03/06/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB71 | |
| Overview: Summer Construction Planning Update | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2025
1:04 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Louise Stutes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to obstruction; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
OVERVIEW: SUMMER CONSTRUCTION PLANNING UPDATE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE: OBSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/27/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/25 (H) TRA, JUD
03/06/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TREG TAYLOR
Alaska Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the prime sponsor, House Rules
by request of the governor, presented a PowerPoint on HB 71,
titled "Obstruction of Access to Public Places."
PARKER PATTERSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the prime sponsor, House Rules
by request of the governor, gave the sectional analysis for HB
71.
RYAN ANDERSON, Commissioner, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview on the summer construction
planning update.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:35 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives
Carrick, Mina, and Eischeid were present at the call to order.
Representatives McCabe, Tilton, and Moore arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 71-OBSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES
1:05:45 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to obstruction; and
providing for an effective date."
1:06:52 PM
TREG TAYLOR, Alaska Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
on behalf of the prime sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor, gave a PowerPoint presentation on HB 71, titled
"Obstruction of Access to Public Places" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. He stated that HB 71 is a "clean up" of
legislation heard during the previous session. The proposed
legislation would consolidate obstruction-type issues in the
statute and clarify the offenses for law enforcement and
offenders. He explained that 98 percent of what is covered in
the proposed legislation would already be considered a crime.
He pointed out that, although all Alaskans have the right to
move freely about the state and assemble for protests, these
rights are subject to restrictions. He expressed the idea that
HB 71 would balance these rights with the restrictions. He
expressed the opinion that this is a "pro-protest bill," as HB
71 would not override any permits to assemble issued by
municipalities in the state, and it would be neutral to the
contents of protests.
1:10:21 PM
MR. TAYLOR discussed Alaskans' freedom of movement within the
state, as seen on slide 3. He argued that the unlawful
obstruction of movement could present a threat to public safety,
as emergency vehicles may be unable to respond if a crucial
roadway were obstructed. He also noted that the unlawful
obstruction of movement could pose a threat to Alaska's economy,
as businesses would not be able to operate normally, and
citizens would not be able to reach work. He discussed the
penalties for obstruction of movement that the proposed bill
would add. He suggested that these penalties would work to
discourage any obstruction of movement.
1:11:57 PM
MR. TAYLOR moved to slide 4 and explained that the proposed bill
would target the conduct of blocking access to public places,
not the right of Alaskans to peaceably and lawfully assemble.
He moved to the next slide to show examples in other parts of
the country of unlawful obstruction of movement. The examples
highlighted the importance of content neutrality in the
legislation.
1:13:34 PM
MR. TAYLOR moved to slide 6 which showed the vulnerabilities
specific to Alaskans. He pointed out that if the Seward
Highway, Dalton Highway, Glenn Highway, or Highway 2 were
obstructed by protests, supplies and services to the surrounding
areas would be cut off.
1:15:56 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Department of Law, on behalf of the prime sponsor,
House Rules by request of the governor, continued with the
PowerPoint and paraphrased the sectional analysis for HB 71,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1
• Adds new penalties to the crime of obstruction of
airports and classifies specific conduct as class C
felony or class A misdemeanor
Section 2
• Accounts for amendments in section 2 with a
conforming change
Section 3
• Establishes strict liability in a civil case for
violations of any criminal statutes created or amended
by the bill and sets out provisions for civil cause of
action
Section 4
• Creates crime of obstruction of public places, a
class A misdemeanor; it is a class C felony if conduct
creates a substantial risk of physical injury,
interferes with a person's access to governmental or
judicial services, or interferes with an emergency
response
• Permitted conduct exempt
Section 5
• Amends the crime of obstruction to navigable waters
to a class C felony if the conduct creates a
substantial risk of injury or interferes with an
emergency response
• Other obstructions class A misdemeanor
Section 6
• Repeal of existing criminal statutes encompassed by
new crime of obstruction of free passage in public
places
Section 7
• Provides prospective application of criminal
offenses amended in the bill
Section 8
• Provides for a July 1, 2025 effective date
1:19:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution is an absolute right. He asked
whether citizens can "say anything we want."
MR. TAYLOR responded that the Supreme Court of the United States
and the Alaska Supreme Court have both clarified that this is
not considered an absolute right, and he gave an example of harm
occurring from the use of [inappropriate] free speech.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether there are current laws
to protect the public if a death or injury occurred from the
conduct of protesters.
MR. TAYLOR stated that there could be a civil remedy; however,
HB 71 would clarify the consequences in codified law, and this
would simplify cases. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that HB 71 would be "an attempt to balance individuals'
constitutional rights," as it would protect both protesters and
someone in an emergency needing to avoid protesters. He stated
that under the proposed legislation it would be clear to
responding officers when protesters could be removed.
1:24:21 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed concern that the definition of
"blocking a public place" is ambiguous in the proposed
legislation. She questioned how the Alaska Supreme Court might
interpret this language.
MR. TAYLOR affirmed that it would be up to the interpretation of
the courts; however, he expressed the opinion that the language
in the proposed legislation is clear. He stated that, for
example, it would cover the instance when protesters are
stopping individuals from entering a public place. He further
explained that discretion would be exercised at three points:
the responding officers, DOL, and the courts.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed concern that discretion might not be
shown until the case reached the level of the courts, and this
would be after the fact. She asked if HB 71 could be used as a
tool to "remove unhoused people from certain locations."
MR. TAYLOR responded that if the situation met the elements
proposed in the legislation, the people would be removed.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed the belief that the proposed
legislation could be used as a method of removing and arresting
unhoused people in Anchorage. She argued that this is not "the
tool that should be used for that particular job while that
still remains a challenge for our communities."
1:29:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON questioned the definition of "civil
malice" in Section 3 of the proposed legislation. She asked
whether protesters would be allowed to obstruct the entrance to
the capitol under the proposed policies.
MR. TAYLOR answered that the "malice" language was added to
address those who encourage protesters to break the law. He
further discussed other added language that would create
carveouts, such as a carveout for [unintentional] obstruction
created with a snowplow and a carveout allowing those in charge
of premises in a public place to give approval for protests that
would shut down these premises.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON clarified that "civil malice" would be
more than simply encouraging people to protest; rather, it would
be encouraging people to break the law.
MR. TAYLOR responded in the affirmative. In response to a
follow-up question, he affirmed that those in charge of the
premises of a public place could give approval for a protest
that would shut down the premises.
1:34:28 PM
MR. TAYLOR, in response to a question from Representative
McCabe, stated that other statutes might apply to allow for the
legal removal of a protester; however, HB 71 would make it clear
to law enforcement when a protester could be arrested for a
protest. In response to a follow-up question concerning
unhoused individuals, he stated that the proposed legislation
would not make this distinction about the people obstructing the
public place in question.
1:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned the new crimes that would be
imposed under the proposed legislation.
MR. TAYLOR responded that 98 percent of what the proposed
legislation would cover is already a crime. He continued that
the remaining 2 percent needs to be clarified, and this covers
obstruction of a public place. In response to a follow-up
question concerning how penalties under HB 71 would compare to
those for similar crimes, he said that a protester who is
knowingly preventing passage to a public facility would be
committing an arrestable offense.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked if HB 71 would criminalize situations
like the march [from Montgomery to Selma], which began as
peaceful but resulted in an event known as "Bloody Sunday."
MR. TAYLOR replied that the proposed legislation would
criminalize the obstruction of any public place. He gave the
example that if protesters go beyond an area permitted for a
protest, the organizers would not be liable. He continued that
a protester would be liable when there is a "knowingly intent"
to prevent passage in a public place; therefore, if a protest
stopped traffic on a highway, it would be an arrestable offence.
1:43:08 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK suggested that HB 71 would make Alaskans liable
to each other. If an individual did not "like" a particular
protest, she questioned what would stop this individual from
claiming obstruction. On a second question, she expressed
concern that the strict penalty in the proposed legislation
would not be directly tied to losses or damages incurred.
MR. TAYLOR, addressing the first question, explained that this
is an issue for every criminal statute, as it is not unforeseen
for individuals to attempt to "weaponize" statutes. He
continued that the system of justice already addresses this.
Per the second question, he stated that the proposed legislation
would clarify the law so those engaging in illegal protests
would understand the risks. He reiterated that individuals
could also seek civil remedies with other statutes.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK asked if there is any evidence that increasing
the penalty would deter people from engaging in the type of
protest targeted by HB 71. She suggested that these types of
targeted protests are not common.
MR. TAYLOR said that there is no specific evidence to prove HB
71 would deter people from obstructing public places; however,
he suggested that people would pay attention to increased fines.
He said that the intention of the proposed legislation is to
prevent organizations from creating mass protests that block
access to public places. He added that these mass protests have
been seen happening in other parts of the world. He continued
that the proposed legislation would address organized protest,
but it could also address organic protest.
1:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked if the organizers of a protest could
be charged along with the protesters under the proposed
legislation.
MR. TAYLOR responded that HB 71 would punish those who are
"knowingly" breaking the law.
1:52:31 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID asked whether it would be a chargeable offense
if someone unknowingly obstructed a public place while riding a
bicycle.
MR. TAYLOR explained that riding a bicycle on the side of a road
would not be a punishable offense under HB 71.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID gave the hypothetical that a large protest was
happening on the side of the road, and a non-participating
person walking in the opposite direction of the protest had been
harmed. He asked whether under the proposed legislation there
could be a charge to the protesters for this harm.
MR. TAYLOR responded that there could be a violation, but HB 71
would not be targeting this type of scenario. He continued that
if the protesters were stopping the individual's passage, the
protesters could be charged.
1:56:58 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK noted to the committee that her office has
received over 300 letters in opposition to the proposed
legislation.
1:57:37 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID made closing comments.
[HB 71 was held over.]
1:57:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:57 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
^OVERVIEW: SUMMER CONSTRUCTION PLANNING UPDATE
OVERVIEW: SUMMER CONSTRUCTION PLANNING UPDATE
2:00:35 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the final order of business
would be an overview from the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities on the summer construction planning update.
2:01:08 PM
RYAN ANDERSON, Commissioner, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), gave a PowerPoint presentation on
the summer construction planning update [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. He pointed out that there has been an
increased interest in DOT&PF's summer construction season. He
began on slide 2, titled "Alaska Project Exchange." He
explained that this is a new interactive map for the public so
they can analyze and learn about transportation projects in any
part of Alaska. He reviewed the information available from this
map.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 3, which highlighted
specific construction contracts and funding for the federal
fiscal year 2025 (FFY 25). He pointed out the federal funding
increase from FFY 24. He discussed how the department
determines programs and projects, which is mostly done by
looking at funding and contractor payments and awards. He
pointed out that often contracts are awarded over several years,
and this creates two different perspectives on the funding. He
stated that there has been concern that not enough contracts are
being awarded for the summer. He discussed the specific
contract amounts and details, as seen on the slide.
2:07:15 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned the typical timeline for a project
award, from the project bidding process to the start of the
project. She suggested that contracts should already be out to
bid for the upcoming summer season.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON answered that it takes about three weeks
for the department to bid a job. After the announcement of the
low bidder, he said there would be paperwork to be completed,
which takes another three weeks; therefore, it is generally a
six-week wait between the initial bid and the awarding of the
contract. In response to a follow-up question concerning
whether the timeline is realistic, he said that there is a
completion date for all projects that have been awarded. He
further discussed that projects are spread out into the year and
can run into the next year.
2:11:13 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID pointed out the projected funding increase for
FFY 25. He questioned how the amount for FFY 25 had been
determined.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON replied that the Federal Highway
Administration supplies this amount, as the federal government
will supply the funding if DOT&PF can supply the projects. He
explained the steps involved in creating a project per the
federal requirements.
2:13:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the transfer of federal funding
to the state and the increased amount for FFY 25.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON responded that part of the funding amount
depends on the federal money the state did not use from the
previous year. Once this is determined, the federal government
further determines the allocation amount to the state. He
discussed that the department works at redistribution to utilize
as much of the federal funds as possible.
2:15:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked if there is a list of the awarded
contracts to date.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON answered that there is a list on the
DOT&PF website.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE questioned whether it is realistic that the
$200 million available would be paid out in contracts.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON responded that the department is "pushing
really hard right now." He referred to subsequent slides
showing the risks and discussed the plan of making the contracts
with project delivery. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that the department can provide a list of projects that
were bid on versus those that were awarded.
2:18:15 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK pointed out the key issues listed on the slide.
She questioned the steps being taken to address these issues.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON responded that slides later in the
presentation would address this question.
2:19:00 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 4 and discussed project
delivery and how the project advertising schedule would affect
contractors. He moved from slide 5 to slide 7 and showed charts
on project delivery developments for the northern, central, and
southern regions in the state. He discussed the use of the
color-coding on the charts.
2:22:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that these types of charts are the
result of a request. He added that the charts are helpful. He
made a request that the department provide more frequent, quick
briefings so constituents could be more involved.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON expressed agreement. He explained that
DOT&PF would be hosting virtual seminars to provide background
on projects for contractors.
2:23:27 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned the criteria for project delivery,
as indicated by the color codes on the chart displayed on slide
5.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON explained that in the department's design
groups there are preconstruction engineers who lead each
regional team and put together the criteria as part of their
jobs. He pointed out the details and problems of projects that
engineers and their staff must address for project delivery.
2:26:04 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON continued discussing project delivery by
detailing the information on the charts on slide 6 and slide 7.
He discussed what the department is doing to meet these
schedules. He pointed out that one delay has been because of
the necessity for utility relocation projects. He expressed the
understanding that this is an effect from compliance with the
Buy America/Build America (BABA) Act.
2:28:00 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved from slide 8 to slide 15. These
slides displayed regional maps across the state, listing
projects within each region. He highlighted some of the details
and challenges of projects in each of these regions. He noted
that the Dalton Highway is a "big" focus of the department, but
projects must be spread out [timewise] on this highway,
otherwise truckers would be held up on the way to the North
Slope Borough. He spoke about airport projects in Southwest
Alaska and the high costs associated with rural Alaska. He
highlighted the importance of growth, funding, and upgrades for
the Anchorage International Airport.
2:35:24 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON continued to slide 16 and slide 17, which
emphasized specific actions DOT&PF will be taking in the coming
years to meet the transportation needs of Alaska. He addressed
the effect of inflation and pointed out the chart showing the
National Highway Construction Cost Index. He noted the 67
percent increase in the cost of construction over the past three
years. He said that shifts must be made to meet the fiscal
constraints, noting that communication with contractors, the
timing of federal funding, and project advertisement are crucial
aspects.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON discussed resource constraints, stating
that materials can be difficult to obtain and reiterated the
effect of BABA. He pointed out holdups on projects because of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requirements on easements
and gravel rock excavation permits. He reiterated that this has
been a challenge with BLM and the Dalton Highway projects.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON addressed future actions DOT&PF will be
taking to further project completion. He discussed hiring
consultants who would work alongside state workers to help move
projects. He addressed internal controls and highlighted the
need for "solid" project management and consistency within the
department. Lastly, he noted that the department plans to
continue with modernizing project delivery and forecasting
tools.
2:42:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, concerning rock gravel excavation,
questioned whether gravel from different regions is being used
for the Dalton Highway.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON answered that it is too expensive to haul
gravel from other regions of Alaska. He noted that permits for
many of the gravel sites are expiring, and they may not be
renewable because of BLM requirements. He noted that the
quality of the material used is important because of the
possible damage to trucks.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) has land available with resources that
could be used on the Dalton Highway. He questioned whether
writing a letter to the state's federal delegation or making a
resolution to communicate the need would be helpful. He noted
that the Dalton Highway is key to Artic development.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON stated that the department is actively
working with BLM legal counsel in order to obtain access to the
materials to maintain the Dalton Highway. He expressed support
for committee participation in helping the effort.
2:46:18 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned the breakdown of projects in the
Fairbanks area. With the short timeframe for construction, she
argued that projects should already be issued for the summer
construction season. She expressed the opinion that additional
support for DOT&PF projects is essential. She questioned why
the department has not sought additional preconstruction
engineers. She also questioned what has been done to fill the
Northern Region director position with someone from the region.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON explained that there are many projects on
board for the Fairbanks area; however, the poor air quality is a
challenge for construction, as projects must be listed in the
federal Transportation Improvement Program for the Metropolitan
Planning Organization. In response to the second question, he
stated that DOT&PF is actively looking for a new director for
its Northern Region; however, it has not found a candidate who
meets the requirements.
2:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA, in regard to inflationary impacts,
questioned the impact of tariffs imposed by the current
administration.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON answered that the impact of these tariffs
is currently hard to predict.
2:50:45 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID made closing comments.
2:51:16 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:51
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 71 Hearing Request verson A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Highlights version A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB0071-1-2-012725-DPS-N.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB0071A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| 20250306 HTRA Summer Construction.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
DOT& PF Summer Construction Update |
| 03.06.25 HB 71 Presentation .pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |