Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/11/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB190 | |
| HB163 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2017
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 190
"An Act relating to the presentation of oral comments on the
proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act authorizing the Department of Public Safety to enter
into agreements with nonprofit regional corporations and
federal, tribal, and local government agencies to provide law
enforcement services; authorizing the Department of Public
Safety to collect fees for certain law enforcement services; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 190
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION/ORAL COMMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TALERICO
03/22/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/17 (H) STA
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/04/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/06/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/11/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE: DPS LAW ENFORCE. SVCS: AGREEMENTS/FEES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/17 (H) STA, FIN
03/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/17 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/21/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/30/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/04/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/04/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/06/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/11/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JULIE MORRIS, Staff
Representative Dave Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 to HB
190 and answered questions on behalf of Representative Talerico,
prime sponsor.
MICAELA FOWLER, Special Assistant
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
190.
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Legislation & Regulations Sections
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 190.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:10:26 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.
Representatives Wool, Birch, Johnson, Knopp, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representative LeDoux
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 190-REGULATION ADOPTION/ORAL COMMENT
3:11:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to the
presentation of oral comments on the proposed adoption,
amendment, or repeal of regulations." [Before the committee,
adopted as a work draft on 4/4/17, was the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 190, Version 30-LS0732\J, Banister, 3/31/17,
referred to as "Version J."]
3:12:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to the proposed Amendment 1 to
Version J, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the adoption, amendment, or
repeal of regulations;"
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "and"
Page 1, line 3, following "regulations":
Insert "; and relating to the consideration of
the cost to the state of the proposed adoption,
amendment, or repeal of regulations"
Page 3, line 9, following "persons":
Insert "and to the state"
Page 3, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 44.62.210 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) If an agency has taken both written and oral
testimony under this section, the agency shall limit
extensions to one extension in 45 days."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH explained the proposed changes to Version J
under Amendment 1: inserts "the consideration of cost to the
state of the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of
regulations" to the title [page 1, line 1]; and inserts a new
subsection (c) to Section 4 [page 3, following line 9], which
would place a limitation on extensions for taking testimony.
3:14:04 PM
JULIE MORRIS, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Talerico, prime sponsor
of HB 190, relayed that the intent of Amendment 1 is to ensure
that the cost to the state also would be considered whenever
there was a proposal to change regulations. She explained that
the intent of subsection (c) is to limit requests for extensions
[for taking testimony] if the agency has already taken both
written and oral testimony. She maintained that extensions can
be costly for the state.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an explanation of "extensions"
and how they work.
MS. MORRIS stated that an extension is a "re-notice." After the
process of posting a notice [of a regulation change] and
collecting comments, an agency then may decide to re-notice [the
change]. She conceded that she could not comment on why an
agency would choose to re-notice and at what point it might do
so.
3:16:33 PM
MICAELA FOWLER, Special Assistant, Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED), responded that there
are a variety of circumstances in which DCCED would re-notice a
regulations project. She gave two situations: there is
significant public interest in a project, and DCCED wants to
provide additional time to comment; and a large group of people
who are interested parties of a project are unavailable during
the comment period.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how frequent it is that regulations
projects are re-noticed or the [opportunity to] comment is
extended.
MS. FOWLER answered that DCCED extends [the opportunity to]
comment on about two or three projects per year.
3:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to page 1, line 1, of Version J,
which read in part, "An Act relating to giving notice" and
pointed out that the language in Amendment 1 does not mention
"giving notice". He asked if Amendment 1 would change
substantially the intent of Version J.
MS. FOWLER responded that Amendment 1 would insert additional
language but does not delete any language from page 1, line 1,
of Version J.
3:19:09 PM
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Legislation & Regulations Sections, Civil
Division (Juneau), referred to the language in the new
subsection (c) under Amendment 1, and she stated, "Our
discussion here is focused on what we would call 'supplemental
notice.'" She said that it appears that the amendment is
addressing the extension of a hearing time. She asked if that
is the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his understanding that the intent
is to limit multiple extensions of oral testimony.
MS. POLLARD asked if Amendment 1 addresses the notice that is
posted for proposed regulations. She relayed that there are
steps the agency needs to take and a statute relating to public
proceedings; and that statute appears to be the one that would
be amended under Amendment 1. She stated that the statute
relates to when agencies may have the public proceeding on a
regulations project in addition to a written notice. She
expressed her understanding that the focus of Amendment 1 is on
supplemental notice; an agency would be allowed no more than 45
days of an extended supplemental notice.
MS. MORRIS offered that the extensions are not just to the
hearing, but to the whole regulation process. She said that the
intent of Amendment 1 is to limit taking testimony to one more
time after an agency has collected all oral and written
comments. She suggested, instead, the wording, "extensions of
re-notice". She expressed her belief that the intent of
Amendment 1 is clear; she offered support for amending the
amendment to ensure that the wording is acceptable to DOL in
expressing that intent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Pollard if the wording in the new
subsection (c) achieves the intent as described or if it would
benefit from revision.
MS. POLLARD responded that DOL staff would need time to review
and discuss the wording. She maintained that the intent of what
is desired is clear: that an agency, board, or commission could
do a supplemental notice but only provide the public 45 more
days in which to submit additional comments.
3:23:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if Amendment 1 has been proposed to
address a specific problem: Are there particular board and
commissions for which there have been multiple extensions?
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered that the proposed legislation would
benefit boards and commissions "across the board."
MS. MORRIS, in response to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, said
certainly. She relayed that the state wants to avoid "doing
regulations" repeatedly. She said she understands the situation
where a regulations package fails to accomplish what is
intended; there are negative comments; and the regulation
package is re-worked and re-noticed. She maintained that in
that situation, it would be a completely different regulation
package; not the same regulations "rolled out again." She said
that the intent of Amendment 1 is to avoid spending more money
on the same regulations "being rolled out again and again and
again."
3:25:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to discussion during a previous
committee meeting [4/4/17] and expressed his understanding that
it was decided that when a board has the option of accepting
oral and written testimony, it is not necessary to continue
offering extensions to testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded yes.
MS. MORRIS answered, "You have it absolutely right." She added
that the inclusion of oral comment in Version J allows for that
extra testimony, and the intent of the proposed legislation is
that the testimony not "continue on." She maintained that the
sponsor of HB 190 supports Amendment 1.
3:27:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked Ms. Pollard if Legislative Legal and
Research Services, when drafting the amendment, considers the
concern [regarding intent and wording] that Ms. Pollard brought
forward.
MS. POLLARD responded that she could not give an exact answer to
the question. She said Legislative Legal and Research Services
drafts amendments as requested using general language from the
sponsor or more specific language. She stated that she looks at
it in the context of the statute in which it would be inserted;
the statute relates to hearings; and she has questions regarding
the word "extensions" and at what point the 45-day period
begins. She offered that DOL would review the language.
3:29:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested revising the amendment with the
assistance of DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH pointed out that DOL has not had much time
to review the amendment; he maintained that Amendment 1 proposes
a straightforward change; and he asked what the downside would
be of adopting Amendment 1 and making a revision "down the
road."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee is the only committee of referral for the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked the time line for doing the necessary
legal review of Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if it would be appropriate to adopt
the proposed amendments, introduce a forthcoming CS, and make
amendments after DOL has reviewed the CS.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he thought that was a good
suggestion, and the intent of Amendment 1 is clearly understood
by the committee.
3:32:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS0732\J.2, Bannister, 4/7/17. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:33:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to the proposed Amendment 2 to
Version J, which read:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "and"
Page 1, line 3, following "regulations":
Insert "; and relating to the identification of a
person who comments on the proposed adoption,
amendment, or repeal of regulations"
Page 3, line 4, following "orally.":
Insert "The agency shall require a person who
presents a statement, argument, or contention in
writing or orally to give the person's name and,
unless acting on the person's own behalf, the person's
affiliation."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH relayed that the Amendment 2 would revise
the title of the proposed legislation. It also would assist in
avoiding outside interests when implementing or reviewing
proposed regulations; currently there is no way of verifying if
people influencing [regulations] changes through testimony are
Alaska residents. Amendment 2 proposes a process whereby the
agency requires a person presenting a statement, argument, or
contention in writing or orally to give his/her name and if not
speaking on one's own behalf, to give his/her affiliation.
MS. MORRIS stated that the sponsor is in total agreement with
Amendment 2.
MS. POLLARD expressed her concern that the agency may want to
consider an anonymous comment.
3:34:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if it occurs that someone submitting
written testimony does not want to disclose his/her identity.
MS. POLLARD responded that agencies are best able to describe
how many comments they receive; most agencies let the public
know in the notice that written comments are considered a public
record - not published - but a public record.
3:35:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH maintained that if 50 people testify, it is
germane to him if they are constituents, Alaskans, or out-of-
state residents. He asserted that knowing who is testifying
is relevant information and asking for name and affiliation is
minimal.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if agencies receive anonymous
comments on regulations currently, and how agencies respond.
MS. FOWLER replied that she cannot recall any recent occurrence
of the submission of an anonymous comment, but she conceded that
she would need to review the records to determine if that has
occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that if a testifier had a reason
to be anonymous, the person presiding over a hearing would have
the discretion to allow anonymity. He maintained that it is a
reasonable expectation for most people who testify to identify
themselves and their affiliations.
3:38:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that it would be in the commenter's
best interest to identify himself/herself. He expressed his
concern that requiring a person to identify himself/herself
would preclude anyone wishing to remain anonymous.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that anyone testifying before
the House State Affairs Standing Committee is asked to identify
himself/herself and state his/her affiliation for the record.
She asserted that it does not seem unreasonable to require that
of someone testifying on an agency regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed that identifying oneself is
appropriate and common practice; however, anonymous written
testimony could be noted as such. He offered reasons for an
anonymous telephonic testimony - someone with involvement in a
crime or violation or someone not wanting his/her affiliation to
be known. He maintained that it is reasonable to request a name
and affiliation; it goes to the credibility of the testimony;
and those not offering name and affiliation may state the
reason. He stated that he supports the proposed Amendment 2.
3:41:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 30-
LS0732\J.3, Bannister, 4/10/17. There being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 190 would be held over.
3:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his concern with the proposed
legislation - the elimination of newspaper [publication of
notice] requirement. He stated that in smaller communities,
newspapers may be the main source of news; not everyone living
in a cabin in rural Alaska uses a phone to read agency websites.
He asserted that for some people, not having notices published
in a generally accessible medium may not be optimal.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded that the proposed legislation
does not prohibit the publication of a notification in the
newspaper; a notice could be published in a community newspaper,
if the regulation were specific to that community. He stated
that the proposed legislation would eliminate publishing in a
newspaper as a requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL conceded that he understands that, but if it
is not required, agencies would be less inclined to do it. He
reiterated that for some people, the newspaper may be their
source of public notice.
3:45:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that Title 29 requires
municipalities to advertise for public notice; he asked if there
would be conflicting requirements in statute if the requirement
is deleted from this title [Title 44].
MS. POLLARD reminded the committee that she is speaking as
someone from DOL who advises executive branch agencies on
regulations issues; her comments are limited to the
legislatively mandated steps that an agency, which includes
boards and commissions, must perform to validly adopt a
regulation under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). She
stated that other agencies that need to advertise public notice
- for example for land use decisions - may have different
considerations.
MS. POLLARD asserted that it is true that what the government is
doing is considered by most to be a core function of government;
and it is also correct that throughout the statutes there are
many references to newspaper notice. She said that the goal of
notice in a regulatory context, which includes a broad spectrum
of issues of all executive agencies, is to reach as many
Alaskans as potentially might be affected by a regulatory
package of an agency action.
3:49:07 PM
MS. POLLARD stated that for many years there has been a
requirement to publish notice in newspapers of general
circulation. She mentioned that people have brought up the
possibility of less costly notification. She said that the
notice of regulations is required by the legislature, and the
three main avenues of publication are: notice in a newspaper of
general circulation or trade or industry publication; notice on
the online notice system; and notice sent to legislators and
interested parties. She said that APA, in Title 44, Chapter 62,
references publication in newspapers; newspaper publication has
been the main avenue of notice for many years. It gives as many
people as possible easy access to the information and avoids a
"digital divide" - allowing some people better access than
others.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, referring to Representative Knopp's
question, asked if there would be different standards for
municipal governments than for the state government for noticing
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP added that his question concerned not only
the notice requirement but the terms of notice - length and
number of times. He offered that when the statute was written,
before electronic media, newspapers were what existed. He
asserted that there are many statutes that address notices, and
improperly giving notice is always a concern for municipalities.
3:52:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH relayed his experience at the municipal
level, which was to choose the publication that targets the
interested parties.
MS. POLLARD stated that statutory agencies are required to take
the procedural steps when doing regulations projects; these are
"good" steps that allow the public to understand and participate
in the regulatory process. She maintained that DOL has a
selection of forms that it requests agencies to use in the
regulations process so that a record of the steps taken can be
filed with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor; therefore, if
there is a challenge to a regulation, there is always a package
showing that all the steps were taken. She relayed that in the
package is an affidavit related to public comment and a copy or
other proof of the newspaper notice. She suggested that the
committee consider what constitutes a good record of the
process.
3:55:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested language on page 1, line 8-9, to
say "may publish in the newspaper of general circulation or
trade or industry publication". He asked if that language would
leave it to the agency to decide the method of notification and
give flexibility to the agency. He offered that the decision
may be on a case-by-case basis depending on the regulation or
where the hearings are held; the state would not be restricting
but providing options. An agency may explore one avenue, find
that it is not adequate, and opt for another.
MS. MORRIS reminded the committee that they are the lawmakers,
and from those laws, regulations are written. The APA offers
"or" and not "and"; therefore, notice may be in a newspaper or
trade or industry publication. She maintained that it is
important to pay attention to the "ors" and the "ands" when
considering proposed legislation; the agency does not have to
notice regulations by all the methods listed. She reiterated
that through notification, the agency must reach the group of
people most impacted by the regulations.
MS. MORRIS expressed that she understands the determination of
the state to reach as many people as possible and maintained it
does that. She pointed out page 1, line 10, [of Version J],
which read in part, "and the state agency's Internet website";
this would allow the public to comment online with a name and
email address. She offered that sometimes the process "feels
like it's on autopilot" and her intent is to take if off
autopilot. She maintained that "we need to be more in control
what happens in our state, how much money we're spending on
regulations, and who is influencing our regulations"; that is
the intent of the proposed legislation, and the sponsor is open
to doing that the best way possible.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP responded that his concern was for
notification, not regulation. He pointed out that on page 1,
lines 8-9, "newspaper of general circulation or" is bracketed,
therefore, would be deleted, which leaves "trade or industry
publication". He maintained that including the language, "may
publish in newspaper of general circulation" would avoid
requiring it but would provide the option.
3:59:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how agencies currently have used
their discretion in deciding the avenue of notification; which
regulation notices are published in a newspaper of general
circulation and which are published in a trade or industry
publication? He asked for specific examples demonstrating how
the decisions regarding publication of notices are made.
MS. FOWLER replied that typically DCCED chooses to publish in a
newspaper over a trade or industry publication due to cost. She
said that the cost of publishing in most of the trade and
industry publications is greater than publishing in some of the
newspapers of general circulation; however, there is great
variety among publishing costs. She offered as examples:
advertising in the Anchorage Dispatch News (ADN) often costs
$750; and the Juneau Empire is more expensive. She maintained
that the decisions are driven by the situations, programs, and
populations of interest. She stated that the Division of
Banking and Securities (DBS) [DCCED] revises Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) regulations relating to proxy
solicitations about once per year; the [revised] regulations are
published in approximately nine different newspapers to reach
the greatest number of affected individuals. She maintained
that DCCED is making determinations based on the population, the
location of the population, and the best method of reaching
them.
4:01:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Version J beginning on page 1,
line 13, and ending on page 2, line 3, which read in part, "when
broadcasting the notice, an agency may use an abbreviated form
of the notice ... the Internet address of the Alaska Online
Public Notice System where the full text of the notice can be
found". He maintained that with that provision, it is not
necessary to publish "essays" of regulatory language in the
newspaper, but a short description and the link to more
information on the Internet. He asked how often that scenario
occurs.
MS. FOWLER replied that she will provide that information.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the cost of a typical
advertisement in the smaller newspapers, such as in Homer and
Kodiak.
MS. FOWLER responded that she will provide that information.
4:03:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that the frequency of an
advertisement is another variable in cost. He agreed that
reaching "non-digital" people is important.
4:03:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked what the duty and obligation is to
advertise [regulations] anywhere. He maintained that online
advertising is so ubiquitous, and advertising by print media is
almost obsolete. He asked if the state has a continuing duty
to advertise in a newspaper, trade, or industry publication. He
stated that he would also like to know what the budget is for
advertising and what the savings would be without print
advertising.
MS. FOWLER replied that DCCED puts forward between 30 and 40
regulations packages per year; she would need to calculate the
cost based on those numbers.
4:05:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that it might be 30-40 times
$1,000. He asked if the proposed legislation would result in
savings in other state departments; he relayed that he did not
have a sense of the savings that would be involved. He
suggested that the state could be creative and flexible in
encouraging people to do what is commonly done in private life:
consulting craigslist and electronic media for advertising.
MS. FOWLER stated that she can speak only to DCCED's
regulations; she said she knew that all the departments are
assessing the impact of the proposed legislation and that
information will be forthcoming from the executive branch.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the state has a sense of what is
adequate for advertising from a legal standpoint.
MS. POLLARD said that she would follow up on that request. She
offered to provide the committee with "shorthand sentences"
reflecting pertinent Alaska Supreme Court decisions. She said
that the purpose of notice is to spur potentially affected
people into taking a closer look.
4:08:05 PM
MS. MORRIS relayed that she and the sponsor know that it is a
legal imperative that everyone affected by a regulation is
reached. She stated that the committee has not received all
the fiscal notes yet from the administration; they are in
review; and that information would provide information on the
impact of the proposed legislation. She maintained that the
proposed legislation will be revised to address the concerns of
Representatives Knopp and LeDoux regarding reaching people in
small communities.
4:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he supports the proposed
legislation; he is aware that newspaper advertising will be
obsolete soon. He maintained that he dealt with the cost of
advertising at the local level and believes that $750 is
inexpensive. He recommended inserting "may" [page 1, line 8] to
give the departments options for the best method of giving
notice, in lieu of a mandate.
4:10:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 190 would be held over.
HB 163-DPS LAW ENFORCE. SVCS: AGREEMENTS/FEES
4:10:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act authorizing the Department
of Public Safety to enter into agreements with nonprofit
regional corporations and federal, tribal, and local government
agencies to provide law enforcement services; authorizing the
Department of Public Safety to collect fees for certain law
enforcement services; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 163. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
4:10:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 163 would be held over.
4:11:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:11
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB190 Draft Proposed Amendment J.2 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 190 |
| HB190 Draft Proposed Amendment J.3 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 190 |
| HB190 Fiscal Note DOC 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 190 |
| HB190 Fiscal Note DOT 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 190 |
| HB190 Fiscal Note DOL 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 190 |
| HB190 Fiscal Note DPS 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 190 |
| HB190 Fiscal Note DEC 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 190 |