Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/2017 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB97 | |
| HB16 | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2017
9:05 a.m.
9:05:51 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Sponsor; Lynette Bergh,
Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Larry Johanson, Self,
Juneau; Senator Shelley Hughes, Sponsor; Buddy Whitt,
Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Juanita Webb, Wallbusters, Fairbanks; Art Delaune,
Wallbusters, Fairbanks; Rob Carter, Division of
Agriculture, Palmer; Courtney Moran, Earth Law LLC,
Portland; Steve St. Clair, Self, Mat-Su; Ember Haynes,
Self, Talkeetna; Steve Albers, Kenai Soil & Water
Conservation District, Kenai; Abigail St. Clair, Self, Mat-
Su.
SUMMARY
SB 6 INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTION
SB 6 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 97 PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS
SB 97 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Revenue.
HB 16 DRIV. LICENSE REQ; DISABILITY: ID &TRAINING
HB 16 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the agenda.
SENATE BILL NO. 97
"An Act relating to pension obligation bonds."
9:06:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the bill had been heard
previously. She CLOSED public testimony.
Senator von Imhof MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS0486\D.1
(Wallace, 3/30/17) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 3, following "Committee":
Insert "or obtaining legislative approval by law"
Page 2, lines 15 - 18:
Delete "shall again review the proposal and, if the
subsidiary corporation decides to issue the bonds, the
subsidiary corporation shall provide the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee with a statement of the
subsidiary corporation's reasons for doing so before
issuance under this section"
Insert "may not issue bonds without first obtaining
legislative approval by law"
Page 2, line 25, following "Committee":
Insert "or obtaining legislative approval by law" 13
Page 3, lines 8 - 11:
Delete "shall again review the proposal and, if the
committee decides to issue and sell the bonds, the
committee shall provide the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee with a statement of the committee's
reasons for doing so before issuance under this
section"
Insert "may not issue bonds without first obtaining
legislative approval by law"
Page 3, line 24, following "Committee":
Insert "or obtaining legislative approval by law"
Page 4, lines 6 - 9:
Delete "shall again review the proposal and, if the
corporation decides to issue and sell the bonds, the
corporation shall provide the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee with a statement of the corporation's
reasons for doing so before issuance under this
section"
Insert "may not issue bonds without first obtaining
legislative approval by law"
Page 5, line 7, following "Committee":
Insert "or obtaining legislative approval by law"
Page 5, line 23, following "Committee":
Insert "or obtaining legislative approval by law"
Page 6, lines 9 - 13:
Delete "shall again review the proposal and, if the
subsidiary corporation decides to issue the bonds, the
subsidiary corporation shall provide the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee with a statement of the
subsidiary corporation's reasons for doing so before
issuance under this section"
Insert "may not issue bonds without first obtaining
legislative approval by law"
Page 6, line 23, following "Committee":
Insert "or obtaining legislative approval by law" 21
Page 7, line 21, following "Committee":
Insert "or obtaining legislative approval by law" 24
Page 7, line 31, through page 8, line 3:
Delete "shall again review the proposal and, if the
bond bank authority decides to issue the bonds, the
bond bank authority shall provide the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee with a statement of the
bond bank authority's reasons for doing so before
issuance under this section"
Insert "may not issue bonds without first obtaining
legislative approval by law"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
9:07:20 AM
AT EASE
9:07:49 AM
RECONVENED
Senator von Imhof explained that the purpose of the
amendment was to provide oversight by the legislature prior
to the issuance of the bonds. The amendment provided a last
course of action - a stop gap measure. Generally, when the
administration brought forward a pension obligation bond
issuance, it was presented to the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee (LB&A). If the committee did not approve,
it could request additional information and could write a
letter, which was public record. She detailed that
typically, the public document triggered a market reaction
causing rates to rise to cover the risk associated, making
the arbitrage ineffective. Under normal circumstances it
meant the administration would not move forward with the
deal and would not issue the bonds because the interest
rate spread would close.
Senator von Imhof elaborated that if the administration
decided to continue forward against the recommendation of
LB&A or if the market did not respond, the legislature
would have a fallback option to meet as an entire body and
vote on the proposal. She continued that if the issue
occurred during the interim it would trigger a special
session, which was costly and problematic.
Senator Micciche wanted the committee to understand that
existing law did not require the governor to go to LB&A to
move forward with a GO [general obligation] bond. The bill
would change that process. He explained that the bill would
reduce the $5 billion authority in half to $2.5 billion. He
stated that he would normally support the amendment, but he
was concerned there was a good chance it would prevent the
legislation from moving forward.
9:10:27 AM
Senator Dunleavy was supportive of the amendment. He stated
that his concerns were on the record in past discussions.
He continued that GO bonds had to go to a vote of the
people. He remarked that it was a large sum of money and he
appreciated efforts to whittle it down and box it in a bit.
He thought legislators should all be concerned about the
state's debt load. He reasoned that the amendment provided
another check and left the door open if legislators all
agreed they needed to move forward on something. He
believed the amendment would require the administration to
have a conversation with the legislature to determine where
the representatives of the public were on a future bond.
Senator Olson asked if the amendment allowed another avenue
to get approval for a bond to go through. He surmised that
if LB&A was not there, the legislature could have its own
hearings and approve the bonds.
Senator von Imhof provided a scenario where LB&A wrote a
public letter [that disagreed with a bond issuance proposal
by the administration] and it impacted the markets. The
amendment would enable the legislature to meet as a whole
and draft a bill to stop the issuance of the bond.
Senator Olson asked if the legislature could approve moving
forward with the bond.
Senator von Imhof replied in the affirmative. However, she
assumed that if LB&A approved the bond there would be no
need for the entire legislature to meet on the issue,
unless the majority disagreed with LB&A.
Senator Olson noted it had happened in the past. He
supported the amendment.
9:12:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. She explained
that all of the options provided by the amendment were
currently open to the legislature. The amendment was a
compromise between a $5 billion potential liability that
had already been provided to the governor. The issue was
about power distribution - she believed supporters of the
amendment would like the legislature to regain that power.
She believed there was a greater risk and that the
legislature already had that power. She reasoned that
committee members understood that the legislature could
call itself into special session any time to take up
legislation to approve or disapprove of anything that
happened within state government. The bill would reduce the
administration's ability to go out for a $5 billion bond
issuance to $2.5 billion. The amendment took away authority
that the governor would have to agree to. She believed half
of the authority was reasonable. She recalled the
governor's proposal the previous fall had been $2.1 billion
to $2.3 billion. She stated that the legislation was a
balance. There were members in both bodies that believed
the option should be eliminated.
Co-Chair MacKinnon continued that if the bill eliminated
the funding entirely the legislature could send it to the
governor's desk. She communicated that she was not opposed
to the discussion. She pointed to the risk associated with
arbitrage. She had heard opposition to the proposal from
constituents during the administration's last cycle. She
reiterated that the bill represented a balance, which she
believed was a step in the right direction. She requested a
withdrawal of the amendment.
9:14:58 AM
Senator Micciche reiterated his earlier comments that he
would strongly support the amendment if he believed the
bill would pass with it included. He thought giving the
governor the authority to move forward with $5 billion in
pension obligation bonds had been a mistake. He recounted
that the previous summer the governor had a team dispersed
around the world, actively setting up for a bond sale. In
response, the Senate Finance Committee had written a letter
to the governor and he appreciated that the administration
had pulled back and had not gone through with the bond
sale.
Senator Micciche explained that the bill would cut the
governor's authority in half [to $2.5 billion], which would
protect the state by $2.5 billion in potential exposure for
a pension obligation bond that may or may not be under
water in the future. The bill would also require a bond
proposal to go to LB&A, which had not been the case in the
past. He believed the bill was a balance and had a high
probability of passing, whereas eliminating the
[administration's] authority had a higher probability of
being vetoed [by the governor]. He supported the concept of
the amendment but believed it would reduce the chance the
bill would pass. He clarified that without formal
intervention the committee had been able to turn back the
bond issuance the past summer.
9:17:01 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon acknowledged that there were many
members of the legislature that had been uncomfortable with
the administration moving forward [with a bond issuance].
She had a conversation with the governor and the Department
of Revenue (DOR). She believed if pension obligation bonds
had been passed in 2007, according to some people, the
state could potentially have had billions more dollars in
the system to help buy down the pension obligation
liability. It had been noted in the current session that if
the administration would have advanced forward with bonds
under current market conditions, for the short period of
time, there would have been additional money to help with
the cash flow of the unfunded liability. However, pension
obligation bonds were a debt against the state for longer
periods of time than experienced thus far. She noted they
had seen a positive for ten years and one year.
Co-Chair MacKinnon detailed that Deven Mitchell [Executive
Director, Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority, Department
of Revenue] had communicated that the administration had
brought forward a much more conservative pension obligation
bond than other cities that had experienced negative
arbitrage over a bond period. She explained that under the
administration's proposal the state would not realize the
benefits during current financial struggles, but later on
in the life of the loan. She continued that it had been a
much more conservative approach, but Alaskans had still
been very uncomfortable. Therefore, the committee had
entered into a conversation with the governor and asking
them not to proceed. She had been asked to reduce the
authority to zero. The bill was a compromise. She had
communicated to the governor there were legislators in
opposition to pension obligation bonds and the associated
risk. The amendment proposed to strike a balance for
Alaskans who opposed pension obligation bonds. She relayed
the amendment could be offered as a standalone bill. She
had proposed a bill she believed would make it through the
current legislative process.
9:20:11 AM
Senator von Imhof thanked the committee for considering her
amendment. She stated that pension obligation bonds were a
risky venture and hindsight was always 20/20. She detailed
that it was possible to look back and identify market
trends that may work; however, over the long-term it was
proven to be nonperforming. She believed those who tried to
time the market ended up getting burned. She thought that
Co-Chair MacKinnon had made a good point that amendment was
somewhat redundant because the legislature already had the
ability to convene a special session at any time for any
purpose. She agreed with Senator Micciche on the desire to
see the legislation pass the other body. She supported the
bill's stopgap measure requiring proposals to go to LB&A
for review.
Senator von Imhof WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Vice-Chair Bishop was amenable to the $2.5 billion
compromise. He remarked that when there was cash in the
bank, he supported taking the cash and getting 100 percent
value on buying down the debt instead of taking the 50/50
option. He supported the bill.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to report SB 97 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 97 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue.
9:22:38 AM
AT EASE
9:24:48 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act relating to training regarding disabilities
for police officers, probation officers, parole
officers, correctional officers, and village public
safety officers; relating to guidelines for drivers
when encountering or being stopped by a peace officer;
relating to driver's license examinations; and
relating to a voluntary disability designation on a
state identification card and a driver's license."
9:24:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill. He introduced his staff. He
detailed that the bill had come to him about five years
earlier when the disability community had shared that
individuals with nonapparent disabilities had encountered
adverse outcomes with law enforcement. He detailed there
had been circumstances where people with nonapparent
disabilities had been misunderstood by officers. The bill
would mandate training for officers on what to do if they
encounter someone with a nonapparent disability. His office
had worked with police departments and state troopers
across the state. The training was now included in the
state trooper training academy in Sitka and police
departments and the Department of Corrections (DOC) had
agreed they could do the training online.
Representative Thompson provided a scenario where a person
[driving] was stopped by a police officer and had red
lights flashing in their rear window. He explained that the
situation could exacerbate a person's disability. He
considered how to solve the problem. He reported that the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) agreed there should be a
section in its driver's manual outlining what a driver
should do when stopped by a police officer. He elaborated
that many states (e.g. Pennsylvania, Montana, and
California) included the information in their manuals. He
shared that the bill had passed the House unanimously the
previous year but had been held up in session-end politics.
9:28:40 AM
Representative Thompson shared that the bill was nearly
identical to its past form but included a couple of
changes. He reported that some letters had come in from
neuropaths where they were the only ones treating someone
with a traumatic brain injury - subsequently, a provision
had been added to the bill in the Senate. He continued that
the original bill specified that the driver's test would
include questions on what to do when pulled over by an
officer. The current version of the bill removed that
provision. Otherwise, the bill was essentially the same [as
a bill offered the previous session]. The goal was to
protect individuals with imperceptible disabilities.
Officers would also be protected given their increased
understanding of how to handle a situation. He emphasized
that the designation on people's driver's license or
identification was voluntary and needed to be requested and
verified by a medical professional. He noted that many
people did not want to be identified as having a disability
and did not want the designation. He reiterated that the
designation was voluntary.
9:30:06 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the sponsor had listed
multiple medical or licensed professionals in the state who
could identify a disability. She elaborated that the
legislation specified the medical professionals would be
responsible for approving a designation for a card. She
wondered if there was any liability for the individuals who
designated the disability.
LYNETTE BERGH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, asked Co-
Chair MacKinnon to repeat the question.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was any liability for
the individuals who designated the disability.
Additionally, she asked what happened with the
documentation at DMV to support the designation on a
license or identification card.
Ms. Bergh thought it was probably the same process that
occurred when a person applied for a handicap placard or
license plate. She detailed that a doctor had to verify the
person had a disability. The voluntary designation would
happen the same way. A person's disability would be
verified by a doctor - the specific disability would not be
named. There was not a liability to the state. She reasoned
that if there was a liability to the state, the issue would
have arisen with people getting handicap placards and
plates. The disability designator would serve as
notification to a police officer that a person had a
disability; unless a person wanted to share information
about their disability with a police officer, they would
not have to divulge any information. The designation would
operate as a red flag to indicate to the officer that
perhaps something else was going on in the event that an
interaction became unique.
Co-Chair MacKinnon handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Bishop.
9:33:18 AM
AT EASE
9:33:43 AM
RECONVENED
Ms. Bergh continued to answer the question by Co-Chair
MacKinnon related to liability. She relayed that by
statute, there were only several cases where a person could
bring a suit against the state. The information was
included in a legal memo from the Division of Legal and
Research Services dated March 28, 2017 (copy on file). She
detailed that if an issue came before a court, the court
would have to determine whether the police officer was
following training; it could be a liability to the state if
it was determined the officer was not following training.
The designator itself would not cause any liability.
Senator Micciche highlighted a case in his district where
an individual with an anxiety disorder experienced a
negative outcome with law enforcement. He detailed that the
person had a taillight out and had a panicked reaction to
being pulled over. He supported the bill because of that.
He asked why digestive issues had been included. He
believed it was a catchall for hidden disabilities. He
continued that about half of hidden disabilities were
unlikely to have a negative outcome with an officer. He
asked why the bill did not differentiate between the types
of disabilities.
Representative Thompson stated that his office had been
provided with a lengthy list of disabilities that could be
considered nonapparent. He agreed there were many on the
list that should probably not be considered. He assumed
that the DMV may reduce the list because the current list
included disabilities that were not qualified or pertinent
to the situation.
9:36:25 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether DMV would have the ability
to pick and choose from the list of hidden disabilities
titled "Appendix A" in members' packets (copy on file).
Alternatively, he wondered whether there would be firm
rules on which disabilities would be included.
Representative Thompson deferred to Ms. Bergh.
Ms. Bergh replied that "hidden disabilities" was a new term
set by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001. The
organization had determined there were numerous
disabilities, some were visible, and others were not. She
elaborated that WHO had created a list of invisible
disabilities that could cause individuals to have a medical
issue. The list in Appendix A was derived from the WHO
list, which continued to grow as the term hidden disability
evolved. She explained that a medical physician would
specify whether a person was eligible for a voluntary
designator on their identification. She detailed that a
physician be able to determine whether something did not
qualify for the designation. She believed most physicians
would be realistic about what disabilities would be
eligible for a designator.
9:38:43 AM
Senator von Imhof believed it was beneficial that the bill
would provide sensitivity training for police officers, but
she hoped it would not be used against a police officer who
had to use force when they deemed it to be necessary. She
spoke to a circumstance where an individual acted
aggressively and force by the police officer was required.
She hoped an officer would not be reprimanded unfairly for
using the normal course of response.
Representative Thompson thought the bill was something that
would help officers communicate with people. He emphasized
that the designation did not provide any privileges or
extended rights. The purpose of the designation was to
alert an officer that an individual had a disability. The
officer could then ask the individual a question about
their disability to work towards a good outcome. He stated
that if a person acted physically or badly, they should not
be treated any differently than another person. The purpose
was to encourage communication and to avoid overreactions
to situations.
9:40:37 AM
Senator Olson wondered if other states had similar
designations on driver's licenses.
Ms. Bergh responded that other states had trainings on
hidden disabilities and information was available for
individuals to know what happens when a person is stopped
by an officer. To her knowledge no other state had a
designator.
Senator Olson asked if the training used a list of
disabilities.
Ms. Bergh replied that they had not researched whether
other states were using certain lists.
9:41:51 AM
Ms. Bergh reviewed the sectional analysis for HB 16 (copy
on file):
Section 1. Amends AS 18.65.220 to include statutory
language that expands the duties of the police
standards council's training program to include
training in recognizing and interacting with a person
with disabilities, as well as familiarization with
resources that are available to those with hidden
disabilities.
Section 2. Adds a new subsection to AS 18.65.310.
Providing that a person may voluntarily
designate on their state identification card that the
person has a disability and the proof required for the
designation.
Section 3. Amends AS 18.65.670(c) to include
disability training to village public safety officers.
Section 4. Amends AS 28.05.011 by adding a new
subsection to include the duties and responsibilities
of drivers when encountering or being stopped by a
peace officer and that this information be included in
the driver's manual.
Section 5. AS 28.15.111 is amended by adding a new
subsection (d), providing that a person may
voluntarily designate on their Alaska Driver's License
a disability designation, proof required for the
designation and fees that may be charged. Adds
naturopath to the list of licensed individuals who can
provide proof of a disability.
9:43:42 AM
Senator Micciche asked if a $50 fee would be paid by the
applicant requesting the designation on their license.
Ms. Bergh answered in the affirmative.
Senator Micciche wondered how the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) could have a zero fiscal note if the bill
would require training. He asked about the hourly training
requirement.
Ms. Bergh shared that the training had already taken place;
therefore, the fiscal note was zero. The department had
learned the benefits of the training while working with the
bill sponsor's office over the past few years.
Subsequently, the training created by the Alaska Police
Standards Council had been implemented.
9:44:52 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
JUANITA WEBB, WALLBUSTERS, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She relayed that
Wallbusters was a local advocacy group in Fairbanks. She
thanked the bill sponsors for bringing the bill forward.
She referred to written testimony that she had sent to the
committee sharing her personal story (copy on file). She
detailed that for her, the bill was about safety and
standardized education that would give new officers a more
complete understanding of disabilities with standardized
training about visible and hidden disabilities.
Ms. Webb believed the bill would give officers another tool
to help guide their interactions accordingly. A discrete,
voluntary icon on a driver's license would give additional
information to alert officers to potential communication
needs for a better outcome. Throughout the bill process she
had learned that people with disabilities and people in
general were unsure of their responsibility when approached
by an officer. She thought that adding additional
information to the DMV manual would help support the need.
She reasoned that the zero fiscal note was an added bonus,
especially given the current economic climate. She was
proud to be part of a bill that would help educate officers
in their approach to Alaskan citizens and help their jobs
become safer. She concluded that the bill would make
Alaskans lives safer and more informed. She asked the
committee to support the legislation.
9:47:23 AM
ART DELAUNE, WALLBUSTERS, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He relayed that he worked at
Access Alaska and was a member of the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education. He shared that he had
two sons with hidden disabilities. He stated that the bill
was about better communications, accommodations, and
inclusion. The bill would reinforce individual choice,
rights, and responsibilities. The primary focus of the
legislation was on education and training. He stressed that
training of law enforcement and correction officers was
critical because often recognizing a nonapparent disability
was challenging. The bill called for a minimum of an eight-
hour training that would make officers more aware that some
individuals may present with a behavior that was
unintentional or may be viewed as noncompliant.
Additionally, the training would teach officers to
effectively and appropriately interact with people who
experience an apparent or nonapparent disability. He
underscored that the most important aspect of the bill was
safety. The intent of the bill was for law enforcement
officers to discuss information about a disability only
when a situation was secure and diffused.
Mr. Delaune relayed that Wallbusters and Representative
Thompson had been working on the bill for over four years.
He detailed that over the past few years they had met with
many community members, organizations, and law enforcement
and corrections academies. The goal was to create an
effective bill at no cost that would improve the lives of
all Alaskans. He believed the icon the driver's license
would enhance communication. The bill would also educate
the general public. He stressed the importance of Alaskans
understanding their responsibilities for appropriately
interacting with law enforcement. He thought the bill would
reduce potential conflicts between Alaskans with or without
disabilities. He relayed that an identical bill (HB 77) had
passed the House the previous year unanimously. He
explained that the bill had stalled in the Senate Rules
Committee. He urged the committee to pass the bill.
9:50:25 AM
LARRY JOHANSON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the
bill. He relayed that he had Parkinson's disease, which was
often misinterpreted by people. He shared that when he
walked by the building security it made him wonder if he
would be intercepted because of a misinterpretation of his
symptoms. He stressed that he lived with the issue every
day. He thought the intent of a symbol [on a license or
identification card] was extremely positive. He explained
that the discussion about confrontation with officers was
an escalated version of evaluation he received daily in
particular situations. He believed a symbol on a license
would provide a third-party indication that a person
experienced a disability and it would prevent him from
having to prove through articulating that he had a
disability. He thought it would be helpful even beyond the
original intent of the bill. For example, the symbol could
be useful when entering the capitol building.
Mr. Johanson shared a personal experience of being
approached by security in a mall in Portland. He detailed
prior to his condition he had been the director of
operations for a cruise line and part of his responsibility
had been administering Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities regulations to over 50 buses and drivers.
He was very familiar with the regulatory aspect. He
stressed the importance of the bill and offered to answer
any regulatory questions. He thanked the committee for
considering the bill.
Senator von Imhof thanked Mr. Johansen for his testimony.
Vice-Chair Bishop returned the gavel to Co-Chair MacKinnon.
9:54:18 AM
AT EASE
9:54:51 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Bishop highlighted existing zero fiscal notes
including one from the Department of Administration, two
from the Department of Corrections, and one from the
Department of Public Safety. He noted that the training was
already being completed, hence the zero fiscal notes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that amendments on the bill were
due by Wednesday at 5:00 p.m.
HB 16 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:56:19 AM
AT EASE
9:57:05 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to industrial hemp; and relating to
controlled substances."
9:57:05 AM
SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill. She recounted that several farmers who
wanted to grow hemp had contacted her office the previous
spring. She noted that the farmers were particularly
interested due to the privatization of the meat plant in
Palmer. She highlighted that hemp was a nutritious, easy to
grow, and fast growing forage that could be used for
livestock. Farmers were working to build up their herds in
order to have locally grown beef and pork in Alaska's
grocery stores. She cited Kentucky as another state where
ranches were growing hemp.
Senator Hughes discussed the history of hemp. Some of the
early drafts of the Declaration of Independence had been
drafted on hemp paper. Additionally, hemp had been used to
make sails for boats traveling to America and for covered
wagons. In 1937, related to marijuana, hemp had been made
illegal in the U.S. In recent decades and because of
federal legislation, hemp was on the rise in the U.S. She
believed it was another economic opportunity for farmers
and growers in Alaska. In addition to feed for animals,
there were more than 25,000 uses for hemp. She pointed out
that because of federal law, the bill was more complicated
than one that was previously offered by former Senator
Johnny Ellis. She had begun with the draft language from
the previous bill, but once she had learned of changes at
the federal level the bill had grown somewhat. She stressed
the importance of the economic opportunity for Alaska.
10:00:40 AM
Senator Hughes communicated there had been tremendous
support across the state for the bill. She noted that one
person expressed concern that the bill could result in a
money pit and grow the Division of Agriculture. She shared
that the division director and other agency staff were
available online who could assure the committee the concern
would not come to fruition. She reported that some other
states that had not been in a fiscal bind had appropriated
money to add staff to their departments of agriculture. She
explained that it was not the intention of SB 6. She
believed the issue would be manageable and highlighted that
registration user fees would cover any costs.
10:01:41 AM
BUDDY WHITT, STAFF, SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, discussed the
Sectional Analysis for SB 6 (copy on file):
Sec. 1 Page 1, Lines 6-9
Intent language that the legislature will reevaluate
the regulation of industrial hemp in seven years.
Sec. 2 AS 03.05.010 Pages 1, 2 and 3, lines 1 - 10
Section one of the bill amends Title 3 to give
additional powers and duties to the Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, to adopt
regulations relating to Industrial Hemp. This section
also stipulates that the prescribed regulations must
include provisions for approved sources of hemp seed
and testing requirements (paid for by the registrant).
This section also stipulates that a list of registered
hemp growers must be provided to the Marijuana Control
Board and the Department of Public Safety.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about lines 26 and 27 on page 2 of
the bill. She had read the backup document entitled
"Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp" [published in
the Federal Register Volume 81, No. 156, dated Friday,
August 12, 2016] (copy on file), which provided guidance
from the federal government on the subject of industrial
hemp. She referred to the first paragraph of page 2 of the
statement:
?the importation of viable cannabis seeds must be
carried out by persons registered with the DEA to do
so.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read from page 2, lines 26 and 27 of the
bill:
(A) specify approved sources or varieties of hemp seed
to be grown, sold, or offered for sale...
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought the notice did not provide
"offer for sale" allowances anywhere. She noted it provided
for research by a higher education university or the state
agriculture program. She wondered if the bill would preempt
federal law, or whether the state had to comply with
federal law. She asked what was happening with the seeds.
She remarked that seeds were also discussed on page 2,
lines 14 and 15 of the bill pertaining to transportation
and movement. She wondered about the conflict between the
two documents.
10:04:47 AM
Mr. Whitt replied that the document referenced by Co-Chair
MacKinnon was a statement of principles on industrial hemp.
He explained that after the Farm Act of 2014 defined
industrial hemp and made it legal to create hemp pilot
programs at the state level, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture had submitted the statement of principals in
August 2016. The issue pertained more to the regulatory arm
of federal law. He stated that there was a second act, the
Omnibus bill of 2015 passed by Congress that had included
additional provisions for the transportation of hemp and
hemp seeds across state lines. He offered to provide the
materials to the committee. He explained that the federal
government would issue an associated statement of
principles at some time in the future. He deferred to the
department regarding registration with the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA). He had worked with the
Division of Agriculture and the previous committee of
referral to include language pertaining to idea of
certifying industrial hemp seed.
10:06:46 AM
ROB CARTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, PALMER (via
teleconference), stated that federal guidelines were
guidelines. He thought the bill did a good job at setting
the foundation and cornerstone for the growth and
sustainability of an industrial hemp program in Alaska. He
believed there could be interpretations of all of the
forms, none of it was completely clear. Within the
agricultural pilot program resulting from the 2014 farm
bill was a program to study the growth, cultivation, and
marketing. He believed the interpretation of marketing was
the to "offer for sale" language. The reason for specifying
approved seed sources was to ensure the state maintained
the federal guideline to stay within 0.3 percent THC seed
sources or lower.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read from the statement of principles:
Section 7606 specifically authorized certain entities
to ``grow or cultivate'' industrial hemp but did not
eliminate the requirement under the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act that the importation
of viable cannabis seeds must be carried out by
persons registered with the DEA to do so.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that a person had to be
registered with the DEA. She asked if Mr. Carter was
stating it was a guideline when the statement of principles
read that it "did not eliminate."
Mr. Carter affirmed that the guideline and bullet point
were there. He stipulated that in any
importation/exportation or intra/interstate commerce of
viable cannabis seeds would require a permit from the DEA
(form 225). He elaborated that a person could not apply for
the permit through the DEA unless they were a program
registrant.
10:09:14 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if other states had interpreted
marketing as "the sale of."
Mr. Carter believed Colorado, Oregon, and Kentucky had
started using the pilot program and marketing language to
make all parts of industrial hemp, including seeds, to be
made or offered for sale within their state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read additional language from the
statement of principles:
For purposes of marketing research by institutions of
higher education or State departments of agriculture
(including distribution of marketing materials), but
not for the purpose of general commercial activity,
industrial hemp products may be sold in a State...
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought the language specified that hemp
could not be sold. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Carter replied that he did not have the document and
wanted to review it. He reported that everyone he had
spoken with in other states with hemp programs had
communicated that the sales of industrial hemp and
marketing had been occurring through their industrial hemp
pilot programs. He offered to look into the issue further
and follow up with the committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read another bullet point:
Only the State Department of Agriculture and persons
licensed, registered, or otherwise authorized to
conduct research under an agricultural pilot program
in accordance with this section.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to understand how research could
be taken into an economic activity that would be available
for Alaskans as an income generator. She asked Mr. Carter
to follow up with clarification.
10:11:35 AM
Mr. Whitt notified that committee that attorney Courtney
Moran had been working with the sponsor's office. She was
familiar with the industrial hemp programs in other states
and with how federal and state laws had intertwined. He
believed she may be able to provide additional information.
COURTNEY MORAN, EARTH LAW LLC, PORTLAND (via
teleconference), pointed out that the statement of
principles was a general guidance document. She elaborated
it was important to note that subsection 2 of the document
read that "This Statement of Principles does not establish
any binding legal requirements." She detailed that
marketing research was being conducted in the majority of
states implementing industrial hemp programs. She expounded
that marketing required sales of products. The bullet point
specifically stated that the product may not be used for
the purpose of general commercial activity; it further
stated that the products may not be sold in states where
such sale was prohibited.
Ms. Moran explained that if a state did not have an
established program or was otherwise prohibiting the
particular products, the products should not be sold there.
The language was not an outright prohibition on the
research that Congress had specifically provided for in
Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act, which specifically
provided for marketing research. The legislation provided
for the development of an agricultural pilot program in the
state. Therefore, registrants registered with the Division
of Agriculture would be able to engage in market research.
10:13:51 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if someone engaging in market
research normally sold the product for profit. Ms. Moran
answered that some people were doing that.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that some people were doing
that. She asked if that qualified as research.
Ms. Moran replied in the affirmative. She questioned how a
market could be developed or studied if people were not
engaging in sales within the market. She confirmed it was
the practice in Oregon, Colorado, and Kentucky (and
potentially other states).
10:14:27 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to Section 2 of the
legislation. She pointed to page 2, line 24 through page 3,
line 10 outlining regulations for the industry to adopt.
She noted that under the guidance [in the statement of
principles] there was language related to a GPS location of
all crops. She saw the language later in the legislation
and wondered why it was not included in Section 2. She
clarified that one of the bullet points in the statement of
principles included criteria to include in legislation in
order to be consistent with the federal guidelines. She
read an excerpt of the bullet point:
...it is recommended that such registration should
include the name of the authorized manufacturer, the
period of licensure or other time period during which
such person is authorized by the State to manufacture
industrial hemp, and the location, including Global
Positioning System coordinates...
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the reference should also be
included in Section 2.
Mr. Whitt stated that the bill's provision on GPS location
was a direction from the federal government. The additional
regulatory requirements were added after the GPS provision
had already been included. The sponsor had no issue with
requiring it under regulation and the provision included
was sufficient to meet federal guidelines. The intent was
that a grower would disclose the location of their crop.
Where the provision appeared in the bill should not make a
huge difference, but the bill sponsor would be amenable to
a change if the committee deemed it important enough to
include it under regulatory requirements.
10:17:37 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the provision was
included in another section of the bill. She did not know
whether there was a differentiation for including it under
the powers and duties of the commissioner of the Department
of Natural Resources.
Mr. Whitt clarified that it made no difference where the
provision appeared in the bill; wherever its location, it
would still be a requirement.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised the issue was important because
[hemp] leaves looked exactly like higher producing THC
plants. She asked if her statement was accurate.
Mr. Whitt replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted law enforcement to be able to
recognize a crop that would be for other purposes than THC
content.
Mr. Whitt agreed.
10:18:33 AM
Senator von Imhof stated that she had heard the bill in the
Senate Resources Committee. She detailed that the committee
had been concerned with how to handle the fact that the
[hemp and marijuana] leaves looked identical. She recalled
testimony that [hemp] plants had to be registered, spacing
was tighter (one foot apart as opposed to three to four
feet apart as with marijuana plants), GPS was used, and
pictures were taken on a daily basis. She had wondered
about cloudy days and times when there was snow on the
ground. She believed the sponsor and her staff had done a
good job answering questions in the Senate Resources
Committee as well.
Co-Chair MacKinnon spoke to the importance of the issue
addressed by the bill and explained it could provide an
economic opportunity, particularly in the district
represented by Senator Hughes where farming was common. She
added that the community also grew marijuana and carrots.
She stated that the district was a good agricultural
community that was wanting another product to invest in.
10:20:31 AM
Mr. Whitt continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 3 AS 03.05.010 Page 3, lines 22-28
This section instructs the department to issue a stop
order to any person growing a plant with a THC level
over .3 percent and to notify the Marijuana Control
Board and the Department of Public Safety when any
stop sale order is issued.
Sec. 4 AS 03.05.076 Page 3, lines 29-31, Page 4 and
Page 5, lines 1-27
Title 3, Chapter 5 is amended by adding a new section
for Industrial Hemp and guidelines for registered
producers and the department. This section establishes
that:
(a)Industrial Hemp will be classified as an
agricultural crop in the state of Alaska. Those
wishing to produce industrial hemp must register with
the Division of Agriculture with information that must
include but is not limited to; name, address, and
global positioning coordinates of the area to be used
for production.
(b)An individual who is registered with the state of
Alaska may
1. Produce industrial hemp
2. Use any propagation method needed to produce
industrial hemp.
3. Retain hemp seeds for the purpose of growing
hemp in the future.
4. Retain and recondition hemp that tests between
.3 percent and 1 percent THC on a dry weight
basis, but industrial hemp intended for
consumption in any form cannot exceed a .3
percent THC level.
(c)An individual who is registered with the state of
Alaska shall
1. Comply with testing standards and procedures
as established in regulation
2. Retain record of sale for three years,
including the name and address of the person who
received the industrial hemp and the amount sold
or transferred.
3. Make records available to the department
during normal business hours and the department
must give three days' notice of inspection.
(d)The Department shall
1. Establish fee levels.
2. Annually review fee levels.
3. Notify the MCB and DPS when they have issued a
stop sale order.
4. Require a person producing industrial hemp
over 1 percent to destroy their crop.
(e)The Department may
1. Issue a stop sale order or violation for those
growing industrial hemp without a registration.
2. Adopt regulations for approved shipping
documents for industrial hemp.
3. Conduct random tests and inspections.
(f)The Division of Agriculture, a registered producer,
or any institution of higher education may import
and/or sell industrial hemp seeds.
(g)Industrial hemp intended for human consumption
cannot exceed .3 percent THC, cannot be used for
hashish or hashish oil and CBD oil is not considered
hashish or hashish oil for the purposes of this
section.
(h) Producing Industrial Hemp without a registration
is a violation that carries a fine of $500.
10:24:12 AM
Mr. Whitt continued reviewing the Sectional Analysis:
AS 03.05.077 Page 5, Lines 28-31 and Page 6, Lines 1-4
In keeping with federal law, this section adds
language regarding a pilot program for industrial
hemp, that the Division of Agriculture, institute of
higher education or a registered grower may
participate in the pilot program and the Division of
Agriculture may adopt regulations for this section.
AS 03.05.078 Page 6, lines 5-15
Authorized copy of a current hemp registration is
required when transporting industrial hemp and a copy
of the registration must be presented upon request of
a law enforcement officer. Using a mobile electronic
device to store proof of registration is acceptable
and displaying proof is such a way is not consent for
a peace officer to access any other information on a
person's personal mobile electronic device.
AS 03.05.079 Page 6, lines 16-20
A registered grower of industrial hemp is guilty of a
violation when they produce industrial hemp with a THC
content of between .3 percent and 1 percent.
10:25:45 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed to language at the top of page 4
of the bill that addressed individuals would be registered
for one year. She noted she had asked earlier whether the
GPS language in the section should be included elsewhere in
the bill. She referenced line 14, item (4) related to
retaining and reconditioning [of specific industrial hemp].
She thanked the sponsor's office for coming to her office
to review the bill. She did not see a definition of
"reconditioning" and asked Mr. Whitt to provide detail for
the public.
Mr. Whitt replied that Mr. Carter had provided a written
response (copy on file). He detailed that Mr. Carter could
speak to the standard practice of reconditioning as it
related to agricultural products.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Carter to provide a
recognizable definition of reconditioning in regard to
agriculture.
Mr. Carter stated that reconditioning was a widely used
practice in agricultural crops, commodities, and seeds.
Reconditioning was done with most grains and grasses and
seeds sold around the world. He elaborated that if
something did not meet a grade or set tolerance, there were
options to try to improve that lot. The definition of a lot
was a field harvested, a collection of one that was
contiguous.
Mr. Carter provided an example where an acre of industrial
hemp was grown. At the time of testing the hemp came out to
be 0.35 percent. He explained that given a short growing
season and significant investment by a farmer, it was not
desirable to put the farmer in a situation where they could
not generate revenue or utilize the crop. He expounded that
if a crop came in to be a bit higher (between 0.3 and 1
percent THC value), with the approval of the division, the
registrant could blend the lot that was a bit over with a
lot that was under the minimum requirement to achieve the
appropriate level. He explained that if the lot still did
not meet the requirement it would be recommended to be
destroyed. He relayed that the practice was very unique to
the industrial hemp industry because it depended on the
type and parts of plants being used. He furthered that two
noncontiguous fields of stocks, leaves, and flowers used
for feed or fiber could be blended at the baling time at
the processing facility to drop the overall THC value below
the 0.3 percent.
10:29:46 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Alaska statute included a
definition of recondition and whether a definition was
needed. She explained that in other bill sections specified
that a crop with 1 percent or more [THC] needed to be
burned. She wondered how a grower would know if they should
burn or try to recondition the crop. She asked if it was a
normal process a grower would undertake.
Mr. Carter answered that the threshold to retain and
recondition industrial hemp was between 0.3 percent and 1
percent (page 4, line 14 of the bill). He elaborated that
if a lot fell between 0.3 and 1 percent, it had the option,
under the direction of the division, to be reconditioned.
He explained the lot would have to be destroyed if it
tested above 1 percent. The state did not have a definition
of reconditioning [in statute]. He noted the division also
addressed reconditioning in its other seed regulations.
10:31:10 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon was interested in the section of the
bill that specified crops above 1 percent [THC] would be
destroyed. She discussed that within a field there may be a
plant producing a higher rate than anticipated. She asked
if a grower would continually mix a product down or get rid
of certain plants if a larger group of plants produced a
higher content. She wondered how a grower would know at
what point to burn versus recondition.
Mr. Carter directed attention to page 5, line 5, of the
bill, which required an individual registered under the
section whose industrial hemp tested over 1 percent THC to
destroy the product, so it could not be used for the
purpose of reconditioning. The section set the upper
threshold - that anything over 1 percent would be
destroyed. He agreed that a THC level between 0.3 percent
and 1 percent would allow a producer to begin the
reconditioning process. He relayed that regulations would
establish the testing requirements and testing would likely
not occur until around harvest time. He explained that
industrial hemp had been outlawed for over 70 years so no
one was certain what the values of THC would be through the
growing season. He considered whether levels would be
affected by environmental conditions (e.g. if one grower
watered more than another). Part of the research of the
pilot program was to gain the information. He believed the
threshold language provided growers the ability to blend
lots to meet the threshold.
10:33:20 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop provided a scenario where a crop held a
couple of rogue seeds. He wondered how random testing and
inspections would be conducted. He expressed concern about
the possibility of inadvertent wild seeds that might
adversely affect a large acreage of crops.
Mr. Carter concurred. He detailed that like any other
agricultural crop, there were set protocols for sampling
fields or seed lots, which would be defined in regulation
based on size and planting density. He expounded that
industrial hemp was planted similarly to wheat or barley at
1 million to 1.2 million seeds per acre. He explained that
hemp crops looked like an extremely large and tall crop of
cereal grains. The sampling protocols would be defined in
regulation. He explained that the agricultural industry
allowed the option for roguing or to remove certain
diseased, virus, or insect plants. He believed it would be
a bit more difficult basing an inspection on THC values
because it would not be a visual inspection and would
require testing in a laboratory. He furthered that if a
crop ended up with one or two "hot" seeds above 0.3 percent
or over 1 percent out of a field of 1 million seeds per
acre, the representative sample was a process. He
acknowledged that the testing did not catch everything, but
how lots were tested nationally and internationally was a
set standard. The testing would provide the best
opportunity for the producer to have a representative
sample for testing.
10:36:32 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop thought it was interesting that the
Alaska agricultural experimental stations had been growing
hemp in 1916. He wondered if records were available at the
University of Alaska to learn about the THC content in
1916.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had additional questions
in the regulation of hemp oil being added to food. She
remarked that Alaska regulated food only in the crop form,
but not in the content that may be put into food. She
relayed her intent to move to public testimony.
Senator Hughes commented that it was helpful to understand
that marijuana growers were aiming for THC levels between
20 and 30 percent. She thought the information was useful
as a barometer when considering THC levels of 1 percent or
below.
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed the point was important to note.
She added that individuals growing marijuana for medical
purposes were looking for a much higher THC level.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony on version E of
SB 6.
10:38:37 AM
STEVE ST. CLAIR, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. He was not opposed to
farming of hemp, but he was opposed to increasing the scope
of government by creating additional regulations. He had
examined Washington, Kentucky, and Colorado hemp programs
and had learned they were not fiscally self-sustaining. He
stated that the Colorado program was almost self-sustaining
after three years - fees had to be increased for the
program to pay for itself. He referred to a fiscal note by
the Department of Natural Resources specifying the
department would adopt regulations and manage associated
registrations through existing staff. He thought it sounded
like the bill would have to be passed to see what it
entailed. He thought the budget had been cut to the bone.
He believed the Division of Agriculture would have to spend
excess funds that it should not have to begin with. He
thought the bill was fiscally irresponsible. He did not
support running pilot programs during a fiscal crisis when
the state was considering increasing taxes and taking
Permanent Fund Dividends.
10:40:46 AM
EMBER HAYNES, SELF, TALKEETNA (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She supported the Alaska
agricultural hemp industry. She encouraged keeping the bill
as simple as possible while complying with the federal farm
bill. She shared that she and her husband were in the
business of creating hempseed oil products by infusing
Alaskan wildcrafted herbs into oil to make soaps, balms,
and tinctures. She would love to incorporate Alaskan hemp
into their products. She believed the bill was the first
step towards the possibility.
10:41:44 AM
STEVE ALBERS, KENAI SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill.
He stated that according to the 2015 Congressional research
report, annual sales of industrial hemp products in the
U.S. were about $550 million. He detailed that the U.S. was
the only developed nation that had not developed industrial
hemp on a commercial basis; therefore, the U.S. imported
all of the products from China and Canada. He stated that
Kenai Peninsula farmers were eager to explore the economic
opportunities represented by the hearty, multipurpose crop,
which could be used for food, forage, fiber, and thousands
of industrial uses. Crop trials conducted decades ago in
Alaska and hemp grown in Canada demonstrated the crop would
grow successfully in Alaska.
Mr. Albers asserted that industrial hemp presented
opportunities to farmers and could help address problems
with affordable housing and energy in Alaska. He emphasized
that the use of hemp in construction and insulation had the
potential to significantly mitigate waste in energy
consumption and other. He stated that industrial hemp fiber
provided an alternative to polypropylene products and
chemical dispersants used in oil spills and other
bioremediation efforts. He shared that each year more
states were opening the door to additional research and the
application of industrial hemp by legalizing its commercial
cultivation. He urged the committee to add Alaska to the
growing number of states and to allow farmers the ability
to pursue hemp as a viable commercial product.
10:44:28 AM
ABIGAIL ST. CLAIR, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She had found evidence that
industrial hemp in Washington, Colorado, and Kentucky was
not self-sustaining. She elaborated that the aforementioned
states had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with no
guarantee that the investment would pencil out. She had
looked at various sources including information from the
University of Kentucky and Ontario's Ministry of
Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs website. She discussed
the costs of farming hemp, and thought it was an expensive
process that the state could not afford. She listed costs
she had estimated. She emphasized that the governor had
taken half of the Permanent Fund Dividend and wanted to
introduce other taxes. She stressed that many residents
were leaving the state because the legislature had not
reduced spending. She stated that hemp would not support
the legislature's spending habits. She thought there had
been enough government intervention. She wanted to reduce
the government footprint.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
10:47:14 AM
AT EASE
10:48:13 AM
RECONVENED
SB 6 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that SB 6 would be heard again
during the afternoon meeting. She relayed that amendments
were due by Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. She provided additional
information regarding other legislation.
ADJOURNMENT
10:49:06 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB97 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| SB97 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| HB 16 Sponsor Response to Concerns of Senate State Affairs Committee from Mtg on 3-23-17.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 16 |
| SCS HB 16- Legal Memo - Concerns from SSA Committee.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 16 |
| HB 57 Public Testimony Packet 040317.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 57 |
| SB 97 Von Imhof Amendment D.1.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| SB 6 Carter Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |