is to sell it.
Number 1827
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the committee substitute and
said it appears that in order to get any kind of disposition of the
property, you'd be forced to go to court and get a judgement.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON pointed out the only reason that would be
is if the eviction was being contested. Again, if you own a mobile
home and you can't move or sell it within the period of time that
you've been given to be evicted, she would assume in most cases it
probably would go to court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the existing landlord tenant
law and said a landlord can evict a tenant, for no cause, from an
apartment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that is not true for a mobile home.
She referred to a person who rents mobile home that may be owned by
someone else and said you'd still fall under the same laws as any
other eviction regarding owning a piece of property. What is
different here is "I own the mobile home and it is on your
property." That is where the difference lies. "If you evict me
from you're land, if I can't move my home or if I can't sell my
home, then I lose my home to you." She said all she is asking for
is a fair playing field. Representative Robinson said, "If you
evict me, that I have adequate time. First of all I have good
notice. I have been noticed that I'm being evicted and that's why
we have put please post it, don't just post it anywhere on the
property. Please give it to an adult, not a child because this is
a very serious matter. And then thirdly, if I am going to be
evicted, give me time - adequate time to basically sell and move my
home during the time I'm paying the rent. And again, I'm not
saying they can do it without paying the rent. As I understand, in
some cases, the judge actually has ordered that if they didn't pay
their rent that they could be evicted within five days."
Representative Robinson said there are people in attendance at the
meeting that might be able to give a little more understanding of
some of the circumstances and things that have occurred.
Number 2004
SHELDON WINTERS, Attorney, Lessmier and Winters, came before the
committee to testify on HB 487. He informed the committee trailer
park owners have a vested interested in keeping tenants. Mr.
Winters pointed out that currently any eviction for nonpayment of
rent or violation of a safety rule, etc., requires notice and an
opportunity to cure. You don't pay your rent, the landlord has to
give you notice. He referred to legislation passed last year and
said if you give written notice, you've got seven days to cure. He
said he thinks one of the reasons why they gave it seven days was
because of you give ten days or two weeks to cure, if they don't
cure then you have to go to court. When you get a court date, you
could be looking at six weeks. When two or three months go by,
you've got someone who hasn't paid rent. Mr. Winters pointed out
there is a notice and a cure provision that is already in effect.
MR. WINTERS said Representative Robinson told the committee that
there are already strict limitations on trailer park owners. You
can only evict for four reasons. One is if you decide to change
the use of the land. You have to give the tenants six months of
advance notice. The second reason is if the tenant has actually
been convicted of a crime, that crime continues and it deals with
safety and health issues. The third is if you're in violation of
the lease rules that are detrimental to the health, safety and for
nonpayment of rent. He said absent one of those four criteria, you
could stay there forever.
MR. WINTERS explained there is a statute in effect, that was
addressed in the Sharp case, which is a good faith requirement. In
every case the court has to look at it in good faith whether it is
an apartment owner or a trailer park owner.
MR. WINTERS referred to the bill and said the first two sections
deal with the good faith requirement. He referred to being
involved in the Sharp v. Trail case and said he would tell the
committee some of the facts of that case. The Trails had a trailer
park business and a construction business. Mr. Trail wanted to use
part of his land to park his construction equipment on. Mr. Trail
gave notice to the Sharps that he wanted to use some of his own
land for his construction business. He gave the Sharps 180 days
notice. The Sharps abandoned their trailer, they stopped making
payments and left. A year goes by and the trailer stays there, no
payments are made on the trailer and, of course, their lender says
that they are going to repossess the trailer. They repossess the
trailer. Two years go by and the Sharps decide to sue the trailer
park owners. The trailer park owners go to court and say, "Look,
we wanted to change the use of the land, we gave them notice, we
did change the use of the land, we've always kept the use
consistent, it wasn't any side effort to try to get rid of these
people." Mr. Winters said the trailer owners came back and said,
"Well, wait a second, we remember a few years ago that you said
something like you didn't like the looks of our trailer and that
creates an issue of fact and we want a trial on this good faith
issue." Mr. Winters said the owners moved for summary of judgement
and the case went to the supreme court. The supreme court said,
"Yes, there is a good faith requirement and yes it does require
objective good faith, and yes, it even requires subjective good
faith and you have to look at that, but you have look at it in the
context of what was done - the conduct that was taken and if there
was a change in the use of land. If in fact the change was in good
faith and all evidence shows it was in good faith, we're not going
to have a full blown trial just because these people come in and
say, `Well I remember a few years ago that you thought my mobile
home didn't look good'."
MR. WINTERS said that was basically the ruling of the Sharp case
which he thinks is good law. He said the bill would require, in
every single case, this determination of whether there was any
other motive. You will always go to trial. All the tenant has to
say is, "I think this is bad faith and you're going to end up in a
trial." Mr. Winters said he believes the good faith provision in
the bill should go forward. He said there is already a good faith
standard.
Number 2251
MR. WINTERS referred to Section 2, subsection (2), and said before
granting or denying the plaintiff recovery of possession, the court
must consider what is equitable to the parties. That basically
throws out any standard we have. If someone doesn't pay rent, then
the court is going to have a trail on what's equitable, what's fair
and whether there was a good reason for not paying rent.
MR. WINTERS said the problem with the good faith requirement and
the things this bill wants the court to inquire into is that in
some cases you shouldn't have to go into the existence of a bad
faith motive. If you don't pay your rent and you are two or three
months in arrears, that ought to be grounds for eviction. You
shouldn't have to have a full blown trial if a tenant says, "Well,
I think you're also evicting me because you don't like my looks."
He said that is what the bill would require.
MR. WINTERS referred to subsection (3), and said before granting
the plaintiff recovery of possession, the court should inquire into
what would be an appropriate and sufficient time for disposition of
a mobile home. He said he has problems with the language. Mr.
Winters said this applies to any reason. He said if he has already
given six months advance notice, would he have to ask the court to
determine how much longer they need. They have already been given
six months notice for change of use of land. Mr. Winters said he
doesn't think the issue should be disposition. If these people are
evicted because they violated a crime or they're committing safety
violation, are we then going to allow them a time to figure out how
long it takes to sell their trailer? Mr. Winters said the bottom
line is that they are evicted, they're out of the park. It doesn't
really matter whether they can sell it, transfer to another park or
store it in some other place. The issues is eviction, not
disposition of the trailer.
MR. WINTERS said another concern is the issue of paying rent in the
interim. If the court says, "You have four more months to dispose
of the trailer," how are we going to ensure that person pays rent?
Mr. Winters said the court already, in any eviction situation,
doesn't say "You're evicted, get the trailer out of here today."
The court always looks at how much time you need. Basically, it's
varied, it's been from two weeks to six weeks. They do say, "You
need to pay rent during the interim." He noted they very rarely
pay rent during the interim. Mr. Winters said if there is going to
be a provision allowing these people to stay, there has got to be
some remedy for the landlord to receive the rent.
MR. WINTERS referred to what type of eviction is at issue and
asked: If a person has been convicted of a crime and is violating
safety and health regulations, should they be allowed to stay
another four months?
MR. WINTERS stated there is already a system in place. He said he
thinks the system really works and it is fair. There are ways to
go about doing this that is more fair to the landlord. Mr. Winters
referred to a concern mentioned by Representative Robinson about
losing the home. He referred to people who have house payments and
said if they miss their payment, they're going to lose their home.
That is no different in this situation.
Number 2445
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if a trailer owner falls behind in their
space lease...[END OF SIDE A]
TAPE 96-16, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. WINTERS said, "assumed that has progressed down where they
can't move that trailer, then the trailer park owner obviously has
a space that's not collecting rent. And so they declare the
trailer abandoned, they put it up for public sale. Anybody can bid
on it, including the owner, to pay the back rent, and then whoever
ends up owning that trailer, even the current owner, has to get it
out of there. And more often than not, you find a situation where
no one shows up for public bid and it's the obligation of the
trailer park owner to move it out of there, $500 to haul it out to
the dump or wherever. And they've just lost -- they don't recover
the space rent and they don't recover the cost of moving it.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there is a requirement in any of the
scenarios where the original owner would receive the balance of
funds.
MR. WINTERS said it is a public sale and the owner of trailer would
receive the balance of the funds. First, the back rent is paid and
the cost of the sale, etc. The law requires them to receive
whatever that balance is.
Number 046
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Winters if he has a problem with the
notice requirements in the bill.
MR. WINTERS said he and his clients do not have a problem with the
notice requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there may be a determination where the
court says you have six months to sell or move the trailer. The
way he reads the bill is that a trailer owner is required to keep
paying their space rent and if they don't, there is every
opportunity to use the remedies Mr. Winters was talking about
earlier. He said a landlord wouldn't lose rent under the
provisions of the bill, as he reads it. If you don't pay your
rent, you're out of there.
MR. WINTERS pointed out the bill doesn't provide for that. He said
the way he reads the bill is if the court gives you six months to
try to dispose of your trailer and the court will say, "And I
hereby order you to pay rent." It is just an order and even the
court can not get blood from a stone if the guy doesn't have money
to pay rent. The question is, "What happens then?" This bill
doesn't address that. He questioned whether they go back to court
and go through the same thing. Mr. Winters said the courts already
do give a period of time, but if they want to make it say, "The
court shall consider," and give it a period of time, he would
suggest that if they are given two months, the court should also
require that they pay a month in advance.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 2, lines 23 and 24, and said
the way he reads those lines is if the rent isn't paid when due,
then the provisions allowing the extra time for moving or selling
the mobile home are kind of null and void. The park owner then has
the option of just telling those people, "You're gone!"
MR. WINTERS said Representative Elton's point is well taken in the
sense that this has some doubt in it. He said it should be spelled
out.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Winters if he is saying it should be
paid in advance rather than when it is due.
MR. WINTERS answered in the affirmative.
Number 169
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to there being a public sale and
asked if some park owners don't just take over the trailer and then
rent it out to somebody else.
MR. WINTER said if they do, they're doing it illegally because they
don't have possession of that trailer. He said you have the right
to evict the trailer, but you don't have a legal right to go in and
occupy and re-rent it. If the park owner bought the trailer at a
public sale, then they could rent it.
Number 208
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Winters if that is the only way
an owner can take possession.
MR. WINTERS said that is the only way he knows of legally. He said
it is not the mobile home park owner's property to take.
Number 231
BRAD BRINKMAN, Attorney, Botelho, Brinkman and Pearson, was next to
address HB 487. He noted he represents Switzer Village Mobile Home
Park. Mr. Brinkman said he has been an attorney for 19 years and
used to work for Alaska Legal Services. He informed the committee
Switzer Village Mobile Home Park has 300 trailer spaces and HB 487
would have a large impact on running that operation. Mr. Brinkman
said he agrees with Representative Robinson that the bill is not
perfect. It needs an awful lot of work.
MR. BRINKMAN said the legislation was for the purpose of agreeing
with the dissent in the Sharp case. The problem is that the Sharp
case is not a breach case, it is not really the normal case for
landlord/tenants. It is where a trailer park said, "You're not in
breach, you paid our rent, you haven't had loud parties, we haven't
been getting phone calls from your neighbors, you don't have trash
all over the household. What we do is we want your space, you've
been paying everything - get out. He said that is a totally
different situation, but that is what the purpose of the
legislation is about, and it has no bearing on what the issues that
the committee is talking about.
MR. BRINKMAN said, "In a breach situation there is a contract, a
lease, that says `Don't have loud parties, we don't want phone
calls from your 14 neighbors, don't throw trash all over the place,
don't leave your boats and cars parked at an angle, don't fight
with people, don't have your dogs bite people, pay the rent on
time.' There is a breach, then the landlord must already, by law -
- this is why I don't think that this bill is necessary, but by law
and I refer to Alaska statute 34.03.220 (a), that says, `If there
is a material noncompliance by the tenant of the rental agreement
or by statute, then the landlord must give a written notice
specifying - specifying the acts and the omissions (indisc.) breach
and shall specify that the rental agreement will terminate upon a
date not less than ten days after service of the notice.' Now if
the breach is not remedied, not cured, the rental agreement
terminates and, of course, the person can go in and ask for an
eviction order by the court. Section (b) of that same statute says
the same thing only it refers to rent. So we've got a lease that
says pay the rent by the first of the month. That goes by, at
least in our case, we give them five days grace period. We send
out a notice. It may be four or five days to get that done. We
tape it on the trailer - the door. Then they don't pay or another
party occurs or the cops show up again. And so we've given them
time to cure and they don't cure and then we go to court and have
a hearing to evict the trailer. Why I disagree with the first
section of this bill is, for example, it says `The court shall,
notwithstanding any provisions of the contrary, inquire into
whether the plaintiff has acted in good faith.' Well out of
default the plaintiff knows he didn't pay the rent. The plaintiff
knows they've had the cops there five six times, the plaintiff
knows they're in breach. Why then does the court have to inquire
whether the plaintiff acted in good faith when the defendant hasn't
even shown up." Mr. Brinkman suggested that should probably be
changed to a "may."
MR. BRINKMAN explained that the bill says the court should inquire
into the good faith of the tenant, anytime, for any reason set out
in AS 34.03.225 (a) which discusses when you can evict a mobile
home. Mr. Brinkman said since this talks about the Sharp case, the
only portion of that statute the Sharp case addressed was AS
32.03.225 (a) (4). That is the change of circumstances where the
landlord can say, "Get out, we don't need a reason. We just want
to change the park." Mr. Brinkman said, "But in this case, because
the prior statute says, `O.K.' and this is what the language I
don't understand in this says `The court should look at the motive
of the plaintiff and you should not have - do an eviction for any
reason not expressed in the notice and you should not do it for any
dishonest motive.' But in all landlord/tenant cases the notice has
to say, `Here's the breach.' You have to specify it. Secondly, you
have to give them an opportunity to cure the breach. Thirdly, if
the breach is cured, you cannot evict."
MR. BRINKMAN referred to the second point and said, "If the notice
does not specify the reason why they're being evicted and give them
the opportunity to cure, if for example, there is some unexpressed
or some ulterior motive, then the tenant has not had an opportunity
to cure, the court will not grant the eviction, and in fact the
court will turn around and order attorney fees assessed against the
mobile home park operator. So what I'm saying is the bill is
already addressed with regard to these breach provisions in AS
34.03.220, and it's not necessary with regard to that portion of
the bill.
MR. BRINKMAN said, "With regard to the second section, `before
denying or granting the plaintiff recovery of possession, consider
whether plaintiff's recovery of possession is equitable to the
parties,' that is a Pandora's box. I mean gee, I admit I didn't
pay the rent, and you probably will hear single horror stories from
individual tenant around the (indisc.). But frankly, I've done
perhaps 100 eviction notices in 20 years and I've heard a lot of
things and it is much like this: `I got back to drinking last
month, I lost my job, I drank up all the money, I didn't pay the
rent for the last couple of months but - and I admit all of these
things - and the cops came and everything else, but gee it would be
equitable if you would let me stay there because I got a couple
kids to take care of, it's the winter time - and if you do this to
me you're gonna ruin my recovery.' I mean if that's what provision
2 is, you have listed a Pandora's box that you're gonna have
differing judgements from differing judges through every judicial
district throughout the state. And I would ask that the committee
simply contemplate wiping that out because that's no standard
whatsoever."
MR. BRINKMAN said he agrees with Mr. Winters in that if you're
going to inquire into someone's subjective intent or whatever,
you're going send everybody to the court house and you're going to
send them there for a day or two of trial. If there is a breach
and everybody admits it, then there should be an eviction.
MR. BRINKMAN referred to granting the plaintiff recovery of
possession as to inquire about appropriate and sufficient time for
disposition and said he has a couple of points to address. Mr.
Brinkman said, "I think the committee was saying `Well, gee, if
they don't move the trailer, then I think there is a
misunderstanding that the park ends up owning it.' That's not
true. Mr. Winters was correct, there is a public sale done. In
the majority of cases, the bank owns the trailer. There is a lien,
there is UCC financing lien on this property. So if the owner is
not paying the rent, they're usually not also paying the bank. The
park just can't come in take the bank's trailer or the person's
trailer. All they're entitled to possession of the land underneath
- their land underneath. The mobile home operator can take it and
store it some place until another opening opens up in another park.
They can sell it, but it's not the park owners right to go back in
take possession of the trailer."
MR. BRINKMAN referred to Section (b) and said, "The courts already
do this. I had an eviction last month and the court said, `How
long is it gonna take you to move the trailer?' And he said `Oh,
two months or whatever.' And I said `You know, we're trying to get
the months down -- the next rent down the line. Could we perhaps
do it in six weeks or whatever?' And the court inquired to the
parties and I think the court gave him the six weeks to move the
trailer. But the court already does that on a case by case basis."
MR. BRINKMAN said he has the same problem as Mr. Winters with the
statement about the rent should be paid when due. He said in 80
percent of the eviction cases, it is for nonpayment of rent. Mr.
Brinkman said they've already served notices, paid processors and
filing fees, and have already gone through a trial. The person
didn't pay the rent. The courts already found that. Under the
legislation we would be saying, "Well, lets let them stay." Then
it will be the landlord's responsibility to incur further legal
fees to go back in and have another hearing about whether or not
rent was paid for month three, four, five, six or however long it
takes to either move the trailer or dispose if it. Mr. Brinkman
said they've already had that hearing. The tenant has already
breached and the court has already made findings. Now it is
incumbent upon the mobile home park operator to go back in and get
another fine that was already done in a previous hearing.
Number 698
MR. BRINKMAN referred to the notice provision and stated he doesn't
have a major problem with it. He noted they do it by posting it on
the door. Mr. Brinkman said he has a problem with the main
entrance as on some mobile homes there are two or three doors. The
park operator may not know which door is the main door, so maybe it
should be posed on all three doors. Mr. Brinkman said certified
mail doesn't work because if a person knows they haven't paid their
rent or there are bill collectors, they're not going to sign for
the certified copy of the mailing.
MR. BRINKMAN said he has a very strong problem with the equity
argument. He said he thinks that if a court says, "Well gee, this
person has more money than this person, so lets let the other
person stay in there even though they haven't been paying rent,"
that would be unconstitutional. It is a taking without just
compensation.
MR. BRINKMAN said, "The last point I would like to make is that
this bill - the effect of this bill, if you're going to put
trailers in who are not paying rent and let them stay for five or
six months and put in provisions about how long a trail is and
everything else, the ultimate affect of that is that the mobile
home park operator is gonna have to recoup his cost. He's got a
mortgage, he's got employees, he's paying for sewer, on going to
the tailer while it is still in eviction statutes, water electrical
lines to it usually, snow plowing and everything else. And if you
put onerous provisions upon his ability to get out breaching bad
tenants, people who have the police show up, people that don't pay
their rent, people who have garbage everywhere, then the ultimate
victim is not the park owner. The ultimate victim are the 295
other good tenants at Switzer Village Mobile Home Park who pay
their rent on time, who don't get into fights, who don't have
problems. And that is where the cost is going to be passed on to.
So I would ask that the committee take a hard look at this bill."
Number 847
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the statute in the supplement
and said he noticed that Section 34.03.225 was amended two years
ago. He asked Mr. Brinkman to comment on what was amended.
MR. BRINKMAN explained the amendment says, in subsection (a), you
cannot evict unless the person hasn't paid rent. It says that
mobile home park tenant has been convicted of a federal or state
law and that the violation continues. The third part is that it is
detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the tenants.
Number 1003
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to Mr. Brinkman's testimony where
it could be five or six months for the eviction and asked if he
sees anywhere in HB 487 where she wants somebody to have five or
six months before they would leave.
MR. BRINKMAN referred to HB 487, paragraphs 2 and 3 (b), and said
they indicate that the court can make any determination it wants as
to what is appropriate and sufficient in a disposition by sale or
by moving. He referred to Representative Robinson saying that she
spoke to realtors who said it takes 120 days to sell a trailer.
That is four months. He pointed out in a recessionary period it
may be longer.
Number 1084
KAREN MORGAN came before the committee to testify in support of HB
487. She explained she was 14 days late on her space rent in
January, 1995. Her check was sent on January 14, however, the
following Monday was a holiday and her rent check didn't get
postmarked until January 17. Ms. Morgan explained an eviction
notice had been given to her thirteen-year old daughter at her
home. She pointed out the assistant manager did not tell her
daughter that the document was an important document. The notice
fell behind the telephone stand until she had a knock on her door
where she was served with eviction papers. Ms. Morgan said her
litigation has continued for a year. Her daughter, feeling
distraught and responsible for not giving her the notice, tried to
commit suicide. Ms. Morgan said the decision was reversed by a
judge in that the eviction notice was not sufficient delivery to a
thirteen-year old. She said the notice should be handed to an
adult at the mobile home or it should be sent by certified mail.
MS. MORGAN stated she would also like to discuss the issue of
reasonable time to move. Ms. Morgan said if she had been evicted
in October, November or December, even if she found a space to move
her trailer to, it probably couldn't be done during those months
because of weather. During those months the ground is frozen and
her trailer couldn't have been set up for sewer and water. She
noted she has called several trailer parks inquiring about space
and there wasn't any space available. One trailer park manager
said if she were ten feet shorter, they would have given her a
space.
MS. MORGAN referred to another option which was to purchase private
land. She noted there are zoning problems with moving trailers on
to private land. Private land is very expensive in the Juneau
area.
Number 1328
MS. MORGAN explained when she bought her trailer in 1989, it was a
foreclosure and one of the clauses in her contract was that she pay
the back space rent. Ms. Morgan stated her rent was 17 days late
and she included her late charges in her rent check.
MS. MORGAN noted many mobile home parks won't take 15 plus year old
trailers. Her is 20 years old. If she can't purchase private
land, her only other option is to abandon her trailer.
Number 1429
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Ms. Morgan if she believes there was
another motive for eviction besides being late with her rent check.
MS. MORGAN said she believes her park owner has a very hidden
agenda. He has been forcing people out and has been buying brand
new mobile home. There is a manufacturer who has been giving
people good deals on mobile homes.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to the time while Ms. Morgan was in
court and asked if she paid her rent.
MS. MORGAN said she paid it to the court.
Number 1533
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if before Ms. Morgan was served with
the eviction notice, did she pay her rent on time.
MS. MORGAN explained she had been late before. She pointed out
when she signed the lease it said, "If you are late, if you do not
pay by the fifth, there is a $25 charge and then it is $5 a day
after that." She said the lease didn't state a cutoff time. The
late charges were always included. She said she would say they
were late maybe once every two years.
MS. MORGAN explained she received a packet of information from the
manager of her trailer park that stated, "Oh, we understand that
you're interested in selling your mobile home. If you'd like to
sell your mobile home, here are some applications because in order
to sell your mobile home, that's fine, you can sell it but we've
got to preapprove your buyer to rent the space."
Number 1970
SHEILA FOULKS was next to address HB 487. She referred to housing
in Juneau and said there are more and more park owners who are now
also selling trailers. she said she feels more people are being
evicted to make more room for the new trailers. Ms. Foulks said
she has at least a $30,000 investment on someone else's land and
the land investment is a month to month tenancy with rules that
seem to change. The landlord/tenant laws are to protect the
tenant, but there is not enough protection or reasonable time to do
anything. Currently, there are no spaces in Juneau to move
trailers to.
MS. FOULKS indicated that trailer parks don't always meet some the
city and borough ordinances. It seems the city and borough
ordinances seem to go one way - against the tenants. Trailers get
evicted for not being up to city and borough codes. She explained
she had received some "fix up notices" and said when she replied to
some the things she didn't feel should be applicable, she received
another notice, "Notice of Intent to Terminate." This was not
because she was behind in her rent. She felt she shouldn't have to
do some of the things she was asked to do.
MS. FOULKS said if you own a trailer and you rent it out, the
notice would be tacked on the door and the owner may never know.
The management knows who owns the trailer because you have to
notify them that you're renting your trailer. Ms. Foulks said the
bill is not a perfect bill, but she feels there needs to be some
added protection.
Number 1970
CHRISTINE BRITZA was next to address HB 487. She explained she
bought herself a trailer in Sprucewood Mobile Home Park in
February, 1993. Ms. Britza noted she works for the state. She
said she rents a room out in order to help her pay space rent. On
November 11, she was given a notice of termination of tenancy
because she paid her rent late. The reason was because she to make
payments for car insurance, IRS, her mortgage payment, trailer
insurance and property taxes. Ms. Britza said she tried to get in
touch with the owners of the trailer park on November 16, and
couldn't reach them. She said she called the Coogan Development
office in an effort to obtain the telephone number for Sprucewood
Park. She obtained the number and called twice and her phone call
was never answered. Ms. Britza said she mailed her check on
November 20, which was the last day for her to make her payment.
She said she put it in the mail at 4:30 p.m. and had thought the
sign on the mail receptacle had stated that the last pick up was at
5:00 p.m. Ms. Britza later found out it said, "In this area." She
stated she finally found where Coogan Development's business
trailers were. She noted in the area of the office there are two
streets with similar names.
MS. BRITZA explained James and Sheila Wilcox owned Sprucewood Park
when she moved in, she and her lienholder had to sign the lease
agreement. They considered the lienholder an equitable interested
party to the property. When the new park owners took over, they
didn't notify the lienholder of taking over the park. They didn't
get the lienholder to sign the lease agreement and didn't give him
notice of eviction.
MS. BRITZA referred to the check she mailed to the landlord and
said it was one day late, post marked for November 21. The check
was sent back to her and she was notified that her landlord was
taking her to court to evict her. Ms. Britza informed the
committee of the different ways she had tried to satisfy the
landlord. She stated she believes eviction notices should be
posted on the front door and also should be sent by certified mail.
TAPE 96-17, SIDE A
Number 001
MS. BRITZA discussed her experience in attempting to find land to
put her trailer on. She pointed out everything was due to being
one day late on a notice of termination of tenancy even though she
took good faith action to try to rectify the situation. Her
landlord isn't giving her any alternatives other than to move the
trailer.
Number 102
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Ms. Britza if she is still in court.
MS. BRITZA said she went to court on December 8, they granted the
order to vacate. She was told by Coogan Development, on December
7, that they were willing to work out something reasonable about
whether or not she intended to sell or move. On December 13, she
called Coogan Development to set up an appointment to discuss what
her options were. She said she spoke to Lloyd Coogan and he told
her he would check with his attorneys to find out the legal
ramifications of allowing her to stay. Ms. Britza continued to
inform the committee of her dilemma. She told the committee she
missed her 30 day time period to appeal the decision, but is still
going to appeal under Court Rule 60 B, because she believes they
breached the contract and there is a premeditated intent to upgrade
the park.
Number 350
KAY MONTES was next to testify. She informed the committee she
works as a paralegal for Alaska Legal Services. Ms. Montes
explained she has been an owner of mobile homes for approximately
the last 16 years. She discussed a situation that occurred in
Juneau where over 100 low income families were evicted from their
homes. She indicated very few of the mobile homes were ever
actually moved to new mobile home parks and the ones that were
moved were the newer homes. Almost of all the homes were stored
and were eventually destroyed for scrap metal. The reasons other
mobile home parks refused these trailers was due to the lack of
space and the age of the trailers.
MS. MONTES informed the committee she currently has a mobile home
in Sprucewood that she rents out. She said at one point in time
she received a notice to quit because of some technical things that
needed to be done as the owners were making an effort to upgrade
the park. However, despite the fact that she had notified the
owner of the park she wanted all notices sent to her at her
address, the notice was given to the ten year old son of her
renter. The child didn't give the notice to his mother until two
days prior to the expiration of the notice period. Ms. Montes said
the notice needs to be given to the owner of the mobile home and
not to the tenant of the mobile home.
MS. MONTES referred to owners of trailer parks being in the
business of keeping tenants and said that is true, but they're not
necessarily in the business of keeping the tenants they have. To
her knowledge, there is not one trailer park in Juneau, with the
exception of newly developed parks in North Douglas, that actually
meet current City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) mobile home park
codes. However, all of the parks are grandfathered in under the
old code as long as they don't increase their number of spaces.
She said it was explained to her by the CBJ Planning and Zoning
Commission that if a mobile home park owner were to actually add a
space, then they would be required to bring the entire park up to
code including playgrounds, lighting, etc. Therefore, a mobile
home park owner may be highly motivated to evict an older mobile
home in order to have the ability to move a new trailer in. It is
becoming more common for mobile home park owners to purchase new
trailers and as soon as they can seize the opportunity to get rid
of one tenant, they move a new trailer in for their financial gain.
MS. MONTES pointed out a mobile home park owner has the right to
refuse to enter into a new rental agreement with a potential buyer
for a mobile home. Likewise, a mobile home park owner has the
right to refuse a particular mobile home owner to rent to a
particular new potential tenant. Ms. Montes said it is very
important that adequate time be granted to mobile home park tenants
to attempt to sell their homes or secure new spaces. She discussed
problems that could occur if somebody is in the hospital and
doesn't receive a notice. Ms. Montes urged the committee to
consider moving the legislation.
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that it was not his intent to
move the bill at this time.
Number 1034
JIM DAVIS, Attorney, Alaska Legal Services - Southeast Alaska, was
next to come before the committee. He said he would like to point
out that in the real world in Juneau there are people who have
lived in their mobile homes for 15 to 20 years. After being late
one time, some of them are homeless. He said he isn't talking
about deadbeat people, he is talking about people who want to pay
their rent. He said Alaska Legal Services has represented people
who have offered to pay their rent three months in advance and the
landlords refused. He said the business of landlords is not to
keep tenants, it is to make money. If the landlords in Juneau and
elsewhere in the state find that it is more profitable to evict an
older mobile home and put a brand new one in and make $15,000, that
is what a business person will do.
MR. DAVIS informed the committee of a situation where a tenant was
late on her rent because she was in the hospital having a baby.
She tried to pay her rent and offered rent in advance when she was
released from the hospital and the mobile home park owner refused.
Mr. Davis said the landlord had purchased a new mobile home to put
on her spot.
MR. DAVIS said he thinks the bill is trying to get at what the
system is designed to do which is fairness and equity. He pointed
out that if an owner doesn't receive a notice because it was served
to a child, etc., and then they receive a notice to go to court, it
is too late once you're in court to cure the problem, you've lost.
Mr. Davis said he would never ask that a deadbeat person be given
a break, all he is asking for is fair notice so that the problem
can be fixed.
MR. DAVIS said the bill talks about "May a judge look behind what
a landlord says." It is important that the bill pass for that
reason. He said he had a case where a woman is being evicted and
it was because a landlord wants to get the old mobile homes out of
the park. Mr. Davis said the landlord even admitted to this in
court. He explained that what is really happening in the courts is
judges feel constricted and prohibited from going beyond the stated
legal reason.
MR. DAVIS informed the committee that when there is a public
auction, buyers come and they are told, "Guess what, in the city of
Juneau the supply and demand is such that you can't move this
trailer anywhere, and guess what else Mr. perspective buyer or Ms.
perspective buyer, we're not going to let you keep the trailer
here. So your options are you can buy it, you can't move it
anywhere within 50 miles of here and you can't keep it here." He
said nobody will want to pay anything for it. Mr. Davis suggested
looking at previous public auctions that have occurred to see who
buys the trailers. He stated the landlords buy every single
trailer.
MR. DAVIS pointed out that everybody sometimes makes a mistake. In
this case, if a tenant makes a mistake, the result could be that
they lose everything. Mr. continued to give testimony in support
of the legislation. He asked that the committee move the bill
forward and said it is a step in the right direction.
Number 1501
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned what the most commonly used
methods are for eviction.
MR. DAVIS said it is either because you're late on paying your rent
or it is because of a rule or regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the right of a landlord is on
raising rent.
MR. DAVIS stated it is unlimited. If they wanted to double their
rent, they could.
Number 1558
TRACI WALKE, Manager, Thunder Mountain Trailer Park, was next to
address the committee. She informed the committee she manages a
mobile home park for her father that he has owned for 28 years.
Ms. Walke noted she has managed the park for 11 years. In 28
years, there has been three evictions. She noted during her
working experience over the 11 years, she did two of those
evictions. One was for nonpayment of rent. The second wasn't
actually an eviction as the judge terminated the lease because the
people were having parties, fighting, walking into other people's
homes. Of the two she evicted, the trailers went to public auction
because they were abandoned. The owners of both of the trailers
were given the option to sell them prior to abandonment. At the
public auction the owners didn't show up. When the first trailer
was auctioned, somebody outbid the opening bid and they got the
unit and then moved it to another park. She explained the trailer
park had to clean up the space in which there was collapsed
structure. It cost thousands of dollars that the park never
recovered. Ms. Walke referred to the second trailer and said by
default, the trailer park ended up with it because nobody out bid
the minimum bid which was approximately $4,000. She noted the
minimum bid was what the park had incurred in expenses. Ms. Walke
said they ended up selling the trailer for less than what they had
into it after they obtained possession through the public sale, by
default. She noted that home has also been moved to another park.
Both of those homes are over 20 years old, both were moved and both
found other spaces.
MS. WALKE explained over the last three years she has sold over 26
new units and they are located in four other parks in the Juneau
area. There are also units in Skagway, Haines and Gustavus. She
explained the size of her trailer park has been increased and they
have also made sales within the park. Improvements have been done
that benefit the tenants. Ms. Walke said she doesn't agree with HB
487. The Alaska Manufacture House Association (AMHA), based in
Anchorage, doesn't agree with it. She noted the AMHA represents
about 6,500 spaces in 30 mobile home parks across the state.
MS. WALKE informed the committee if the bill passes as it is
written, she is going to use AS 34.03.225 (A)(4) and will close her
mobile home park and build apartments. Because the trailer park is
paid for, they can afford to do it and will.
Number 1764
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked, "Are there though -- do you know of a
person, I mean you probably know every park person - park manager
here. Are there people that you feel like do not..."
MS. WALKE said there are a few bad apples, but not everyone should
be punished for a few bad apples. She noted she agrees something
should be done to stop the bad apples that gives all of them a bad
reputation. She said there are people she has had to take to court
and evict and then turned around and let them stay because they
were able to do what they were supposed to do - pay up their rent.
Some had extenuating circumstances and were afraid to talk to her.
Ms. Walke said you have to work with each person in each situation.
Number 1833
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Walke if she believes a notice
should be given to a child.
MS. WALKE indicated she doesn't believe a notice should be given to
a child. She said she sends certified letters and most of them
come back. She said she posts notices on the front door and also
mails notices by regular mail. You can't take a child to court,
you shouldn't be serving a child.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Walke if she believes there
should be a certain period of time for people to sell or move.
MS. WALKE said reasonable time.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it is the good faith section she
believes should be removed from the bill.
MS. WALKE said if the section was written appropriately, she would
tend to go along with it.
Number 1985
WALLACE POWERS, Bering Straits Development Company (BSDC),
testified via teleconference from Nome. He informed the committee
BSDC is also the owner of Valdez Mobile Home Park which has about
185 spaces. He pointed out his business doesn't have many of the
problems that are in occurring Juneau. He said he is opposed to HB
487 for a number of reasons. Mr. Powers explained BSDC does not
generally post notices under the rear bumper of the trailer anyway.
They are adequately posted. They frequently have contact with the
tenant before they begin any proceedings on eviction. There is
ongoing discussion with the tenants who are delinquent in their
rent. It is not a surprise to them when it comes time for an
eviction. He said they could live with the idea of posting notices
on the door and sending them by registered mail. He referred to
the time to vacate a space and said they are not in a situation, in
Valdez, where they typically evict people quickly. They enjoy
having them live in the trailer court. They are in the business to
rent the space. Mr. Powers explained that they deal with people
who have seasonal jobs, so they go a little extra distance trying
to work with some of the people who have seasonal incomes. In many
situations, they may go two or three months without collecting rent
because they don't want to go through the eviction process as it is
expensive. Mr. Powers said, "We're concerned about any extension
of time that may be required. I guess if in practice the courts
start extending more time to these people to allow for their
circumstances, then ya, we're going to bring the period back and we
start requiring evictions, way back. I mean instead of three -
four months, we're gonna start doing it much sooner." Mr. Powers
said the rest of Alaska might have some slightly different
circumstances than what is happening in Juneau. The idea of there
being an extension of time, assuming the rent is paid, that is
fine, but it also leaves the door open if the judgement is not
worded correctly, if it is not self executing, they are back in
court.
MR. POWERS referred to the good faith provision and said he knows
there are a lot of professions where everything one does that
someone else disagrees with is an act of bad faith. The courts
already bend over backwards trying to afford mobile home park
tenants against eviction. This is due to the difficulty of trying
to relocate these trailers. The court recognizes it and they allow
for these things. Mr. Powers pointed out that at the Valdez Mobile
Home Park they have implemented one change of land use in the 20
year history they've owned the park. It is not a frequent
occurrence. He said he believes the other provisions being
included in the bill are rather onerous in the day to day
activities in term of routine evictions. Mr. Powers said they have
probably done about six evictions during the five years he has been
employed by them. He noted his company doesn't own a single
trailer in that park. If other operators of parks were to abuse
their tenants unreasonably, his company would welcome those tenants
with open arms.
Number 2158
BEN MARSH, Executive Secretary, Alaska Manufacturers Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, stating his
association has passed a resolution opposing HB 487. He noted he
would send a copy to the committee. Mr. Marsh said in Anchorage,
he hasn't heard of any complaints of the nature of the horror
stories he has heard that have taken place in Juneau. He said the
reports he has received from mobile home park owners is that it is
difficult to effect an eviction and if you do effect one, you spend
a lot of money and lose substantial rent on spaces. In Anchorage
there is space available, they don't have the same situation that
exists in Juneau. Mr. Marsh said HB 487 seems to open the
opportunity for tenants to string out eviction processes that are
already loose. He said the courts have the ability to effect
equity and in almost every case he is aware of, the courts do grant
extra time.
MR. MARSH said HB 487 is vague and opens up a whole can of worms as
far as providing opportunities for tenants to overcome evictions
which are probably legitimate. He said his organization is opposed
to the bill.
Number 2283
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Marsh what the space rent is in
the Anchorage area.
MR. MARSH said it ranges from $200 to $285 per month, in which most
of the utilities are paid for by the park owner.
Number 2302
There being no further witnesses, CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public
testimony. He said it is his intent to put the bill into a
subcommittee chaired by Representative Rokeberg. The members will
be Representatives Kubina and Sanders.
CHAIRMAN KOTT recessed the meeting at 5:25 p.m. to the call of the
chair. The meeting was called back to order at 6:00 p.m.
HB 311 - CHANGE LIMIT ON HOURS EMPLOYED IN MINES
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would hear HB 311, "An Act
repealing the limitation on the hours a person may be employed in
a mine; and making a related technical amendment to avoid changing
the penalties for failing to make payments into an employee benefit
fund." He informed the committee has a proposed committee
substitute.
Number 2340
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 311(L&C), Version 9-
LS0970\F, Cramer, 3/6/96. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor, came forward to comment. He said Deputy
Commission Flanagan spoke on the issue at a previous meeting. Mr.
Perkins said, "What we talked about - agreed to in the committee
and to come up with language is pretty much here except that on
line 7, it is the department's position and view that on line 7
where the number `10' is should be `8'. Also on page 1, line 13,
where the number is `10', it should be `8'. And then on page 2, on
line 2, it should say where it says `10' it should say `8' and
where the number `12' appears, it should be `10.'"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the language on line 1, page 2,
"the commissioner may grant a variance that permits employment,"
and asked if that is adequate language under the variance
procedure.
MR. PERKINS said he believes it is adequate language.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a variance procedure in
place.
MR. PERKINS said he believes Deputy Commissioner Flanagan said
there was various language to fall back on.
TAPE 96-17, SIDE B
Number 001
JOE THOMAS, Business Manager, Laborers, Local 942, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He noted he is also testifying on
behalf the Alaska State Federation of Laborers. He informed the
members he didn't have a copy of the committee substitute and isn't
sure how to testify.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "It places a restriction - eight hours at the
mine face, with the proposed changes that is, with a variance any
more than that."
MR. THOMAS said his organization would probably be in agreement
with that language. He noted he couldn't speak for everybody as he
hasn't presented them with the committee substitute. Mr. Thomas
explained their concerns are with safety and they have faith in the
Department of Labor and their ability to look at it. He referred
to the conclusions of Mr. Duchon's report and said he thinks he
also alludes in his conclusions that there does need to be some
monitoring of the situation. If the Department of Labor could do
that in their variance procedure, that would make him happy.
Number 072
DIXIE HOOD, Marriage and Family Therapist, came forward to testify.
She explained she is in private practice in Juneau and has, in the
past, had a number of miners and family members come to her for
counselling. She said she has learned some things in terms of the
amount of stress involved in their work and the impact it has on
their own mental health and their family's well being. There are
many problems with miners being dislocated from their family
situations. She said she thinks the additional fatigue and safety
issues involved in extending mining work beyond the eight hour
shift would be detrimental. Ms. Hood said she has told her son-in-
law, who has been a miner in Alaska, about the legislation and he
wrote a letter. Ms. Hood explained he is a 49 year resident and
fishes six months of the year in Port Alexander. She noted he is
currently in Bellingham doing construction work. Ms. Hood read the
letter into the record.
"As someone who has worked in both the Sheep Creek Mine and in
power tunnels on two dams in Southeast, I would like to urge a
cautious and compassionate look at the situation before overturning
laws meant to protect miners, for instance the eight hour work day.
Being a construction worker myself as well as a commercial
fisherman I have often worked long hours at physical and dangerous
work and sure, I like my overtime pay.
"However, I would like to point out that if you are concerned about
jobs for Alaskans that if you support giving fewer workers more
hours you will in effect be reducing the total number of jobs
available. We must keep circumspect priorities in mind. Certainly
many people would encourage industries to come to Alaska to help
the economy, but most people would agree that worker safety should
be paramount. Our natural resources are not going to go anywhere
by themselves, and they will last only so long once they are
tapped. And if a corporation finds that it is to their economic
advantage to harvest these resources, they should be made to do so
in a socially acceptable way, keeping worker safety as a high
value. Why allow some corporation to take the state's natural
resources while bolstering their profits by cutting on worker
safety? Many people fought long and hard for the eight hour
workday.
"One factor which should cause us to look closely at overturning
the eight hour day for miners is that miners often have to spend
several hours coming and going to their work for which they are
often not paid. For instance, those who work at Greens Creek have
a long boat ride before they even start their shift, and another
boat ride at the end of their shift before they can go home to
rest. When I worked at the Sheep Creek mine, there was also a
fairly long and dangerous drive to work which was the first of the
strenuous and tiring tasks before I even went on the payroll.
"I have great respect for miners and I believe them to be some of
the hardest working people on earth. Like John Henry many miners
will not turn down a challenge or long hours, even if it means
working themselves into the ground. I hope that those who make
laws and vote on laws will take their jobs as seriously as miners
do and consider the effect of their actions on the people affected
by the laws. Sincerely, A. Marcus Livingston."
Number 246
DON ETHERIDGE, Alaska AFL-CIO, came before the committee. He said
his organization can support the amendment if the department's
eight hour rules are included. He said they would be willing to
support eight hours of actual working time at the face. Mr.
Etheridge said he would also like to see paid compensation from
portal-to-portal.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there were no further witnesses and closed
public testimony.
Number 327
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to amend CSHB 311, Version F,
by changing the number "10" to "Eight" on page 1, lines 7 and 13.
On page 2, line 2, replace "12" with "10".
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to conceptually amend the bill
as stated. He asked if there was an objection, hearing none the
amendment was adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would like to bring the committee's attention
to one other detail that is included in the committee substitute
that wasn't in the department's committee substitute. On page 2,
line 6, the last word of the sentence was changed to "and". In the
department's committee substitute it was "or".
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he feels a lot more comfortable with
the word "and" because looking down the road, you never know who
the commissioner will be and the situation might change. He said
he would feel comfortable including the word "or" with the current
Administration.
MR. PERKINS referred to the "and" language, if it is read in its
entirety, and said things will have to play together. He said
Deputy Commissioner Flanagan had put "or".
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what the significance is of "or
workings".
MR. PERKINS said the way he read the committee substitute is that
everything has to apply. The commissioner cannot grant the waiver
unless it is a collective bargaining agreement and is in the best
interest of the resident workers of the state.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said as he understands it to get a variance, the
commissioner must agree that it is in the best interest of the
state or (indisc.) plus it must be an organized mine.
MR. PERKINS said that is how he reads it.
Number 533
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Mr. Perkins if he has a problem with
the word "and" as opposed to "or".
MR. PERKINS said he would say the department doesn't have a problem
with the word "and", but noted he wouldn't take a strong position
in the issue one way or the other.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted he was on the wrong page. He said
there is "or" on page 1 that doesn't make a lot of sense.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "If you left the `and' in there, the number 2,
that is the commissioner would make a best interest finding so to
speak. It would really be nullified because I don't think he would
enter into the collective bargaining arrangement if that is what
has occurred previously. Since both of them have to be present for
a variance to occur, it would seem to me that his position would be
very very weakened.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would read it as requiring both (1)
and (2) before a variance can be issued. He noted that isn't the
testimony he recalls. It was a labor agreement that your fine
with. If there isn't a labor agreement, they want the variance
capability and that would be "or" not "and".
MR. PERKINS said he believes Representative Porter is correct.
Number 664
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion that on page 2, line 6, after
the word "variance" replace the word "and" with the word "or".
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it is a conceptual amendment. He asked if there
was an objection. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.
Number 740
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to pass CSHB 311, as amended,
with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations, out of
committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were an objection. Hearing none, CSHB
311, as amended, was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
HB 414 - MANDATORY MEDIATION/DESIGN PROF LAWSUITS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced he would like to take up HB 414, "An Act
requiring conciliation panel review in a civil action against an
architect, engineer, or land surveyor; and providing for an
effective date." He noted it was before the committee at a
previous meeting and had lost a quorum before it could be moved.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to pass CSHB 414(L&C) out of
committee with the attached fiscal note and individual
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSHB
414(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting at 6:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|