HOUSE BILL NO. 68 "An Act relating to the preparation, electronic distribution, and posting of reports by state agencies." 2:02:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, communicated that the bill sought to digitize annual reports and other printed public records. He felt that this could save the state $.5 million per year in printing and production costs. He relayed that the bill had a negative fiscal note. Co-Chair Thompson appreciated the negative fiscal note, which reflected a savings to the state of approximately $400,000 per year. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins said that additional figures from the Department of Transportation and Public Works reflected a possible savings of $580,000 per year. Co-Chair Thompson understood there were some reports that were required to be printed. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied in the affirmative. He elaborated that the printing of the reports was at the discretion of commissioners. He anticipated that documents with wide public circulation would need to be printed. He shared that publishing of certain reports could cost up to $20 per copy. 2:06:48 PM Representative Gara relayed that one of the money savers related to contracting out for graphic design. He gave former Representative Kyle Johannsen credit for work on a similar bill in the past. Co-Chair Thompson noted that there were people in the audience available for invited testimony. Representative Edgmon spoke in support of the legislation. He believed the bill reflected that the state was becoming more connected by broadband. He wondered if the sponsor had received any pushback due to a lack of broadband capability in areas of the state. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied in the negative. He shared that he had consulted with libraries statewide and learned that libraries would sent physical reports to residents statewide. 2:10:38 PM Vice-Chair Saddler felt that the bill presumed that the public interest in state government could be satisfied online. He wondered whether the benefit of the estimated savings would outweigh the benefit of offering the fullest possible access to public information. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins did not believe that bill would jeopardize the public's access to information. He countered that a large number of the reports that would be affected by the legislation were not in circulation, in hard copy, for the general public. Vice-Chair Saddler asked about confidence in the $530,000 savings to the state. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins believed there was variability around the number. He believed that there would be a savings to the state, but that it could not be precisely projected how much. Co-Chair Thompson remarked that glossy cardstock used in printing increased the cost. Vice-Chair Saddler thought that any savings could go to expanded broadband in the state. Representative Kawasaki queried the types of reports covered in the bill. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins answered that the bill would apply to all state publications. He stated that there were publications that the departments would choose to print. He said that many of the documents that had inspired the bill were the ones read by legislators and their staff. Representative Kawasaki wondered if the legislature would have less access to publications. He referred several reports that he would have missed in an email link. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that legislators might need to scrutinize their email more closely or search for reports online. He thought that the legislation would require legislators to be more proactive in seeking out information. 2:19:22 PM Representative Kawasaki wondered whether there would be an opt-out element to the program. Representative Munoz spoke in support of the bill. She wondered about agencies that provided publications that were key to their mission. She provided examples such as the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) and tourism. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins answered that language in the bill that would preempt the problem was located on page 3, lines 14-15; exceptions would be allowed for agencies to print necessary reports for the public. 2:22:04 PM Representative Guttenberg asserted that the assumption that residents statewide had internet access was inaccurate. He strongly advocated for broadband expansion across the state. He spoke to Section 3 of the bill. He worried that the documents would difficult to locate, and queried whether the documents would be easily found in a specific place online. He wondered if libraries would be charged with the responsibility of tracking the documents. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins spoke to the universality of internet access in Alaska. He opined that there were areas his district that had poor internet access. He felt that public access to information was relative; the bill would not manifestly impair access to public information. He offered that operations like the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, for instance, did not currently send a copy of their annual report to every resident of Alaska. He explained that the Alaska Online Public Notice System would be the repository for documents and the State Library would keep 5 hard copies on file in perpetuity; the archival would be dual, digital and analog. He suggested that the public notice system would need to be assessed for user friendliness. 2:28:08 PM Representative Guttenberg reiterated his concerns. Vice-Chair Saddler cautioned that savings due to the bill in paper and trees would not be reflected in all of Alaska's natural resources. He expounded that graphite, petroleum, gold and other resources would be used. He warned that radical technological changes had unforeseen consequences. He worried that the files might be inaccessible in 15 - 100 years. He encouraged libraries to employ archival storage techniques when handling hard copies. He wondered if the sponsor would consider an amendment to allow for a transition period from analog to digital and that there be public notice when a document was no longer going to be physically available. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that the spirit of the amendment was well received. He wondered that if the transition could be eased by agencies opting to alert the public in advance of expiring documents. Representative Gara directed the committee's attention to Page 3, line 20: Sec. 44.99.260. Print copy requests.  A person may obtain, at no charge, up to five print copies of reports from the state library distribution and data access center under AS 14.56.170 each day. A person may obtain additional print copies of reports from the state library distribution and data access center for a reasonable fee under AS 14.56.170. He highlighted Page 2, line 3: Except as provided in AS 44.99.260, reasonable [REASONABLE] fees for reproduction or printing costs and for mailing and distribution of materials may be charged by the center. He wondered about the difference between the two passages. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that the state library fee referenced in the bill was $0.10 per copy. He said that the first 5 copies would be free, beyond that there would be a minimal user fee. Representative Gara concluded that physical copies would be available to the public. He thought that the public could be easily alerted to hard copies expiring with a one page document. He said that the public would always want Department of Fish and Game documents available in print and the bill would make that possible. He referred to publications from the executive branch and wondered how the sending of documents would be approved by that branch. Representative Gattis remarked that the documents in the Capitol Building alone required a large amount of paper. She spoke in support of the legislation. She believed the issue was timely. 2:36:56 PM Representative Kawasaki wondered whether the bill included the legislative and judicial branches under the "agencies" language. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that he would investigate the issue further. HB 68 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Thompson discussed housekeeping.