Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/17/2017 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB195 | |
| HB222 | |
| SB93 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 17, 2017
3:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sam Kito, Chair
Representative Adam Wool, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Bryce Edgmon (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 195
"An Act relating to insurer actions based on credit history and
insurance scores at insurance policy renewal; and providing for
insurer consideration of consumer requests for exceptions of
credit history or insurance scores."
- MOVED HB 195 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to the licensure of nail technicians; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to security freezes on the credit reports or
records of incapacitated persons and certain minors."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act adopting the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act;
relating to environmental real property covenants and notices of
activity and use limitation at contaminated sites to ensure the
protection of human health, safety, and welfare, and the
environment; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 195
SHORT TITLE: INSURER'S USE OF CREDIT HISTORY/SCORES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/24/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/17 (H) L&C
04/05/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/05/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/17 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/14/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/14/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/17/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 222
SHORT TITLE: LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/NAIL TECHS
SPONSOR(s): CLAMAN
04/08/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/17 (H) L&C
04/17/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 93
SHORT TITLE: CREDIT REPORT SECURITY FREEZE
SPONSOR(s): COGHILL
03/13/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/17 (S) L&C
03/28/17 (S) L&C AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/17 (S) Bill Postponed to 1:30 p.m. 3/28/17
03/28/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/17 (S) L&C RPT 5DP
04/04/17 (S) DP: COSTELLO, HUGHES, STEVENS, MEYER,
GARDNER
04/04/17 (S) L&C AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/17 (S) Moved SB 93 Out of Committee
04/04/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/17 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/10/17 (S) VERSION: SB 93
04/11/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/11/17 (H) L&C
04/17/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 64
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
SPONSOR(s): MICCICHE
02/17/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/17 (S) CRA, L&C
02/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/07/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/17 (S) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
03/07/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/17 (S) CRA RPT 2DP 2NR
03/08/17 (S) DP: BISHOP, HOFFMAN
03/08/17 (S) NR: MACKINNON, STEDMAN
03/14/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/14/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/17 (S) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
03/16/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/20/17 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 3NR
03/20/17 (S) NR: COSTELLO, HUGHES, GARDNER
03/20/17 (S) DP: STEVENS
03/27/17 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/17 (S) VERSION: SB 64
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) CRA, L&C
04/11/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/11/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/11/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/13/17 (H) CRA RPT 4DP 1NR
04/13/17 (H) DP: WESTLAKE, TALERICO, FANSLER, PARISH
04/13/17 (H) NR: RAUSCHER
04/13/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/13/17 (H) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
04/13/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/17/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LORI WING-HEIER, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
State of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 195.
OWEN PHILLIPS, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Claman, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 222.
JEANNINE JABAAY
Hope, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 222.
RACHEL LAUESEN, Attorney
Fortier & Mikko, P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 222.
BEVERLY HARPER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 222.
KEVIN MCKINLEY, Chair
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 222.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Senator Coghill, prime
sponsor, introduced SB 93.
CARLIE CHRISTENSEN, Director of Government Relations
Equifax Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 93.
SARAH LASHFORD, Manager of Government Relations
Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA)
Washington D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 93.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor introduced SB 64.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Spill Prevention & Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 64.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 64.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:19:53 PM
CHAIR SAM KITO called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:19 p.m. Representatives Kito,
Sullivan-Leonard, Stutes, Birch, Josephson, and Wool were
present at the call to order.
HB 195-INSURER'S USE OF CREDIT HISTORY/SCORES
3:20:30 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to insurer actions based on
credit history and insurance scores at insurance policy renewal;
and providing for insurer consideration of consumer requests for
exceptions of credit history or insurance scores."
CHAIR KITO noted public testimony was still open on HB 195.
After ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed
public testimony.
3:21:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated he wanted to offer an amendment but
didn't have time and that he personally opposes using credit
scores to assess insurance fees and rates. He related that
studies by the Federal Reserve and others show that credit
scores disproportionately affect people of color and minorities
who tend to have poor credit and so get assessed a higher rate,
which is his problem with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she doesn't have affection for the
bill either way. She asked Representative Wool what type of
amendment he was considering.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL responded that when someone is offered a
policy the insurance company may use the person's credit score
and then after one year the company needs authorization to
continue to use a credit score. He said his understanding that
"may" use credit score is often that the company does use credit
score and the applicant doesn't have a choice. Therefore, he
would like a possibility to opt out. He surmised insurance
companies wouldn't want that because it is to their advantage to
have this tool at their disposal. Nowadays with people
undergoing more economic hardship, studies often show that
people put medical expenses on their credit card and these are
people that have insurance but are incurring medical bills while
costs are going up all the time. As people incur more balances
on more cards, they have a lower credit rating. He said he
wanted to discuss whether the option to opt out entirely would
be possible.
3:24:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH spoke in support of HB 195. He related a
personal experience when his insurance went up because under
current state law access to credit scores is not permitted for
purposes of policy renewal for automobile insurance. As a
practical matter, he said, credit score is used routinely. For
example, he spent nine years on the board of Chugach Electric
Association where it was routinely used instead of requiring a
deposit for determining whether someone was a good risk for
advancing a month's worth of utilities. It is a reasonable
approach, he opined. Credit score is a mechanism to mitigate
risk in the commercial world. The use of credit score in this
proposal is balanced and reasonable and is widely accepted from
an industry standpoint, and therefore he is a yes vote.
3:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES related that she called the main insurance
carrier in Kodiak to ask about [HB 195], and [the agent]
responded that of course the companies he represented wanted it,
but that he didn't have a preference. She further related that
when she asked [the agent] how he would vote on it, he hesitated
for a while and then said he didn't really know. She said she
found this interesting because she had thought that being from
the industry [the agent] would have been in favor of the bill.
Based on that experience, she said, I'm not crazy about it
either way. She stated she is at the will of the chair.
3:26:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD, regarding people's
consideration of updating their information on a yearly basis,
remarked that an annual check on credit score for insurance
renewal affects a person's score, and she said she thinks
that's where people have heartburn. She said if there were a
process that could show that having the forms pre-signed ready
to go on a yearly basis was a good thing and may not affect
someone personally, then she may support it, but she has a lot
of questions on that.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES related that she asked her insurance
carrier that very question on checking the credit score and was
told that it is called a soft credit check, which has no effect
on someone's credit score.
3:28:12 PM
CHAIR KITO asked whether the use of credit scores by insurance
companies to determine a person's insurance rate would
[adversely] effect a person's credit score.
LORI WING-HEIER, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State of Alaska,
replied that it should not [affect a person's credit score].
MS. WING-HEIER further commented that after the committee last
heard the bill, she researched the matter brought up by
Representative Wool about the medical industry or medical codes.
She found that Alaska Statute (AS) 21.36.960 would prohibit the
use of medical for credit scoring for this bill for insurance
purposes.
CHAIR KITO inquired as to how an insurance company would present
using credit score for a rate calculation.
MS. WING-HEIER replied that according to insurance underwriting
guidelines the insurance company would ask [an applicant/client]
questions regarding type of auto, driving history, driving
record, place of residence, and distance driven to work. The
insurance company would also ask and provide in writing that it
is going to order up credit history. A person has the right to
say no and does not have to allow the use of his or her credit
score, and can opt out in the very beginning, although this may
result in not being given a preferred rate. If there is an
adverse reaction that the company would take because it
determines a person's credit score is not positive or it was
going to impact the person's insurance premium, then the company
is required to advise the person, in writing, what that decision
was based on, and that is part of what this bill is doing.
3:30:21 PM
CHAIR KITO offered his understanding that HB 195 would provide
that a person could opt out at the beginning of what is already
the law. This bill would say that if credit score is used for a
re-up and that changes in a dispositive way the company is
required to notify the person that that took place.
MS. WING-HEIER answered that HB 195 clarifies for both new
business and renewal business that [the insurance company] has
to tell a person in writing why he or she is materially impacted
by the ordering of his or her credit score, what it was, and
that the person has the right to appeal it to the Division of
Insurance through the extenuating life circumstances provision.
3:31:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his understanding that a person who
opts out of the credit score option would not get a preferred
rate and would be charged more. He asked whether a person would
be able to also look at what his or her rate would be if the
company did do a credit score analysis and then compare the two,
or would it just be a matter of rolling the dice.
MS. WING-HEIER offered her belief that it would be a roll of the
dice a person either allows or disallows the use of his or her
credit score. She added that once the credit score was given,
she doesn't know how it would be taken back.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL posed a scenario where on the first year a
person chooses not to allow the insurance company to use his or
her credit score. He inquired whether upon year one rolling
around, and if HB 195 is enacted, the insurance company could
use the person's credit score without his or her approval.
MS. WING-HEIER replied no, at the time of applying for insurance
a person must give the insurance company permission to use his
or her credit score forever. Permission either is given or not
given. Upon renewal a person could go back to the broker and
give permission to begin using his or her credit score beginning
now. But, if permission is not given, the insurance company
cannot use a person's credit score at any time.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his understanding that when someone
initiates an insurance policy, they either give permission for
use of their credit score or don't and won't know whether their
credit score would have given them a lower rate. He asked what
the formula is for coming up with the credit score or insurance
number and whether the division is informed of what the formula
is.
MS. WING-HEIER responded that in some cases the division does
see where the credit score is, but in most cases, it is part of
the insurance company's confidential underwriting as to where it
is. The division does see where it is put into the formula for
underwriting, the division does see that they use it, and the
division does see in some companies the percentage of what it
qualifies for, such as whether it is a 10, 20, or 30 percent
determination factor depending on the individual company. For
example, she continued, Geico doesn't use it at all at this time
in Alaska. The division knows that State Farm, Liberty, and
Safeco rely heavily on it. So, some companies use it, and some
don't, and to say exactly how much they rely on it as opposed to
other factors, she would have to pull the individual filings and
talk to all the companies that are in Alaska.
3:34:33 PM
CHAIR KITO stated that there are differences between causation
and correlation. He said one of the things used by actuaries is
a correlation and correlations can be identified without having
causation. Actuaries run numbers on statistics every day to
find out what correlates to higher risk or lower risk or higher
expense or lower expense and companies have found that credit
score is not a causative factor, but a correlative factor, for
insurance risk. It might be counterintuitive that using a
credit score can lower a person's rates, he continued, but for
the vast majority of those who are insured that is the case. He
recalled from earlier testimony that the assignment of a poor
credit score does not belong to any one class of person - that
people with higher incomes can have just as much of a poor
credit history as people with lower incomes. That is one of
those other things, he cautioned, where care must be taken in
utilizing stereotypical beliefs on some of these actions.
CHAIR KITO opined that in this bill, the department and the
governor have a vested interest in trying to provide for an
insurance system that works best for the vast majority of
Alaskans. California has not used credit scores, he said, but
he doesn't know what the impact is on that state's insurance
rates. California creates its own weather, he continued, and
given its [large] population costs can be amortized over a lot
broader expanse than Alaska would be able to do over its
population of 700,000. So, while it might not make a difference
[in California], he continued, he believes that it can make a
difference in Alaska and is therefore good policy.
CHAIR KITO stated he would like to move HB 195 forward, but
allowed it sounds like there are going to be issues with trying
to get the bill further along in the system. He said he thinks
the committee has done what it can with the bill and he doesn't
see other things that can be done to alleviate the concerns that
have been expressed so far. He offered his belief that the
committee is at a policy point where a member either agrees or
disagrees with this policy and it is time to move the bill to
the next level of scrutiny.
3:37:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that the bill is good legislation
and went through both chambers last year. The governor had some
issues with it, he recounted, but after some tweaks the governor
brought it back before the legislature. The bill is a good
effort to square things up and recognize reality, he continued.
While a person doesn't have to give permission to use his or her
credit score, credit history is relevant when it comes to
insurance or consumer loans. He said he supports the bill.
3:38:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL agreed that California makes its own
weather in that it is the fifth largest economy in the world.
But, he noted, the states of Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Maryland
also don't allow the use of credit scores. As far as the vast
majority of people getting a benefit from a credit score, he
said he thinks that in the act of business if a company
instituted a policy that caused it to receive less money he
would see the company as not wanting to pursue it and they all
would go the way California is going if it saved the majority of
people money. He cited a report from the Federal Reserve Board
to the U.S. Congress which states that according to self-
reported data on race or ethnicity, the mean TransRisk Score for
Asians is 54.8, non-Hispanic whites 54, Hispanics 38.2, and
blacks 25.6. While he is not saying it is causation, he
continued, there may be a correlation to credit score and race
and ethnicity and he doesn't think a bad credit score
necessarily makes someone a bad driver. He said he therefore
categorically opposes this type of legislation.
3:40:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to report HB 195 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected.
3:40:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Josephson, Birch,
Stutes, and Kito voted in favor of it. Representatives Wool and
Sullivan-Leonard voted against it. Therefore, HB 195 was
reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
by a vote of 4-2.
3:41:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:41 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.
HB 222-LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/NAIL TECHS
3:43:27 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the second order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 222, "An Act relating to the licensure of nail
technicians; relating to the practice of manicuring; and
providing for an effective date."
3:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 222, Version 30-LS0803\O, Bruce, 4/17/17,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version O
was before the committee.
3:44:15 PM
OWEN PHILLIPS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor,
introduced HB 222. In 2015, he stated, the legislature passed
House Bill 131 in hopes of improving the health and safety of
nail salon patrons. House Bill 131 outlined new regulations,
including 250 hours of education and an examination to become a
licensed nail technician. Prior to that bill, a person could
receive a manicurist's license by completing 12 hours of
training, though many people received many more hours outside of
the state of Alaska. In 2015, he explained, the House made an
amendment on the floor that brought unintended consequences on
existing licensees seeking renewal in 2017. The floor amendment
added a grandfather clause, but the clause was unclear. The
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers consultant consulted with the
Department of Law and interpreted the new statute to have a
temporary and confusing grandfather clause. Therefore HB 222
seeks to remedy the onerous renewal process enacted in 2015
while protecting the health and safety of Alaskans.
MR. PHILLIPS outlined what is currently required of experienced
manicurists seeking to renew their license: by August 31, 2017,
proof of 250 hours of work as a manicurist; by August 31, 2017,
take and pass a written or oral examination; after one renewal
period, however, an experienced manicurist is nevertheless
required to take 250 hours of additional coursework to receive a
nail technician license after the two-year grandfather license
that does not require any coursework. He said HB 222 would
remove the education requirement for people who are already
licensed and working under statutes prior to December 31, 2015.
He pointed out that requiring 250 hours of coursework, which is
six to eight weeks of full-time effort, could mean these
experienced working manicurists might not be able to work.
Affected individuals include small business owners and single
mothers, he continued. Requiring this training for persons who
have been successfully practicing for years could have
detrimental impacts on their finances and their families.
3:46:46 PM
MR. PHILLIPS provided a sectional analysis of Version O. He
said Section 1 adds legislative intent to the uncodified law
that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers allow an applicant to
use a foreign language translator during an exam. Currently, he
noted, the exam is only offered in English, Spanish, Vietnamese,
and Korean. Section 2, he explained, clarifies the grandfather
clause by stating that the board may not require an applicant
applying for or renewing a license to complete 250 hours of
instruction in manicuring if the applicant holds a valid license
that was issued on or before December 31, 2015. Section 3, he
stated, amends Section 13(a), ch. 27, SLA 2015, allowing
manicurists who hold a valid license on January 1, 2016, to
continue practicing manicuring until their license normally
expires. [Paragraph] (1) provides that manicurists can renew
their license before August 31, 2017, if they meet pre-existing
requirements under AS 08.13 as it existed prior to January 2016.
[Paragraph] (2) states that manicurists may renew their license
for an additional period before August 31, 2019, if they submit
proof of 250 hours of satisfactory work experience and have
taken and passed the written or oral exam under AS 08.13.090.
Section 4, he said, retroactively amends Section 13(a), ch. 27,
SLA 2015, as amended by Section 3 of this Act. Section 5, he
continued, sets an immediate effective date for this bill.
MR. PHILLIPS added that the intention of HB 222 is to remove the
unnecessary burden of education and training hours for
experienced manicurists who practiced prior to December 31,
2015, and to extend equal opportunities to individuals who may
have a difficulty with a language barrier.
3:49:17 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 222.
3:49:33 PM
JEANNINE JABAAY testified in support of HB 222. She related
that she was a former public member of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers and an advocate of House Bill 131 in 2015. As
outlined by Mr. Phillips, she stated, it was [the board's]
understanding that for Alaska's nearly 1,000 current licensees,
those 250 hours required for new licensees would be
grandfathered hour for hour for the hours they worked on the job
and incurred incumbently. However, the [floor] amendment
changed that accidentally, she continued, and [the board] would
like to see that fixed, which HB 222 would do.
MS. JABAAY recalled that regarding the testing requirement, [the
board] was asked directly by a legislator whether it came in the
Hmong language. She said she doesn't remember the exact answer
given by the decision, but it was her understanding that it came
in nine languages and now it is down to only four. The State of
Alaska uses the National-Interstate Council of State Boards of
Cosmetology, Inc. (NIC) test, she continued, which is a
proprietary test that cannot be translated or interpreted
according to the NIC regulations. A person who doesn't speak
one of the four languages outlined by Mr. Phillips will be
unable to understand the questions being asked. There is a
large population of licensees in Alaska's nail technician
industry who don't speak any of those four languages. She said
HB 222 would correct that by allowing the test to be translated
or interpreted and would give the board that discretion. This
bill does a good job addressing those things that are confusing,
she added, and would bring House Bill 131 back to its original
intention of increasing public safety without removing the
livelihood of the current 1,000 licensees.
3:51:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked whether Ms. Jabaay said
she currently serves on the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.
MS. JABAAY replied she served for four years and her term ended
March 31, so she is no longer on the board. She said she was
part of House Bill 131 two years ago and has been approaching
legislators since January while she was still on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD inquired whether it seemed at
that time that 250 hours of instruction was important to teach
the safety of instruments being sterilized and the safety with
patients or whether it seemed that maybe it could have been a
smaller field of time utilized for teaching manicurists.
MS. JABAAY responded that the board spent quite a bit of time
debating the number of hours. Alaska had the lowest number of
hours and only had 12 hours of sanitation, she said, so not even
two days of bookwork and no testing. But the industry has
changed, she continued. She stated that the 12 hours was back
from the 1970s. She added, ut now they're using drills;
they're using files, cheese graters; they have ... transference
of [acquired immune deficiency syndrome] (AIDS) and
[Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus] (MRSA) [The
board] looked at the standards in all the states across the U.S.
and found that 250 hours brought reciprocity for the licensees -
they could take their livelihood from one state to another
without being overly burdened. She noted that Alaska is still
in the bottom one-third of those hours, meaning that another
two-thirds of the states require more hours than does Alaska
even after passage of 250 hours. The board felt it was a good
number going from 12 hours to 250 and the legislature at the
time agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD, regarding language, said she
wants to know that a manicurist understands what she is asking
and vice versa. She asked whether that came up in the
discussions when the board was looking at the different
languages that it wanted to assist in accommodating.
MS. JABAAY answered that the board did not, and does not, try to
regulate people being necessarily good at their practice. The
board wants to ensure that [manicurists] are safe, she said.
When a customer specifically requests a rounded nail versus a
square nail, that's between the customer and the practitioner
and the board thinks that will get regulated just by commerce
and economy. The board's responsibility is to ensure that those
who are licensed by the state and governed by the board to
practice can do so safely. [The board] felt that 12 hours did
not accrue that safety, but 250 hours did, she continued. So,
if [a manicurist] uses an electric drill and brings it down to
the meat the customer will know he or she is protected as an
individual because [the manicurist] will know how to respond to
that, but if a customer doesn't like the paint polish that [the
manicurist] did, that would be between the customer and [the
manicurist] to determine. The board doesn't try to govern
someone being good at their field, just safe at their field.
3:55:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD said that was not what she was
trying to get at; rather, she was trying to clarify the issue of
communication. She asked, "So, if you're seeking communication
with regard to the testing aspect of being a manicurist, and you
need someone there to help make sure they understand the testing
based on different languages, then how ... does that pertain to
the business? She added, "If English is not a second language
for them, is there difficulty then in the workplace?"
MS. JABAAY replied there probably is going to be some difficulty
if English isn't [a manicurist's] primary or secondary language.
The testing would be confusing and so could be the job. She
said she imagines that commerce would regulate some of that
[customers] who feel they don't have good ability to communicate
with their practitioners probably won't go back. But, she
added, the board would hope to govern the safety. If the
question is whether [applicants] who don't speak English as
their primary or secondary language should be allowed to have
their tests translator interpreted, she said she personally
believes they should, and HB 222 would allow that accommodation
so that [these applicants] are able to work in Alaska.
3:56:52 PM
RACHEL LAUESEN, Attorney, Fortier & Mikko, P.C. Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 222. She said she wrote an
extensive letter to various representatives, has also contacted
some senators, and has provided supporting documents relating to
the flaws of House Bill 131. She stated that Ms. Jabaay did an
excellent job explaining the history and intent of the
legislature behind passing House Bill 131 as well as the intent
of the board, but she thinks it was misunderstood. She said her
testimony today is in support of HB 222.
MS. LAUESEN noted that she represents a licensed manicurist who
wishes to remain anonymous because she has some concerns about
retaliation. She added that she has spent quite a bit of time
delving into House Bill 131 and the legislative history behind
it, as well as the history of the meetings with the board
reflecting the board's intent. She stressed the importance of
passing HB 222 because of the inherent flaws with the existing
bill and the threat it serves to this group of existing
professionals. There is simply not enough time by August 31,
2017, she explained, for these individuals to pass the test,
particularly where many of them are unable to take it in their
native language; the only language that is offered for the oral
test is English.
MS. LAUESEN stated it is important to clarify that there is
nothing in the legislation that has passed that says individuals
with 250 hours of documented work experience but can't pass the
test are then eligible for a nail technician license, but they
are not required to attend 250 hours of school afterwards.
However, she said, that is how the Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing has interpreted it, and it's
an erroneous interpretation. All the existing legislation says,
she continued, is that to sit for the exam, an applicant for a
nail technician license must have satisfactorily completed 250
hours of schooling from a licensed manicurist school. The
legislature already previously determined that 250 hours of work
experience would qualify somebody to sit for the exam, but
somehow the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing has determined that to receive the nail technician
license even with 250 hours of documented work experience and
with passing the exam, [the applicant] still needs to afterwards
complete 250 hours of schooling, which can cost upwards of
$4,000. It is an additional step that was not required
previously of the holders of the advanced manicurist license,
she pointed out. She recommended that HB 222 be adopted to fix
the many problems with [House Bill 131].
4:00:57 PM
BEVERLY HARPE testified in support of HB 222. She related that
she has a close family member who has been working as a
manicurist for the last five years. This family member would
have had the total hours license prior to the 2015 deadline and
was notified then that she needed to pass a written exam and
then obtain education. English is not this family member's
first language, and it was confusing to the family member, as
well as to herself, as to why examination would be before
education since it is typically the other way around.
MS. HARPE stated she did research and worked with Representative
Claman, and that she and many others noticed that the statute
and regulations simply did not match up. She said the family
member did take and pass the exam, but it was a terrible
financial burden to take off 250 hours of work for the in-
classroom education because in-classroom is how it is offered in
Anchorage. The cost is $3,500, she noted, and the person must
attend in-classroom during the day every day, five days a week,
until reaching 250 hours. It is very burdensome, she added, to
expect someone who has met all the requirements, proved to be
proficient and competent by the testing, and passed all the
safety portions to then pay $3,500 for education for which
they've already proven they have the information and to forego
all income for one and a half months. Ms. Harpe expressed her
support for HB 222.
4:03:36 PM
KEVIN MCKINLEY, Chair, Board of Barbers and Hairdressers,
testified in support of HB 222. He said the previous witnesses
did a good job explaining HB 222 and as chair of the board he is
stating support for the bill.
4:04:21 PM
CHAIR KITO closed public testimony on HB 222 after ascertaining
no one else wished to testify.
CHAIR KITO held over HB 222.
SB 93-CREDIT REPORT SECURITY FREEZE
4:04:32 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the third order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to security freezes on the
credit reports or records of incapacitated persons and certain
minors."
4:04:47 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Coghill, prime sponsor,
introduced SB 93. She said the bill looks familiar because last
year [Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature] the House addressed
Senate Bill 121, which created a security freeze on minors and
incapacitated consumers, or protected consumers, which are
consumers who may be over age 16 or 18 but unable to take care
of themselves. She stated that SB 93 takes up where Senate Bill
121 left off. In the last hours of last year's session,
Representative Claman tried to add this language to Senate Bill
121, but it was just too late in the process to happen.
MS. MOSS stated that SB 93 would set up a system to freeze a
minor's or incapacitated person's credit report. This is
important, she pointed out, because it is never considered that
children could be victims of identity theft and that is what
this bill is about. About 1.3 million kids in the U.S. are
victims of identity theft annually and approximately 50 percent
of them are children six years old or younger. This addresses a
system to set this up because it is much different than freezing
an adult's credit report. An adult already has a credit report
and a credit history. A minor or incapacitated person usually
doesn't, so there is nothing to freeze.
MS. MOSS explained that to freeze a minor's or incapacitated
person's credit report - which doesn't exist - a parent,
guardian, or legal representative must go to a credit reporting
agency and request that freeze. If there isn't a record or a
report, the credit-reporting agency will create what is called a
credit record and to do that the credit-reporting agency will
have to make verification on many pieces of information. When
an adult goes into a credit-reporting agency this happens almost
instantaneously, she noted, because an adult has a credit
report. However, she continued, when dealing with a minor or
someone who doesn't have a credit report, the credit report must
be established. This is done by the parent or [personal]
representative asking that the credit report be secured,
reporting certain information, and proving that they have the
authority to make that request, which could be a court order for
a personal representative or a birth certificate and
identification (ID) for both the minor and the parent. The
consumer agency then creates a credit record for a fee of $5.00.
This fee is under statute and is the same fee that is paid by an
adult to get a credit report frozen. The placement of the
freeze could take up to a month for a child or incapacitated
person because of that verification and checking of the records.
MS. MOSS pointed out that the length of the security report
would last for as long as the parent or personal representative
requests. It could be lifted it at any time and to lift it the
parent or representative would have to verify who they say they
are and that they have the legal authority to do so. She said
the exception to that would be when a minor turns 16 years of
age and has a job, a car, or a cell phone, and has basically
created a credit report, at which point the minor can lift the
freeze, if desired. Another exception, she stated, is if an
incapacitated person becomes self-sufficient and can prove with
a court record that they are no longer incapacitated and then
the freeze could be lifted. Another exception to lifting that
freeze, she noted, would be if the information that was given to
the credit reporting agency was misrepresented, which would
allow the credit reporting agency to lift the freeze itself.
Lifting the freeze would cost $5.00, she continued, except there
would be no fee in the case of identity theft for which a police
report or court document can be produced.
MS. MOSS added that there are a few exceptions in the bill.
There are people who collect data secondhand; they don't create
that data. That would be, say, a government agency that is
collecting back taxes or child support or a department of
revenue, and they would not be required to freeze credit reports
because they do not create credit reports, they collect credit
reports.
4:10:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked what prompted the bill;
for example, whether something happened when someone turned 18
and tried getting credit cards but couldn't because their Social
Security number had been compromised.
MS. MOSS replied that the credit reporting agencies have
requested this. She said 27 states other than Alaska have
adopted these statutes because identity theft in children is a
growing concern. Children are easy targets and it is a very
easy way for people who create false credit, collect credit
cards under false credit, or file false tax returns with the
Internal Revenue Service using minors' Social Security numbers.
4:11:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated he likes this idea. He inquired
whether Social Security numbers are nowadays assigned at birth.
MS. MOSS responded that there are exceptions; for example, her
children didn't get their Social Security numbers until they
were 13 years old. However, she continued, she thinks most
people do get a Social Security number at birth.
CHAIR KITO opened invited testimony.
4:13:12 PM
CARLIE CHRISTENSEN, Director of Government Relations, Equifax
Inc., testified that Equifax supports SB 93. She said SB 93
would specify the manner in which a protected consumer's
representative must submit a request to a credit reporting
agency, including sufficient proof of identification and
authority to act on behalf of the protected consumer. By
incorporating these specific requirements into the existing
Alaska credit report security screen statute, affected consumers
will be more protected from the risk of their freeze being
either unduly placed on their credit file or unduly removed by
someone who isn't authorized to act on behalf of that
individual. This would bring Alaska law more in line with the
other states that have minor freeze statutes specifying how to
handle these requests and to do it consistently, she added.
4:14:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered his recognition that Equifax is a
private entity and asked whether Equifax or others in the same
business of credit scoring keep digital copies of things such as
proof of identification authority, Social Security, and birth
certificates. He further asked whether Equifax has a copy of
his birth certificate.
MS. CHRISTENSEN answered that if it is something for placing a
security freeze on behalf of a minor, Equifax may have to retain
that. But, she added, she doesn't know the exact specifics of
Equifax retaining that information or if it something that is
just presented to Equifax. She said she would have to get back
to the committee with the specifics.
4:16:20 PM
SARAH LASHFORD, Manager of Government Relations, Consumer Data
Industry Association (CDIA), testified in support of SB 93. She
said CDIA is an international trade association founded in 1906
with more than 130 corporate members. Its mission is to enable
consumers, media, legislators, and regulators to understand the
benefits of responsible use of consumer data, which creates
opportunities for consumers and the economy. She explained that
the members of CDIA provide businesses with the data and the
analytical tools necessary to manage risk and that CDIA members
help ensure fair and safe transactions for consumers to
facilitate competition and expand consumer's access to the
market, which is innovative and focused on their needs. She
stated that the products of CDIA members are used in more than 9
billion transactions each year.
MS. LASHFORD said SB 93 would provide additional protection for
identity theft. She recounted that in 2016 the Alaska State
Legislature passed Senate Bill 121 to offer a credit freeze for
the consumer records of minors. Providing protection for those
exposed to the dangers of identity theft was a step in the right
direction. However, she advised, by placing the authorization
in the same section of statute as that for adults, the statute
lacks additional protection that 27 other states have now
adopted. These additional measures help to safeguard against
fraud and identity theft as well as ensure consistency. She
said SB 93 provides clear guidance and standards for handling
minors' credit. She offered CDIA's belief that SB 93 maintains
the original intent of the 2016 legislation while adding
uniformity and consistency with other states' laws. She urged
committee members to support SB 93 to provide the same level of
protection as the other 27 states that have adopted a freeze for
minors and incapacitated adults.
4:18:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that SB 93 appears to be a good
measure and offered his appreciation for learning more about how
to protect children with this opportunity.
4:19:07 PM
CHAIR KITO kept public testimony open after ascertaining that no
one else wished to testify on the bill at this time.
CHAIR KITO held over SB 93.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked why the chair is holding the bill.
CHAIR KITO replied that he typically likes to have two meetings
for each bill that is before the committee so there is an
opportunity to address any questions that are not fully answered
and to give an opportunity for amendments to come forward.
SB 64-UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
4:19:56 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 64, "An Act adopting the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act; relating to environmental real property covenants
and notices of activity and use limitation at contaminated sites
to ensure the protection of human health, safety, and welfare,
and the environment; and providing for an effective date."
4:20:11 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor introduced SB 64. He said the goal of the bill is to
return unused brownfields to the stream of commerce. In 2003
the Uniform Law Commission created a Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act. The bill, he explained, would allow a
challenged piece of property that is contaminated to transfer
the liability for that contamination to the next owner. It
protects the buyer and the seller of the contaminated property
while allowing the fullest and best use until the contamination
reaches safe levels. The bill creates a legal mechanism to
safely transfer contaminated property through an environmental
covenant. The covenant has no financial interest; it is just a
recordable interest on the property that travels with the
property until the contamination no longer exists.
SENATOR MICCICHE, to provide an understanding of the value of
the bill's provisions, related the story of a contaminated
property in his community. He said this multi-acre property on
the river had at one point a dry-cleaning facility. The "mom
and pop" property owners cannot afford the cleanup, but there
are interested developers that want that property and can afford
the cleanup. This allows the contamination to be recorded on
the deed, the new owners can come in and clean up the property,
the contamination can be erased from the deed, and the new
owners can go about their business. It provides transparency
throughout the life of the property, he pointed out, and
provides assurances to buyers and sellers that the risks will be
managed. It is voluntary. Other states, he added, have found
that the covenants help communities transform blighted property
into marketable assets.
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that there is support for SB 64 except
from the federal government. About 51 percent of the currently
contaminated properties are on federal lands, he noted, and a
letter is expected from the federal government stating that it
doesn't support the bill. However, he continued, [the bill's
sponsors] feel that the federal government should meet the same
requirements as Alaskans in the cleaning up of contaminated
property. Alaska presently has 2,258 active contaminated sites
and 1,048 of them are federally owned. Based on current trends,
he said, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
projects that about 835 of the current sites would be impacted
and likely to have the benefit of environmental covenant if the
bill is passed.
4:23:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised that the previous owner would
be essentially immunized from any litigation. He questioned
whether this could be done given the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that his understanding is that there
can be an agreement between [the seller] and the buyer for a
negotiated proportion of responsibility. He added, "I'm not
saying it has to transfer; I'm saying what has to happen in this
voluntary program is that it is recorded on the deed." How the
seller and buyer decide to negotiate the proportion of
responsibility is a secondary process that can certainly occur.
He said he thinks in the vast majority of the cases it is going
to be someone wanting [to buy] that filling station on the
corner and is willing to take on the responsibility of that
contamination and cleanup.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referenced the situation of the sulfa
line leak with nine square miles of contamination in which
[Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. ("Williams")] is one of two
likely responsible parties. He inquired whether SB 64 would
allow Williams to push off its liability to someone willing to
accept it.
SENATOR MICCICHE deferred to Ms. Kristin Ryan of DEC for an
answer. However, he continued, he doesn't believe that would be
the case.
4:25:58 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention & Response,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), on behalf of DEC
testified in support of SB 64. She said the department thinks
this is something that would help Alaska and help Alaska
transfer land that has been contaminated back into commerce.
Rather than the land being considered blighted and unusable, SB
64 would allow [DEC] to say the land is completely usable except
for certain purposes such as a daycare, well, or whatever the
restriction needs to be. The bill provides a process for
amending a covenant in the future, she noted, so when it gets to
a point where the contamination is no longer a problem the
current holder of the property can ask DEC to remove the
covenant. If the department agrees, it would remove the
covenant. If the department doesn't agree, there would be an
administrative appeal process for the property holder to appeal
DEC's decision. There is no fiscal note, she noted, because the
department is already performing this work.
MS. RYAN explained that DEC puts restrictions on property all
the time, but that it is not necessarily communicated to buyers.
The department maintains a database that can be found in its
office and on its website. The public can look on the website.
Some realtors do, and some title companies do, but not
everybody. This bill would just ensure that that's communicated
on the title, so the title search company would be guaranteed to
find that information when it does a title search. There is no
fiscal impact to DEC, she added, it is just a transparency and a
communication about restrictions that DEC is placing on a
property.
MS. RYAN addressed Representative Josephson's question regarding
liability, stating that Alaska's statutes mimic CERCLA. Alaska
has CERCLA-like statutes and, yes, the current owner is the
responsible party that DEC would first approach like it did in
the Flint Hills situation [with Williams]. She explained that
DEC was working with Flint Hills and the Koch brothers because
they owned the property and DEC settled with them. But, she
continued, DEC is pursuing litigation against Williams as the
other responsible party to contribute to that remedy. So, she
advised, the state would still have the capacity to pursue all
responsible parties for a release as this bill does not have any
impact on Alaska's liability statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON requested further confirmation on Ms.
Ryan's statement that SB 64 would have absolutely no impact on
Alaska's liability statutes.
MS. RYAN responded correct.
4:28:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said SB 64 is heading in the right
direction and is good legislation. He noted that a home seller
must provide a disclosure document regarding any problems with
the home. He asked whether disclosure for a home with some sort
of an environmental concern would tie in with the title rather
than the real estate disclosure. He further asked whether there
is any overlap of those two things.
MS. RYAN answered that Alaska has a disclosure law that requires
disclosure of contamination on a property when it is being sold,
but DEC has found that that doesn't always happen. The property
may have been contaminated several owners back and it gets lost
in the shuffle and it isn't communicated as people move forward.
She related a situation with a gas station in Anchorage where
the tanks were pulled. Fuel that was left in the dirt around
the tanks spread and went around the foundation of the building.
Because the only way to remove the fuel around the foundation
would be to remove the foundation, DEC agreed to leaving it
until the foundation could be removed as the property was
transferred from person to person. However, she continued, that
restriction was not communicated, and the current owner pulled
that building out and spread the dirt everywhere. Had he known
he would have managed the dirt appropriately when he removed the
foundation. Now there is contamination on his neighbor's
property that would have been avoided had he understood that
restriction was in place. The restriction was in DEC's
database, but he didn't know it was there.
4:30:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that regarding contaminated
properties, the federal government is one of the worst
offenders, and one of the worst contaminated areas in the
country is on the U.S. Coast Guard base at Kodiak. She offered
her understanding that SB 64 would have no effect in requiring
any kind of cleanup; it would only apply if the federal
government chose to transfer that property to another owner.
MS. RYAN replied that DEC's first goal is cleanup; the
department wants people to clean up things to DEC's cleanup
levels. She said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
also involved because of the way that site is regulated.
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for leaving contamination
in place, she pointed out, such as the previously mentioned gas
station. This would only come into play when contamination is
left above a cleanup level and that is a decision that the
responsible party and DEC would make together. If it were
decided to leave the contamination, then the responsible party
would need to do a covenant. The party always has the option to
clean it all the way up and then this becomes a moot point.
SENATOR MICCICHE added that just because a site is contaminated
doesn't mean it can't be used for other things. The covenant
would be specific to the risks at a particular site and would
restrict certain activities. For example, an ex-filling station
may be a great site for an auto parts store but may not be a
great site for a daycare center. The transfer can still take
place even though it remains contaminated and remains in
commerce, he said. If at some point it is decided to use it for
one of the restricted activities, then the responsible party
would have to clean it up to that level.
4:32:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated he supports the legislation and that
it looks like it is solving a problem. He asked what the
situation is regarding the dry-cleaning property in Soldotna
that was mentioned by the sponsor and whether the property can
be sold under current law.
SENATOR MICCICHE deferred to Ms. Ryan for an answer and
requested that Representative Wool pose a hypothetical scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL posed a hypothetical scenario in which a
property is contaminated and asked what must happen under
current law if someone wants to purchase the property.
MS. RYAN responded that under current law if someone knows the
property is contaminated and wants to purchase it, there is
something that is called prospective purchaser agreement, which
is an arrangement made between the seller and the buyer where
they negotiate those risks and agree on who is responsible for
what. It provides some protection for liability and is an
upfront negotiation between a buyer and a seller.
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that the aforementioned doesn't allow for
that to be placed on a deed and recorded. So, if it changes
hands in the future, then an unwary buyer may not be aware of
the previous contamination and could be buying into a nightmare
that may be well above the costs that the buyer can afford to
develop the property. The bill would just clean it all up, he
said, and protect the seller so that the seller can transfer a
property with the knowledge of contamination by both the seller
and buyer on that piece of property. The bill would also
protect the buyer in having full knowledge of what is on that
piece of property. It would remain on the deed until that
contamination no longer exists.
4:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referenced the negotiations mentioned
by Ms. Ryan and said his main concern with SB 64 is whether
someone could shift liability.
MS. RYAN offered her understanding that SB 64 would not change
Alaska's liability statutes in any way. An example would be the
gas station in Anchorage that she discussed. The person the
department is asking to clean it up is the person who moved the
dirt around, but that person has the capacity to go after the
original person who caused the contamination and DEC would still
have the statutory authority to go after the original person.
She deferred to DEC's attorney with the Department of Law to
provide an answer in legal terms.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), in response to Representative Josephson's question
explained that private parties to a sale of either a residence
or industrial piece of property could negotiate on their own to
shift liability. But, she continued, those private contracts
are not valid when looking at Alaska's liability statutes for
Alaska's mini-CERCLA statute that is just like CERCLA. So, it
would not affect the liability for which the state could pursue
the buyer and the seller.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON assumed that the disclosure would have
to be comprehensive and complete so that the purchaser would be
fully informed of a toxic leak or other form of contamination.
MS. CURRIE replied yes. The goal of the covenant, she said, is
to have details about the past contamination that is located at
the site, whatever cleanup took place, and the current
restrictions that are placed on the property, and those are
intended to be comprehensive.
4:37:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled two notorious leaks in Alaska.
One was some sort of gas leak along the rail corridor at Crown
Point near Moose Pass and one was a railroad leak in Gold Creek
near Curry in the Talkeetna area. He asked whether situations
like those are lost to history or whether DEC flags and monitors
them as areas of concern such that they are not just footnoted.
MS. RYAN answered that before the time of the railroad situation
in Talkeetna, DEC did not have contingency plans for the
railroad. A big change resulting from that was that DEC added
the railroad as now an organization that is required to have
contingency plans when hauling fuel, meaning the railroad must
have the capacity to clean up an accident like that. Learning
from larger spills usually results in changes to Alaska's
statutes. Additionally, all contaminated sites, even if they
are cleaned up, remain in DEC's database and are accessible by
anybody as closed. So, she said, that information is out there
and is often utilized by individuals doing research.
4:39:16 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that the shift of liability does not
formally occur. Through capture in a deed, SB 64 allows the
voluntary acceptance of the cost of the cleanup by the person
purchasing the property. That is probably less likely with
commercial and industrial spills, he said, and he is thinking
more of a "mom and pop" where a $40,000-$100,000 cleanup may be
well outside of their budget, but someone who really wants to
develop a piece of property may be more than willing and able to
afford that cost of cleanup. So, he continued, he sees some
real benefits and can think of many pieces of property. There
is likely property in each district in the state where SB 64
would help bring that property back into productive condition.
4:40:19 PM
CHAIR KITO held over SB 64.
4:40:26 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:40 p.m.