03/08/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SCR10 | |
| HB71 | |
| HB400 | |
| HJR38 | |
| HB310 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 8, 2018
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10(STA)
Proclaiming 2019 to be the Year of Innovation in Alaska.
- MOVED CSSCR 10(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to compensation, merit increases, and pay
increments for certain public officials, officers, and employees
not covered by collective bargaining agreements; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act relating to the collection of fees by the Department of
Public Safety for fire and explosion prevention and safety
services."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Relating to certain conveyances to the Alaska Railroad
Corporation under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982.
- MOVED HJR 38 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the minimum age of eligibility for
marriage."
- HEARD & HELD
Indirect Expenditure Hearings
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
HOUSE BILL NO. 184
"An Act adding to the powers and duties of the State Commission
for Human Rights; and relating to and prohibiting discrimination
based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SCR 10
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA YEAR OF INNOVATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COSTELLO
04/07/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/17 (S) L&C, STA
04/10/17 (S) L&C AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/10/17 (S) Heard & Held
04/10/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/11/17 (S) L&C AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/17 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/11/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/17 (S) Moved CSSCR 10(L&C) Out of Committee
04/11/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/12/17 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP 1AM NEW TITLE
04/12/17 (S) DP: COSTELLO, HUGHES, MEYER, GARDNER
04/12/17 (S) AM: STEVENS
02/01/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/01/18 (S) Moved CSSCR 10(STA) Out of Committee
02/01/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/18 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/02/18 (S) DP: MEYER, EGAN
02/02/18 (S) NR: WILSON, GIESSEL
02/09/18 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/09/18 (S) VERSION: CSSCR 10(STA)
02/12/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/18 (H) STA, L&C
03/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/06/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE: NO ST. EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASE FOR 2 YRS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/20/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/17 (H) STA, FIN
01/31/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/31/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 400
SHORT TITLE: FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
02/28/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/18 (H) STA, FIN
03/01/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/01/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 38
SHORT TITLE: AK RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT; CONVEYANCES
SPONSOR(s): KOPP
02/21/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/18 (H) STA, JUD
02/27/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/01/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 310
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE AND MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(s): CLAMAN
01/26/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/18 (H) STA, JUD
02/22/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/22/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/06/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LESLIE RIDLE, Commissioner Designee
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the House Rules Committee,
sponsor of HB 71, by request of the governor, answered questions
on Version O.
KATE SHEEHAN, Director
Division of Personnel and Labor Relations (DPLR)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Version O on behalf of the House
Rules Committee, sponsor of HB 71, by request of the governor,
by reviewing the sectional analysis and the explanation of
changes.
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 1 to HB 400 on behalf
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, prime sponsor.
DAVID TYLER, Director State Fire Marshall
Division of Fire and Life Safety (DFLS)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 400.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Summarized HJR 38, as prime sponsor, and
responded to the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) statement of
opposition.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:21:23 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m.
Representatives LeDoux, Wool, Birch, and Kreiss-Tomkins were
present at the call to order. Representative Johnson arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
SCR 10-ALASKA YEAR OF INNOVATION
3:23:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10(STA),
Proclaiming 2019 to be the Year of Innovation in Alaska.
3:23:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSSCR 10(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSCR 10(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 71-NO ST. EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASE FOR 2 YRS
3:24:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to compensation,
merit increases, and pay increments for certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by collective
bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective date."
3:24:18 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:24 p.m.
3:24:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the forthcoming committee
substitute (CS) for HB 71, [labeled 30-GH1018\O, Wayne, 2/28/18,
and referred to as "Version O"].
3:25:21 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:25 p.m.
3:25:48 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested a synopsis of Version O from the
Department of Administration (DOA) staff.
3:26:09 PM
LESLIE RIDLE, Commissioner Designee, Department of
Administration (DOA), commented that the changes to HB 71
resulted from collaboration between DOA and the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
3:26:43 PM
KATE SHEEHAN, Director, Division of Personnel and Labor
Relations (DPLR), Department of Administration (DOA),
paraphrased from the document, entitled "CS HB 71 Explanation of
Changes," included in the committee packet, which read as
follows:
Section 1: Modified from original bill. This section
maintains that the Governor may waive a portion of his
annual salary but no longer restricts the waiver
during the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30,
2019.
Section 2: New section. Removes language that
temporary salary schedules do not affect salaries of
employees in a bargaining unit represented by a labor
union established under the Public Employment
Relations Act and adds the term "pay period" to the
title. Language that was removed is now found in
section 3 of the bill.
Section 3: New section. Allows the Director of the
Division of Personnel to establish a two-week pay
period for biweekly payment of a monthly salary. It
sets forth the manner in which the Director shall
determine the amount paid biweekly. Recognizes that
this section does not apply to employees in a
bargaining unit represented by a labor union
established under the Public Employment Relations Act.
MS. SHEEHAN added that currently the pay period is semi-monthly,
and the hours are variable; under the biweekly pay period the
hours would be consistent at 75 hours per every two weeks. She
referred to Section 3(b)(1)-(5) [page 2, lines 8-19, of Version
O] and explained that the five paragraphs in the section show
the calculations for figuring the hourly, daily, and biweekly
rates.
3:29:05 PM
MS. SHEEHAN referred to Section 3(c) [page 2, lines 20-22] to
point out the language removed from Section 2 and put into
Section 3. It states that Section 3 would not apply to
employees covered by collective bargaining agreements; their pay
periods would be subject to negotiated bargaining agreements.
MS. SHEEHAN referred to Section 4 [page 2, lines 23-27] and
stated that it is a new section which clarifies that the
proposed legislation would expressly modify pay provisions
applicable to the governor. She explained that this is included
because by statute, legislation is needed to expressly provide
for the change in salary.
MS. SHEEHAN relayed that Sections 5-7 address effective dates:
Section 5 states that the governor's ability to waive some of
his salary would be retroactive to January 1, 2018; Section 6
states that Sections 1, 4, and 5 would take effective
immediately; and Section 7 states that Sections 2 and 3 would be
effective July 1, 2018.
3:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Section 1(b) of Version O
[page 1, lines 6-8] has anything to do with the deductibility of
charitable contributions under federal tax law.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE asked for clarification of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that her question is: If the
governor does not want to take part of his salary, why wouldn't
he write a check back to the State of Alaska? Why is a law
necessary unless he wished to take a charitable donation
deduction for federal tax purposes?
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered that under Version O, the portion of
salary that the governor does not receive would not be
considered a charitable donation for tax purposes; the intent of
Version O is to preclude the governor from paying federal tax on
money he will not receive. She said that if the governor writes
a check back to the state, it would be necessary for him to pay
taxes on it, because it would be paid salary. She opined that
she doubts that the money could be considered a charitable
donation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed that she wanted to clarify that
the proposed legislation was regarding federal tax law.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated that the governor would be liable
for paying tax on his entire salary even if he writes a check
back to the state for the portion of the salary he does not
choose to take.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE responded, that's correct. Under Version O,
he would accept the smaller amount and not have to write a check
back to the state for the balance and, therefore, not be
required to pay taxes on salary he did not receive.
3:32:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked, "What happened to the bill I
actually kind of liked which had to do with ... freezes for
unrepresented employees?" He maintained that the original
version of HB 71 would have accomplished that. He stated that
he attempted to make a motion on the House floor to enact the
cost savings that would have been realized by a freeze, and this
version represents a significant change from the original
version.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether his interpretation of Version
O is correct: the governor wants to avoid being taxed on his
income, and Version O would permit the employer - the state - to
waive that portion of his salary as income.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE replied that Version O was not introduced
because the governor does not want to pay taxes; the dates have
been removed so that the provision could apply to any governor.
Version O would remove the necessity to pay taxes on money that
the governor is not keeping; if the governor receives the salary
then returns it, he would have to pay taxes on it.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asserted that he finds it ironic that an
administration that has been working to impose income taxes on
working Alaskans is advancing legislation that would permit the
governor of that administration to avoid federal income taxes on
his pay. He said that most people who want to make charitable
donations, receive the pay, then write a check to their church
or charity of choice. He maintained that if the governor
chooses to redirect his compensation to a charity of his choice
- the State of Alaska or any other - he is permitted to do that
currently. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the changes in
HB 71, which was intended to freeze salaries to unrepresented
state employees, and now is a federal tax avoidance measure for
the governor.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE answered that the original version of HB 71
had the same provision for the governor's salary as does Version
O; the only difference is the elimination of dates restricting
the waiver to a certain period. She maintained that the
governor is not trying to avoid paying income tax, but rather
does not want to take a full salary. He or any governor who
wishes to take advantage of this provision, will pay income tax
on all the salary he/she receives. The intent is for the
governor to be able to reduce his/her salary.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE conceded that the portion of HB 71, which
called for pay freezes for state employees, was removed from the
proposed legislation. She maintained that DOA has not been
successful in negotiating such a provision with any of the
bargaining units. She added that even with that elimination,
Version O retains the provision addressing the governor reducing
his/her salary and adds the new section - transitioning to
biweekly pay - which is something that the unions and employees
have requested for quite some time. It is a more efficient
system for payroll.
3:37:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he agrees with the provision
simplifying payroll; however, he expressed that he is deeply
disappointed that the proposed legislation does not retain the
provision on pay freezes. He maintained that his constituents
and the public support restrictions on spending and new state
government hires.
3:37:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL restated that Version O allows the governor
to not take a paycheck and not pay taxes on money not received.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE confirmed that the governor's end-of-year
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form W2 would reflect the amount
of salary that he takes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL continued by saying that Version O changes
payroll to every other Friday, rather than the first and
fifteenth of the month. He asked for confirmation that to
retain the pay freezes in the original version of HB 71, DOA and
the bargaining units would have to come to an agreement.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE explained that the original version of HB 71
only applied to unrepresented employees; for anyone under
contract, the provision would have to be negotiated; and DOA has
attempted to do that.
3:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there was any reason for
not offering that option [reduced salary] to any state employee
- not just the governor. She suggested that there are other
reasons a person might want to take advantage of the provision,
such as to avoid being in a higher tax bracket.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE replied that she is not sure it could be
offered to every class of employee because of federal law. She
maintained that the governor is in a different category in state
statute than other employees. She offered to pose that
possibility to DOA's attorney.
3:40:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that adding other classifications to
the proposed legislation may be logical.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE offered to find out and reiterated that
federal law may interfere with that possibility.
3:40:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to a proposal by the governor that
if "something didn't happen by a certain day," the governor
would forego his pay and the legislature would as well. He
asked hypothetically: If the legislators' pay was suspended
after day 120 of the legislative session for failure to pass a
budget, would they be liable for federal tax on the salary they
were not receiving if they are not included in the HB 71 waiver.
COMMISSIONER RIDLE offered that the governor's proposal [HB 283
and SB 141] only applied to per diem, and legislators are not
currently taxed on per diem.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his understanding that different
proposals were introduced. He suggested that if there was
legislation resulting in a reduction to legislators' pay for
some reason, they would be liable for federal tax, unless a
provision such as in Version O was in place to include them.
3:42:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that possibly he was referring
to a bill she introduced eliminating per diem after 90 days [of
the legislative session]; however, per diem does not get taxed.
3:43:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt the CS for HB 71, Version
30-GH1018\O, Wayne, 2/28/18, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wool, LeDoux, and
Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of adopting the CS for HB 71.
Representatives Birch and Johnson voted against it. Therefore,
Version O was adopted as a work draft by a vote of 3-2.
HB 400-FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
3:44:35 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to the collection
of fees by the Department of Public Safety for fire and
explosion prevention and safety services."
[Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB
400. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]
3:45:42 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, prime sponsor of HB 400, presented
Amendment 1, labeled 30-LS1490\A.1, Bannister, 3/7/18, which
read: [The text of Amendment 1 is listed at the end of the
3/8/18 minutes of HB 400.]
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE relayed that Amendment 1 would establish fines
for the violation of fire safety measures; currently they are
listed as misdemeanors; the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
would like to move these violations out of the misdemeanor
category and assign them statutorily defined fines. She stated
that Section 2 of Amendment 1, [page 1, lines 8-14] would
establish the fines.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE offered that Section 3, [page 1, lines 16, to
page 3, line 25], would allow DPS to issue the citations for the
fines and would establish a timeline and procedure for the
administration. She added that subsection (p) of Section 3,
[page 3, lines 16-19], would remove the offense from the
misdemeanor section to ensure there is not a double penalty for
the same offense.
3:46:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the fines relate to fire
protection and safety.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered yes.
3:47:30 PM
DAVID TYLER, Director State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire and
Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), stated
that currently the only recourse for DFLS to address a violation
is to issue a warning or charge the offender with a Class B
misdemeanor. The fines offer a more immediate tool to provide
incentive for compliance without "taking the misdemeanor route."
3:48:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that a penalty for a violation on
a construction site can be a misdemeanor charge; it is rarely
charged because it constitutes such a heavy penalty; legislation
was introduced to change the penalty to a fine so that offenders
will be cited more frequently. He suggested the proposed
legislation posed a similar scenario. He asked whether someone
could be served with a $5,000 fine, if an inspection revealed
ten violations with a $500 fine for each.
MR. TYLER replied that the $500 would be the maximum that could
be charged for a violation. He stated that DFLS is conducting
research to establish an appropriate fine for different
offenses. He maintained that offenses are of varying levels of
seriousness; DFLS does not want the fines to be too onerous on
businesses; DFLS wants businesses to be able to make the
repairs; and it wants to incentivize them to do the repair
before the inspection.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered the following scenario: as a
business owner he pays for and receives an inspection;
violations are noted. He asked whether fines would be assessed
at the time of the inspection or if there would be a period
allowing for a remedy to be applied and a second inspection,
before fines are assessed. He summarized by asking, "Do you
have to pay for someone to come out and give you fines?"
MR. TYLER responded that the two issues are separate. The fee
for the inspection is billed separately and DFLS deputies would
not be doing that. He said that for the egregious violations,
DFLS deputies will write citations; the goal is compliance. He
offered that if upon inspection, a building has 30 violations,
it is not the intent of DFLS to drive the owner out of business.
It would focus on the immediate life and safety issues and work
backwards to the ones that are less serious. He maintained that
it is the goal of DFLS to work with people, not put them out of
business.
3:52:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he has a building that is
inspected. He suggested that the inspectors give him a
summation of what needs to be remedied; they give him time to
comply; he notifies them that he has complied; and the
inspectors check for those remedies during their next
inspection. He maintained that this scenario is a great way to
get people to comply. He offered that his concern is that
people not get penalized for participating in an inspection
process and that this isn't just a way for the state to make up
for funding shortages. He agreed that compliance is the goal.
He asked whether there is a problem getting people to comply
with the fire and safety requirements.
MR. TYLER responded, "That's absolutely correct." He said that
in many instances DFLS deputies are called "paper tigers"; they
have no real "bite," unless they charge offenders with
misdemeanors. He said that under HB 71, DFLS plans to send a
letter to the business two months in advance of the inspection
and list the violations that it typically finds. This would
give the business owner time to fix the problems before the
inspection and a time schedule for inspection. He mentioned
that DFLS would focus on the more serious violations, such as
fire extinguishers not in place, sprinklers and alarm systems
not compliant, egress blockage, and emergency lighting.
3:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether a first inspection is
accompanied by fines or if someone would be given a chance to
fix a problem before he/she gets a fine.
MR. TYLER answered that a pre-inspection form will be sent out;
it is the goal of DFLS to work with people and not just visit
the premises and fine the owners. If there is an egregious
violation, DFLS will resort to [fines] immediately, but
collecting fines is not the goal of DFLS. He added that re-
visiting a place may be difficult because of the cost of travel.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the number of Class B
misdemeanors levied per year for failure to comply under the
current law.
MR. TYLER answered that information back to 2007, with three
years missing, indicates there have been none.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to page 1, lines 13-14, of
Amendment 1, which states that each day that the violation or
noncompliance continues, is a separate offense. He asked
whether that means that for each day that there is
noncompliance, the building owner is subject to another $500
fine; therefore, the fines would add up accumulatively.
MR. TYLER conceded that it was a stiff penalty; he suggested
that DFLS would not consider it another violation unless a
future inspection determined that nothing had been remedied.
3:58:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why no distinction is made in the
amendment or in the statute between someone just notified of a
violation and someone who fails to comply to an order to fix a
problem. She opined that the latter person would be more
culpable that the former.
MR. TYLER answered that he understands her reasoning but doesn't
know how to draft the language for a "compounding" fine.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that Legislative Legal and
Research Services could help draft such language. She asked Mr.
Tyler for his reaction to the concept.
MR. TYLER replied, "I have no problem with that at all." He
said there are many instances in which people are aware that
there are no consequences of a DFLS visit. He maintained that a
harsher fine for someone who ignores DFLS and is not taking
safety seriously would send a better message.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that Amendment 1 would be held
over for more work with the assistance of Legislative Legal and
Research Services.
4:01:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested the possibility of a serious
injury or death. She referred to proposed legislation [HB 259]
heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting of
3/5/18, in which load vehicle load limits were discussed; people
had been seriously hurt or maimed; and under Alaska statute,
surpassing load limits only constituted a violation. She
offered that if a violation resulted in injury or death, the
penalty should be substantial. She requested that the amendment
be rewritten to address a violation which results in a fire in
which someone is hurt or killed, or property is damaged.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred and added that [HB 259] addressed
unsecured loads, not load limits.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that fire and safety inspections
should be available to people with commercial properties who
want to be law abiding citizens. She expressed that fire and
life safety is an essential public service and the reason for
having "government." She mentioned discussion of proposed
legislation [HB 322, House Resources Standing Committee meeting
hearing on 2/9/18] about waiving the cost of receiving advice
from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on the
management of spills; those with commercial buildings who seek
advice to ensure safety compliance may be discouraged by being
charged fees for an assessment. She stated that she has never
thought of a fire marshal as being a paper tiger; he/she shows
up with a badge and carries all the weight and enforcement of a
law officer. She concluded by saying that endangering lives may
be worth more than $500 per day or warrant legal action. She
urged reevaluation of Amendment 1.
4:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he never considered the fire
marshal to be a paper tiger; when the marshal instructs him to
do something, he does it. He added that some owners have large
buildings; they don't know what the fire marshal will check or
how extensive the inspection will be. He maintained that he is
amenable to having the inspection, and under HB 400, may be
paying for the inspection. He stated that he would like to be
given a list of violations, a chance to fix the problems, and
possibly pay for a follow up inspection. He maintained that
$500 per day per violation could become very expensive. He
suggested that if DFLS is hesitant to issue misdemeanors,
perhaps it should shut the business down.
4:06:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 400 would be held over.
AMENDMENT(S)
The following amendment to HB 400 was either discussed or
adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in
the main text only.]
AMENDMENT 1 [30-LS1490\A.1, Bannister, 3/7/18]:
Page 1, line 2, following "services;":
Insert "and relating to penalties for violating
fire protection and safety requirements and orders"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 18.70.100(a) is amended to read:
(a) A [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (c) OF THIS
SECTION, A] person who violates a provision of
AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 or a regulation adopted under
those sections, or who fails to comply with an order
issued under AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100, is guilty of a
violation and shall be punished as provided in
AS 12.55 by a fine of not more than $500. Each day
[CLASS B MISDEMEANOR. WHEN NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,
EACH 10 DAYS] that the violation or noncompliance
continues is a separate offense.
* Sec. 3. AS 18.70.100 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) A peace officer or an employee of the
department who is authorized by the commissioner of
public safety to enforce this chapter may issue a
citation to a person who commits a violation
identified under this section.
(e) A citation issued under this section must
comply with the standards adopted under AS 12.25.175 -
12.25.230. A person receiving the citation is not
required to sign a promise to appear in court.
(f) The time specified in the notice to appear
on a citation issued under this section must be at
least five working days after the issuance of the
citation.
(g) The commissioner of public safety is
responsible for the issuance of books containing
appropriate citations and shall maintain a record of
each book and each citation contained in the book. The
commissioner of public safety shall require and retain
a receipt for each book issued to an employee of the
department designated by the commissioner of public
safety to provide investigative services to enforce
provisions of this chapter.
(h) On or before the 10th working day after
issuance of a citation, a peace officer or an employee
issuing a citation under this section shall deposit
the original or a copy of the citation with a court
having jurisdiction over the alleged offense. Upon the
deposit of the citation with the court, the citation
may be disposed of only by trial in the court or other
official action taken by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor. The peace officer or employee who issued
the citation may not dispose of the original or copies
of the citation or of the record of the issuance of
the citation except as required under this subsection
and (i) of this section.
(i) The commissioner of public safety shall
require the return of a copy of each citation issued
under this section and of the copies of each citation
that has been spoiled or on which an entry has been
made and not issued to an alleged violator. The
commissioner of public safety shall also maintain in
connection with each citation issued a record of the
disposition of the charge by the court in which the
original or copy of the citation was deposited.
(j) A citation issued under this section is
considered to be a lawful complaint for the purpose of
prosecution.
(k) Unless the citation has been voided or
otherwise dismissed by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor, or bail has been forfeited under this
section, a person who fails to appear in court to
answer a citation issued under this section,
regardless of the disposition of the charge for which
the citation was issued, is guilty of failure to obey
a citation under AS 12.25.230(b).
(l) The supreme court shall establish a schedule
of bail amounts. The maximum bail forfeiture amount
for a violation may not exceed the maximum fine
specified under (a) of this section for that
violation. The issuing peace officer or employee shall
write on the citation the amount of bail forfeiture
applicable to the violation.
(m) If a person cited for a violation for which
a bail forfeiture amount has been established under
(l) of this section does not contest the citation, the
person may, within 30 days after the date of the
citation, mail or personally deliver to the clerk of
the court in which the citation is filed by the peace
officer or employee
(1) the amount of bail indicated on the
citation for that offense; and
(2) a copy of the citation indicating that
the right to an appearance is waived, a plea of no
contest is entered, and the bail is forfeited.
(n) When the cited person has forfeited bail
under (m) of this section, the court shall enter a
judgment of conviction. Forfeiture of bail is a
complete satisfaction for the violation. The clerk of
the court accepting the bail forfeiture shall provide
the offender with a receipt stating that fact if
requested.
(o) A person cited under this section is guilty
of failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230(b) if
the person fails to pay the bail amount established
under (l) of this section or fails to appear in court
as required.
(p) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if
a person cited for a violation for which a bail
forfeiture amount has been established under (l) of
this section appears in court and is found guilty, the
court may not impose a penalty that exceeds the
forfeiture amount for that violation established under
(l) of this section.
(q) In this section, "department" means the
Department of Public Safety."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 18.70.100(c) is repealed."
[End of Amendment 1 - HB 400 was held over.]
HJR 38-AK RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT; CONVEYANCES
4:07:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38, Relating to certain
conveyances to the Alaska Railroad Corporation under the Alaska
Railroad Transfer Act of 1982.
4:07:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HJR 38, relayed that the proposed resolution
represents a "singular voice" of the legislature to comment on a
matter of such an important public policy as property rights.
He referred to the testimony of the Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC) [Andy Behrend, Chief Counsel, ARRC] during the 3/1/18
House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting, which stated
that there was no connection between the Alaska Railroad Act of
1914 ("1914 Act") and the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of
1875 ("1875 Act"). He said, "That's a profoundly important
statement, because it is profoundly wrong."
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the 1982 decision of the [U.S.
Department of Interior's (USDOI's)] Interior Board of Land
Appeals (IBLA), included in the committee packet [IBLA 81-426].
The Alaska Railroad (ARR) appealed a selection of state lands on
the ARR right-of-way (ROW) asserting that this property had been
appropriated, reserved, or otherwise set aside based on what it
had claimed was a fee simple interest ownership; therefore, it
was not available for state appropriation. The IBLA decision
reported the following: the page labeled 65 IBLA 376 summarizes
ARR's claim that the property was set aside; the page labeled 65
IBLA 377 mentions the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 allowing for
the selections of these lands along the Fairbanks meridian and
comments that the initial [USDOI] Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM's) decision stated that the lands were available for
appropriation by the state; they were entirely appropriate for
the ROW; and they could be acquired as state property; and it
also states that this determination was made under the 1914 Act.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP quoted from the pages labeled 65 IBLA 377
and 65 IBLA 378 of the IBLA decision, beginning with the last
sentence on the first of the two pages, which read:
The issue raised by this appeal is whether the land
within the right-of-way granted to the Alaska Railroad
is occupied, appropriated, and/or reserved so as to be
exempt from State selection. Neither counsel for
appellant nor counsel for the State of Alaska have
cited any cases on point and this appears to be a case
of first impression.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that IBLA then addressed the issue by
citing cases; he referred to the first paragraph under [1] on
the page labeled 65 IBLA 378, which read in part:
[1] Consideration of the nature of the right-of-
way granted by similar statutes provides guidance. The
General Railroad Right of Way Act of March 3, 1875,
ch. 152, 18 Stat. 482 (1875), 2/ granting a similar
right-of-way for railroad across the public lands
outside Alaska has been held to convey only an
easement and not a fee interest in the land.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that IBLA also cited the U.S. Supreme
Court case of 1942, Great Northern Railroad Co. v. U.S. He
continued quoting the first paragraph of [1], which read in
part:
The Court held that the reserved right to dispose of
the lands subject to the right-of-way is inconsistent
with the grant of a fee and persuasive that the grant
of an easement was the intent of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP relayed that in this case, the court
concluded that even under a more restrictive standard, which
existed before the 1875 Act, it was the intent of Congress that
the state - in this case the State of Wyoming - would be allowed
to take the subsections in its statehood appropriations subject
to the ROW. He added that under the ROW Acts of 1862 and 1864,
there were limited fee interests and railroads did own some
land.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP quoted from the third paragraph under [1] of
the IBLA decision, on the page labeled 65 IBLA 379, which read:
These cases decided under other railroad right-of-way
statutes persuade us that the lands embraced in
appellant's right-of-way should not be considered to
be appropriated or reserved at the time of State
selection so as to be excluded therefrom. The decision
correctly held that a right-of-way for railroad shall
be reserved in any State selection patent issued.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that IBLA directly referred to the
1875 Act, under which Congress ended land grant railroads and
allowed only surface easements for rail, telegraph, and
telephone. He asserted, "That was the easement ... of the 1914
Alaska Railroad Act."
4:12:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP relayed that HJR 38 would not have an impact
on federal property already in a federal interest; but only on
property upon which there was an unlawful infringement in the
transfer. He stated that the federal government owned an
exclusive-use easement in Denali National Park and Preserve
(DNPP) and an exclusive-use easement on Native lands under
contested land claims. He emphasized that the federal
government never owned an exclusive-use easement on Homestead
Act [1862] ("homestead") patent properties.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that the ARRC's position is that there
is settled law in the matter: railroads have either full simple
title or an exclusive-use easement. He emphasized that there is
no settled law in that regard; 80 percent of railroads in the
U.S. have a simple easement only, a claim supported by the U.S.
Supreme Court three years ago in Brandt Revocable Trust v. U.S.
The court ruled that a railroad ROW granted under the 1875 Act
is an easement; therefore, if a railroad abandons such easement,
the landowner regains his/her unburdened use of the land. He
stated that it is difficult to understand why a limited interest
surface easement, which ARR has, is insufficient for ARR to
safely operate, like most other railroads in the country.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that whatever property the federal
government lawfully owned at the time of the transfer [to the
state in 1982] would not be affected by HJR 38. He relayed that
HJR 38 would only apply to right titles and interests owned by
other parties; it is focused on the homestead patentees and a
claim of ARRC to own more than it owns. He offered that he has
requested from ARRC a list of conflicting land claims that the
secretary of USDOI has adjudicated to demonstrate that ARRC
followed due process when taking exclusive-use easement interest
on all homestead patent properties; ARRC maintained it would
respond. He added that he has no indication of conflicting land
claims other than those in DNPP and those for which village
corporations and other Native claimants were competing. He
expressed his belief that the secretary of USDOI has made some
determinations on those lands.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asserted that homestead patents were never
subject to competing claims; they were entirely owned by the
homesteaders; the federal government had completely divested
itself of ownership in those lands. He relayed that HJR 38
would make it clear that if an entity says it has title to land,
then it should prove that title; any lawyer would tell a client
to clear his/her title unless the title is not clear. He
maintained that every lawyer he has consulted in this matter has
informed him that the extent of the ROW must be determined on a
case-by-case, parcel-by-parcel basis; and the title recording
system can provide with certainty the history of the interest of
any parcel.
4:15:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP concluded that ARRC has made a "sweeping"
claim to an exclusive-use easement without doing the work
necessary to justify that the federal government had that
interest to give to the state at the time of transfer. He
referred to Section 1202(10) of the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act
(ARTA) of 1982 [45 USC Ch. 21], included in the committee
packet, which states that the definition for rail properties of
ARR includes the exclusive-use easement within DNPP. He offered
that there would be no reason to specifically mention this
exclusive-use easement if it was de facto for the entire ROW.
He added that exclusive-use easement on federal lands is
specified three times [in ARTA]. He maintained that it was
clearly never the intent of Congress to impose that on the
homestead patent properties.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to testimony by Bill O'Leary, Chief
Executive Officer (CEO), ARRC, during the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting of 3/1/18, who quoted Alaska's former
U.S. Senator Ted Stevens as saying that the interest along the
ROW would be an exclusive-use easement. Representative Kopp
said that the quote was out of context; Senator Stevens said
that the interest on federal lands - lands for which the federal
government had the interest to give - would be an exclusive-use
easement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP maintained that a disagreement exists, and
ARRC recommends resolving it in court. He offered that "justice
is not free." The ARRC has asserted that the federal government
is bound to defend claims against the ROW; however, it is not
clear if that would involve all claims. He expressed that it is
upsetting to hear testimony that the legislature does not have a
legitimate role in addressing matters of such serious importance
to the state and that affect so many land owners; any individual
land owner would be financially destitute upon pursuing such a
case [in court].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP maintained that the legislature has a duty
and responsibility to disclaim any unlawfully acquired property
that was transferred; the legislature would not be identifying
that land, but merely asking for proof of ownership for land
claimed. He stated, "We're not going to aid and abet in any
unlawful taking of property. It's the most important thing
Alaskans have." He said that under HJR 38, the legislature
would be asking ARRC to prove that the federal government had
the exclusive-use easement at the time of the land transfer, if
ARRC is making a claim of property ownership based on that.
4:19:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he supports the proposed
resolution and maintained that the issue has been "unfinished
business" for many years. He mentioned that there has been an
attempt on the municipal level to resolve the issue, and the
legislature is the appropriate body to put forward such a
resolution.
4:19:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report HJR 38 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 38 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 310-MARRIAGE AND MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE
4:20:17 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 310, "An Act relating to the minimum age
of eligibility for marriage."
4:20:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:20 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.
4:22:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 310 would be held over.
4:23:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:23
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCR 10 Sponsor Statement 02.22.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 10 |
| SCR 10 Ver U 02.22.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 10 |
| SCR 10 Summary of Changes ver D-U 02.22.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 10 |
| SCR 10 Fiscal Note LAA 02.22.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 10 |
| SCR 10 Supporting Document - Letters of Support 02.22.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 10 |
| HB 71 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB71 ver O 3.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Explanation of Changes 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB400 Sponsor Statement 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 ver A 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Fiscal Note DPS 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment 1 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HJR38 Sponsor Statement 2.26.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR038 ver A 2.22.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Fiscal Note LEG 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Index of Support Documents 2.26.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Document- Letters of Support 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Index of Reference Documents 2.26.2018b.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Additional Documents- Reference 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Document- Powerpoint Presentation 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Dick Welsh 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Ocean View Community Council 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Beth Fread 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter Anchorage Board of Realtors 2.28.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Ocean View Community Council 2.28.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Document Written Testimony from Bob Gastrock 2.28.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Alaska Association of Realtors 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Dimond Shopping Center 2.28.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Document- Public Letters of Support 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Document Written Testimony from John Pletcher 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Document Testifier Resume 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Documnet- Letter Robert Gastrock 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Document- Pictures from John Pletcher 3.1.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR 38 Supporting Letter from Bonne' Woldstad 3.1.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from James Armstrong 3.1.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR 38 Supporting Document- Jack Brown Wirtten Testimony 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR 38 Supporting Letter from Roy Longacre 3.5.2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Opposing Document- Alaska Railroad Letter of Opposition 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Opposition Letter- Teamseters Local 959 3.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HB310 Sponsor Statement 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 ver A 2.6.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Fiscal Note DHSS 2.16.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Child Marriage in America Executive Summary 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Child Marriage in America 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Minors Married in Alaska 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Tahirih Child Marriage Backgrounder 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document- Letter from Office of Victim's Rights 2.20.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document- Letters of Support 2.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-ACT Support Letter 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |