Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/25/2022 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 | |
| HB102 | |
| SB121 | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 25, 2022
9:04 a.m.
9:04:05 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Click Bishop; Leslie Isaacs,
Administrative Service Director, Department of
Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Office of
the Governor; Tiffany Larson, Director, Spill Prevention
and Response, Department of Environmental Conservation;
Randall Bates, Director, Division of Habitat, Department of
Fish and Game; Christina Carpenter, Director, Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation; Jason
Olds, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental
Conservation; John Binder, Deputy Commissioner, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities; Representative
Chris Tuck, Sponsor; Doug Wooliver, Deputy Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System; Michael Mason, Staff,
Representative Tuck.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
James Stinson, Director, Office of Public Advocacy,
Department of Administration.
SUMMARY
SB 121 PFAS USE & REMEDIATION; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
SB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 102 STATE INSUR. CATASTROPHE RESERVE ACCT.
SCS HB 102(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with four "do pass" recommendations and with two
"no recommendation" recommendations, and with one
new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration.
HB 155 COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to the state insurance catastrophe
reserve account; and providing for an effective date."
9:04:38 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the second hearing for
HB 102.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 102, Work Draft 32-GH1689\B (Marx,
4/22/22).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
9:05:09 AM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, explained that the
only alteration proposed in the committee substitute (CS)
was the change of the effective date from June 30, 2021 to
June 30, 2022.
9:06:01 AM
AT EASE
9:06:18 AM
RECONVENED
LESLIE ISAACS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR, explained that HB 102 would adjust the
upper limit of the catastrophic reserve account fund from
$5 million to $50 million. He noted that the bill would
allow the legislature to self-insure the property, which
had been previously discussed. He added that there had been
a question about the involvement of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in a previous hearing and reported
that there needed to be either a state or federal disaster
declaration in order for FEMA to be involved.
Co-Chair Bishop affirmed that the question had been asked
in the prior week and thanked Mr. Issacs for the
clarification.
Co-Chair Bishop presented the fiscal impact note from the
Department of Administration (DOA) with OMB component 71
and control code RwdhS. He relayed there seemed to be a $3
million savings in FY 23 and FY 24, a $5 million savings in
FY 25, and a $6 million savings in FY 26 through FY 28.
9:08:01 AM
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to REPORT SCS HB 102(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
SCS HB 102(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do
pass" recommendations and with two "no recommendation"
recommendations, and with one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Administration.
9:08:22 AM
AT EASE
9:10:15 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to pollutants; relating to
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances;
relating to the duties of the Department of
Environmental Conservation; relating to firefighting
substances; relating to thermal remediation of
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance
contamination; and providing for an effective date."
9:10:16 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the third hearing for
SB 121. The intention of the committee was to hear comments
from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and
cover the fiscal notes for the bill.
Co-Chair Bishop asked for confirmation that there was
currently no mechanism by which DEC could accept, handle,
or expose any amount of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS).
9:11:39 AM
TIFFANY LARSON, DIRECTOR, SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, confirmed that
there was no currently established infrastructure.
Co-Chair Bishop presented a hypothetical scenario in which
DEC obtained funding for the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) or for Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA). He asked if DEC would be able to accept PFAS if
it received RCRA funding as well as a Subpart C designation
[under federal Title 40, Subpart C: Characteristics of
Hazardous Waste].
9:12:53 AM
AT EASE
9:13:14 AM
RECONVENED
RANDALL BATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HABITAT, DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME, expressed that he would like to defer the
question about RCRA.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, asked for Co-
Chair Bishop to repeat his question.
Co-Chair Bishop repeated his question.
Ms. Carpenter replied that she would like to provide a
thorough response to the committee at a later date. She
explained that RCRA ensured that hazardous waste was
disposed of properly. There was no current infrastructure
to accept Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Concentrates (AFFF) if
it contained PFAS.
9:16:06 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked Ms. Carpenter to research the matter
to provide an accurate response to his question. He
suggested that if the department was given the RCRA
designation, it would have the means to travel around the
state to catalogue the contaminated sites.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Ms. Larson about the difference
between the Environment Protection Agency's (EPA) Title I
and Title V air permits. He understood that the state
currently operated under Title V.
Ms. Larson responded that both permits were currently
issued. The bill intended to implement the permitting
activity into a Title V process, which took about a year
and half longer than a Title I process. She relayed that
DEC believed the permitting process was better suited under
Title I as it was less time intensive but included the same
level of oversight as Title V.
Co-Chair Bishop understood that emissions were the same
under Title I and Title V.
Ms. Larson answered in the affirmative.
Senator Wilson referenced the fiscal note from DEC with
control code YoiXA, which indicated a need for three
additional positions to provide PFAS oversight. He asked
how the department would absorb the costs of the new
positions in outgoing years, especially considering other
positions had been cut in the previous year.
Ms. Larson relayed that given the language in the bill, the
department would require a total of four additional
positions in perpetuity for as long as the statute existed.
She thought the legislature held the authority to ensure
that the new positions would be funded.
Senator Wilson shared his concern about funding sources and
thought there were no other funding options apart from
unrestricted general funds (UGF).
Co-Chair Bishop believed there was a bill in the other body
that would help. He indicated that the committee would
discuss later in the meeting the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA) money as it pertained to PFAS.
9:20:48 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that there was a request for an
addition of 233 state employees in the current budget
submission. He thought it seemed that the state was
exposing itself to a substantial increase in personnel in a
single budget cycle. He was concerned about adding more
positions in order to oversee PFAS and thought there had to
be a better solution.
Co-Chair Bishop emphasized that everyone wanted clean
drinking water. He referenced discussion around the EPA and
asked when the agency would be releasing more information
and guidance.
Ms. Larson cited that EPA had released its strategic
roadmap in October of 2021 on how it planned to address the
variety of PFAS compounds. There were many benchmarks that
EPA hoped to achieve within the next four to five years.
The agency expected to release a proposed rule regarding
PFAS in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWR). Sometime in the next few months, a regulated
community was expecting to see the results of its research
and peer review process and the results would determine
whether the methodologies were sound. She noted that the
current limits were 70 parts per trillion for a lifetime
health advisory, and she had been told that the limits were
expected to go down by an order of magnitude to seven parts
per trillion or less. She relayed that the approval was
expected to be released in August of 2022.
9:24:04 AM
Co-Chair Bishop thought that Ms. Larson's prediction on the
order of magnitude reduction was accurate considering that
IIJA would designate $5 billion specifically to PFAS and
other emerging contaminants over the next five years.
Co-Chair Bishop asked who would be covering the fiscal
notes.
Mr. Bates responded that the fiscal notes would be
presented by the governing divisions.
Co-Chair Bishop suggested beginning with the fiscal note
that involved the air quality permit.
9:25:14 AM
JASON OLDS, AIR QUALITY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, addressed a new fiscal impact
note from DEC with the OMB component number 2061 and
control code of iVDzt. The fiscal impact note totaled
$80,000 to pay for contractual support and three new peer
review positions to develop a threshold limit for PFAS. The
bill referenced a minimal amount for air quality emissions,
and the fiscal note established a threshold under special
procedures that would allow DEC to obtain contractual
support and peer reviews. He noted that DEC was typically
disincentivized from developing procedures that were more
stringent than EPA.
Co-Chair Bishop understood that the difference between
Title I and Title V was the time involved in the process,
and that the emissions would remain the same. He asked if
he was accurate.
Ms. Larson deferred the question to Mr. Olds.
Mr. Olds responded that Co-Chair Bishop was correct. There
were a separate set of administrative procedures, but the
inherent monitoring or emissions associated with a given
permit did not necessarily change. He clarified that Title
I was a state-only process, whereas Title V included
specific rules crafted for the permit process under federal
regulations.
Co-Chair Bishop asked for confirmation that if the process
was to be unchanged and remain under Title V, the
department would need $80,000.
Mr. Olds relayed that the $80,000 figure was to establish
the minimal threshold value in the bill. There currently
was no emission limit, and in order to craft the limit the
department would have to go through special procedures to
develop the threshold value and would need contractual
support.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the $80,000 was simply intended to
get the department up to speed. He understood that after
the contractual procedures had been completed, then the
pricing of the permit could begin.
Mr. Olds answered affirmatively.
9:28:27 AM
AT EASE
9:30:38 AM
RECONVENED
Ms. Carpenter addressed a new fiscal impact by DEC with OMB
component 3202 and control code QaKQo. The Drinking Water
Program within the Division of Environmental Health (DEH)
under DEC would provide technical and engineering
assistance to the Division of Spill Prevention and Response
(SPAR) in their efforts to ensure drinking water was safe.
She relayed that DEC would require two additional positions
to adhere to the requirements of the bill. One of the new
employees would be responsible for providing technical and
compliance assistance to owners and operators of
contaminated public drinking water systems and to SPAR. The
second requested employee would be responsible for
approving proposed treatments for contaminated drinking
water systems. The fiscal note requested the funds for the
two positions to help with the work.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Mr. Bates was aware of the IIJA
funds. He assumed that DEC would be working with all
responsible parties to help individuals who had
contaminated drinking water. He understood that DEC would
work collaboratively with other entities to apply for IIJA
funds in an effort to receive as much money as possible.
Mr. Bates wanted to give a brief overview of the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program, which was a low interest loan
for communities in Alaska. He elaborated that it was a
capitalization grant from EPA for drinking water and clean
water funds and was a revolving fund and would grow year
after year. The program had been extremely useful in Alaska
and successful nationally as well. The eligible entities
included municipalities as well as private non-profit
utilities that were rate-regulated by the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA). The IIJA funds for SRF would be
distributed through existing programs and processes within
the SRF program. He reported that $7.54 million per year
would be distributed to the state through IIJA for five
years. The funds would be used to address emerging
contaminants with a specific focus on PFAS in drinking
water systems. He assured the committee that the funds were
fully subsidized and were considered grants rather than
loans because there was no matching requirement.
9:35:26 AM
Ms. Larson addressed a new fiscal impact note by DEC with
OMB component 3094 and control code YoiXA. The fiscal note
was the largest of the notes by DEC and requested four
additional SPAR employees who would be conducting the
majority of the oversight and monitoring work described in
the bill. The majority of the requested $6.3 million would
fund the sampling and provisioning of drinking water in
communities where PFAS contamination was suspected. A small
portion of the fiscal note also requested funds for
administrative oversight and the associated costs.
Senator Wilson asked if the department could add receipt
authority to offset some of the costs.
Ms. Larson explained that the department had an obligation
to cost recover under statute. However, the entity that
polluted they system with PFAS contaminants was usually the
party that was required to pay the costs. The state would
pay the majority of up-front costs due to the manner in
which the bill was written, but it could collect the funds
from the polluting entity after contamination had been
proven.
Co-Chair Bishop thought the bill would also require the
state to dispose of up to 25 gallons annually of PFAS
contaminated substances for persons domiciled in Alaska.
Ms. Larson answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Bishop thought the matter was similar to his
earlier question regarding RCRA.
9:37:37 AM
Mr. Bates addressed a zero fiscal impact note by DEC with
OMB component 3204 and control code OhSKs. He noted that
the establishment of concentration limits for PFAS in
drinking water as proposed by the bill appeared to act as a
maximum contaminant level (MCL). The establishment of MCL
might require monitoring and discharge limits for all
dischargers where PFAS compounds were reasonably likely to
be present. If regulations were necessary, DEC would absorb
the costs in the normal course of business as it reviewed
permits.
Co-Chair Bishop asked for an example of a wastewater
facility that would be required to conduct monitoring. He
asked if all municipal wastewater systems, seafood
processing centers, and similar facilities would be
required to conduct monitoring, or would it be applicable
only to facilities in communities with known PFAS
contaminants.
Mr. Bates stated that the bill would apply to the
facilities in which DEC reasonably expected to find PFAS
contaminants.
9:39:36 AM
JOHN BINDER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, addressed a new
indeterminate fiscal impact note for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) with OMB
component 530 and control code bUckf. The note would not
require operating funds, but DOT projected that it would
require about $18 million of capital funds. He explained
that the state had already identified approximately 30
airports in the state that were suspected of PFAS
contamination due to the presence of AFFF, which was a
substance used by airport crash rescue personnel. He
reported that DOT had conducted PFAS testing at 10 of the
suspected airports. The fiscal note assumed that the 10
airports that had been tested would need to be tested again
since one of the compounds in the bill [hexafluoropropylene
oxide dimer acid] had not been included in past tests. The
results would drive whether a site needed to be
characterized as contaminated and provided with new water
processes. The department averaged out the costs that had
been incurred in the past based on the tests that had been
conducted to arrive at the predicted $18 million cost.
However, the note was indeterminate because there was no
way to know how many sites would need further action. It
was possible that several of the suspected airports would
not require additional action.
Senator Hoffman referenced an Alaska map which showed the
locations of PFAS contaminated sites (copy on file). He
asked if DOT had the same map.
Mr. Binder responded that he was not familiar with the map.
He offered to provide a list of the 30 airports suspected
of PFAS contamination.
Senator Hoffman would appreciate the information.
Senator Wilson wanted to verify that the estimated cost was
$18 million.
Co-Chair Bishop answered "Yes."
9:43:52 AM
Co-Chair Stedman referenced Senator Hoffman's request for a
list of contaminated sites and thought it would helpful if
the top 10 sites were highlighted.
Mr. Binder emphasized that DOT recognized that PFAS was
undesirable at any of the state's airports. The
contaminated airport sites were prioritized based on which
sites were closest to communities and drinking water
systems.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a list of the top 10 most
contaminated airports.
Mr. Binder agreed to provide the list immediately following
the meeting.
9:45:25 AM
AT EASE
9:46:15 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop asked for both DEC and DOT to provide a
list of the contaminated sites ranked in order of severity.
SB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to court-appointed visitors and
experts; relating to the powers and duties of the
office of public advocacy; relating to the powers and
duties of the Alaska Court System; and providing for
an effective date."
9:46:56 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing of HB
155. It was the intent of the committee to hear the
introduction of the bill, the sectional analysis, and any
invited and public testimony.
Co-Chair Stedman asked that all presenters and testifiers
who came before the committee were attired in adherence
with the formal dress code. He stated there were some
exceptions, such as an individual who had a broken arm.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that there were spare ties available
for those in need.
9:48:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, SPONSOR, relayed that HB 155
attempted to fix a flaw in the state that was negatively
impacting the Alaska Court System's (ACS) visitor program.
He explained that the program was created to act as an
investigative arm of the court in certain protective
probate proceedings such as guardianships and
conservatorships. Since 1984, the court visitor program has
been administered by the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA).
Unfortunately, there was no legislative history that
clarified why a judicial branch program was placed under
the direction of an executive branch office. The bill was
developed in collaboration with OPA and the court system
and both entities had endorsed the bill. He reported that
state law gave OPA the responsibility to provide court
visitors in guardianship proceedings and involuntary
medication proceedings. The executive branch paid for the
court visitors because it was the branch under which OPA
fell. The court system independently contracted with and
directly paid for court visitors in conservatorship
proceedings. He explained that OPA was only responsible for
providing court visitors in guardianship proceedings. The
current structure of the program was both inefficient and
confusing. The bill would solve the inefficiency by moving
the court visitor program from OPA to the court system.
Representative Tuck explained that court visitors were
neutral parties with specialized training who conducted
independent investigations into whether guardianships or
conservatorships were necessary. Guardianships were enacted
for individuals who were unable to care for their own
wellbeing due to incapacity or disability, while
conservatorships were used to manage the financial and
personal affairs of an impaired person or minor. The court
visitors also participated in investigations to determine
whether a potentially impaired individual was able to give
their informed consent.
9:51:57 AM
Senator von Imhof asked if the committee would consider the
fiscal note [by the Alaska Judiciary System with OMB
component 768 and control code EGgOL] during the current
meeting.
Co-Chair Bishop responded that he intended to hear the bill
and set it aside, but she was welcome to address the fiscal
note.
Senator von Imhof asked why moving the program would cost
$960,000 according to the fiscal note. She wondered why a
new full-time position was proposed as well.
Representative Tuck responded that the proposed new
employee would be responsible for the training and
oversight of court visitors. He noted that the program had
been underfunded for a while and the move presented an
opportunity to bring it back up to a more appropriate
funding level. He suggested that Mr. Doug Wooliver from the
court system address the question as well.
9:53:13 AM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, echoed the sponsor's assertion that the bill was
developed in collaboration with OPA. The reason there was a
difference in the fiscal note was because OPA had never
provided training for court visitors in the past and the
courts would like to improve the program. The employee
would provide oversight, training, and scheduling for the
court visitors. He thought the tasks should have been
happening already and hoped the program would improve when
moved to the court system.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that around $100,000 of the cost of
the shift was due to the repositioning of the duties to the
courts. He asked if the courts could function without the
addition of the $100,000 spread.
Mr. Wooliver responded that the courts could function
without the funds, but the program would retain all of the
deficiencies that it currently had. It was important to
improve the program if the court system were to take it
over, which would require additional funds.
Senator Olson shared the same concern as Senator von Imhof.
He asked if the improvements to the program would be worth
the $960,000 in the fiscal note.
Mr. Wooliver noted that most of the cost simply reflected a
transfer of funds from OPA to the court system. The only
increase was the roughly $100,000 for the new position.
Senator Olson noted that the amount would be recurring
every year.
Mr. Wooliver responded in the affirmative, however the
funds would originate from OPA's budget. He explained that
OPA's budget would show a decrement due to the transfer of
funds.
9:56:48 AM
MICHAEL MASON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, read from the
sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1 Repeals and reenacts AS 13.26.226 (d) to
read: The Alaska Court System shall provide visitors
and experts in guardianship proceedings under AS
13.26.291. The Alaska Court System may contract for
services of court-appointed visitors and experts.
Section 2 Amends AS 13.26.291 (a) to stipulate that
the Alaska Court System shall bear the costs of the
visitors and experts appointed under AS 13.26.226 (c).
Section 3 Amends AS 44.21.410 (a) to remove
paragraph 2 and renumber the remaining paragraph.
Section 4 Amends AS.21.420 (c) to remove language
allowing the Commissioner of Administration to
contract for services for court visitors and experts
to perform the duties set out in AS 44.21.410.
Section 5 Amends AS 44.21.440 (b) to remove a
reference to court visitors from language prohibiting
the Office of Public Advocacy from using improper
pressure to influence the professional judgment of a
person paid by the office.
Section 6 Amends AS.30.839 (d) to remove language
allowing the court to direct the Office of Public
Advocacy to provide a court visitor to investigate
whether a patient can give or withhold informed
consent in psychotropic medication proceedings during
involuntary commitments.
Section 7 Amends 47.30.839 to add a new subsection
to read: (j) The Alaska
Court System shall provide visitors in proceedings
under this section. The Alaska Court System may
contract for services of court-appointed visitors.
Section 8 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska to add transition language stipulating that the
act applies to guardianship proceedings under AS
13.26.291 and proceedings under AS.30.839 commenced on
or after the effective date of the act. The section
further amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska to ensure that the Office of Public Advocacy
shall provide for the services of visitors in
proceedings under AS 47.30.839 before the effective
date of the act.
Section 9 Provides an effective date of July 1,
2022.
9:59:26 AM
Senator Wilson wondered if it would be better for the new
employee to belong to an entity other than the court system
as the employee would be asking the court to make decisions
on an individual's wellbeing.
Representative Tuck relayed that the position would be
contracted out and there was already a neutral third party
involved in the process. The bill would make the process
more efficient and less confusing by placing it under the
proper branch. He relayed that the courts were the parties
that made the decisions in the end. It was unclear why the
program had been designated to OPA and it had been
identified as a problem for a long time.
Senator Wilson was concerned that the court would be paying
someone to agree or disagree with the court's judgements.
He thought a separation seemed wise.
Representative Tuck responded that the decisions were not
made after the investigation was complete. He invited his
staff to comment.
Mr. Mason suggested that Mr. James Stinson from OPA comment
on Senator Wilson's concern.
10:01:36 AM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
responded that currently, the court system directly
appointed and paid for court visitors in conservatorship
cases. He explained that OPA paid for the same services
with the same contractors in guardianship cases. He thought
that the public had the misconception that OPA was running
a monopoly on the proceedings and had undue influence
because OPA also supplied the attorneys for the cases. The
reality was that all court visitors, regardless of case
type, were under the judicial rules of conduct per case
law. The court visitors reported to the judiciary branch
and acted as an investigative arm of the court. He relayed
that OPA's only real responsibility was to provide payment
to the court visitors if the case at hand was a
guardianship case.
10:03:22 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED publics testimony.
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the afternoon.
ADJOURNMENT
10:04:06 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB102-DOA-DRM SFIN 2022 draft changes per Sen FIN 04182022.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB 155 Testimony Office of Public Advocacy 4.3.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 5/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Sponsor Statement 3.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Explanation of Changes Version B to Version 1 02.16.2022.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Version I Sectional Analysis 02.15.2022.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Additional Document - Alaska Court System Response to HJUD Questions on April 5_2021 4.7.2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| SB 121 support Kiehl.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Suppot Testimony - Jenn Currie.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 RCRA Response to SFIN - 04.28.22.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |