Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/18/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB95 | |
| HB177 | |
| HB158 | |
| HB94 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 18, 2021
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Eastman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to elections and election investigations."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to an increase of an appropriation due to
additional federal or other program receipts; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 177(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund dividends
to the general fund."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act prohibiting the use of certain restrictive provisions in
leases of space for business use in certain federally
established zones; and adding an unlawful act to the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to daylight saving time; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 95
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/24/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/24/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 177
SHORT TITLE: REVISED PROGRAM: APPROPRIATIONS
SPONSOR(s): TUCK
04/16/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/16/21 (H) STA, FIN
05/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/13/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/13/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/15/21 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/15/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 158
SHORT TITLE: PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL FUND
SPONSOR(s): PRAX
03/31/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (H) STA, FIN
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITED COMMERCIAL LEASE PROVISIONS
SPONSOR(s): FOSTER
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, L&C
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 31
SHORT TITLE: OBSERVE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME ALL YEAR
SPONSOR(s): ORTIZ
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, FIN
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 95, on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the governor,
and answered questions from the committee.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of HB 95, on
behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request
of the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced an amendment during the hearing
on HB 177, as the prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PRAX
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 158, as the prime sponsor.
BOBBI SCHERRER, Appeals Manager
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
158.
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff
Representative Neal Foster
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 94, on behalf of
Representative Foster, prime sponsor.
NICK MOE
Azachorok Inc
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 94.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 31, as the prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:06:37 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.
Representatives Story, Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representative Tarr
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 95-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
3:08:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 95, "An Act relating to elections and
election investigations."
3:08:59 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), on
behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request
of the governor, introduced HB 95. She paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Dear Speaker Stutes:
Under the authority of Article III, Section 18, of the
Alaska Constitution, I am transmitting a bill
authorizing the Attorney General to investigate
potential violations of election laws of regulations.
This legislation would permit the Attorney General to
investigate alleged election violations identified by
the director of the Division of Elections, a member of
the public, or by the Attorney General. A member of
the public may submit a complaint alleging a violation
to the Division of Elections within 30 days of the
election or the violation, whichever is later. If the
complaint alleges a violation of AS 15.13, the
Division will forward the complaint to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission for further review. For
other election related allegations, the Division of
Elections does a preliminary review for completeness,
request missing information as necessary, and may also
dismiss complaints that are determined to be
frivolous. Otherwise, complaints are forwarded to the
Attorney General for action.
In investigating an allegation, the Attorney General
has the authority to compel witness testimony, issue
subpoenas, and to produce documents or other evidence.
The Attorney General also has the authority to hold
hearings, administer oaths, make interrogatories,
require written affidavits, and examine documentary
evidence. Upon concluding an investigation, the
Attorney General will share the results with the
Division of Elections. If the Attorney General
determines a violation of an election law or
regulation has occurred, the Attorney General may
bring a civil action to compel compliance with the
law. The information collected over the course of the
investigation will remain confidential unless it is
used as the basis for a decision by the Division of
Elections or is used as the civil action.
If the Attorney General brings civil action in court,
the Attorney General may petition for, and the court
may award the state, a civil penalty of up to $25,000
per violation. The court may also award the state
reasonable attorney's fees and investigation costs.
I urge your prompt and favorable action on this
measure.
MS. MILLS clarified that HB 95 would only provide investigatory
tools, adding that any ultimate determination would still occur
in court. As no penalty authority would be given to the
attorney general, a court order would still be required to
enforce an injunction or to bring fines against a "bad actor."
She highlighted quicker reaction times and a lower evidentiary
standard as benefits to a civil investigation.
3:14:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY acknowledged that the intent of the
legislation was to find bad actors who may be attempting to
corrupt the election process; nonetheless, she pointed out that
processes were already in place to verify signatures and cure
ballots.
MS. MILLS agreed. She said she had confidence in the 2020
election; however, she expressed concern that there was a trust
and integrity problem that could be addressed by the proposed
legislation. She proceeded to provide examples of how the bill
would work should it be enacted.
3:18:07 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, presented a
sectional analysis of HB 95 [included in the committee packet],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Purpose of Bill: Division of Elections does not have a
method of investigating alleged civil violations of
Title 15. This bill authorizes the attorney general to
investigate potential violations and seek compliance
through the courts or report back to the Division of
Elections so the director can pursue corrective
action.
Section 1 This bill has only one section. It adds a
section to the Elections Title 15 chapter 56 on
Election Offenses, Corrupt Practices, and Penalties,
authorizing the attorney general to investigate
potential violations of Title 15 (except for
violations of AS 15.13 which are addressed by the
Alaska Public Officers Commission) alleged in
complaints filed with the Division of Elections and
referred to the attorney general, or that otherwise
come to the attorney general's or Division of
Elections Director's attention.
The bill authorizes the attorney general to:
? issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas
for testimony and documentation);
? administer oaths and hearings in the process of
investigation;
? require persons under investigation to make full and
fair disclosures regarding the alleged violation, in
writing and under oath; and
? examine and make copies of any documents related to
the investigation.
? The attorney general may also pursue compliance with
the elections code (except for violations of AS 15.13
which are addressed by the Alaska Public Officers
Commission) by initiating a civil action in court for
an injunction and may petition for up to $25,000 per
violation.
The attorney general is authorized to advise the
Division of Elections Director of investigation
outcomes so the Director can seek corrective action.
The investigation information itself is not public
record, but the attorney general may issue a public
statement describing conduct that violates local,
regional, state or federal elections law.
3:22:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referring to Subsections (g) and (h) on
page 3 of the bill, asked for further clarification of the
language "about to engage" and questioned when the attorney
general would have the authority to act on a person who had not
yet committed a crime.
MS. MILLS recalled suspicious absentee applications that were
received [by DOE]. She explained that if those applications had
been processed and a person voted an absentee ballot
fraudulently, the counting of that vote could be stopped if
there was supporting evidence of an ongoing or forthcoming
violation.
3:24:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there was a substantive
difference between fees and civil penalties.
MS. MILLS explained that civil fines were imposed by a court
whereas civil penalties were typically an administrative action.
She noted that initially, the bill borrowed outdated language
from the Consumer Protection Act, adding that "civil fines" was
the correct term, which was the reason for the requested change.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS considered a scenario in which a person was
found in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, which per his
understanding, still used the word "fees" instead of "civil
fines." He asked whether a penalty could only be administered
by the courts due to the outdated language.
MS. MILLS clarified that the Consumer Protection Act used the
term "civil penalty" when it should say "civil fine." She
stated that the court would still enforce the verbiage "civil
penalty;" nonetheless, cleaning up the statute would allow for
proper use of language.
3:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about best practices in other
states and whether Alaska was modeling those practices.
MS. MILLS reported that similar authority existed in 25 other
states. Within those 25 states, the delegation of authority
varied between the attorney general, a board of elections, or
the secretary of state. She pointed out that in Alaska, the
Office of the Attorney General performed similar investigations
into consumer protection; therefore, she reasoned that it would
be efficient and effective to delegate this authority to that
office.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about injunctive relief and what
it would look like under this proposal.
MS. MILLS said essentially, injunctive relief was the court
declaring that a violation had occurred and that the person
responsible needed to stop.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked when a "hard stick" [strict
enforcement] would come into the process if that person refused
to stop.
MS. MILLS pointed out that civil fines could be imposed;
additionally, a person could be found in contempt of court at
which point, severe penalties could be enforced.
3:30:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Subsection (b) of the bill,
which indicated that campaign violations would be referred to
the Alaska Public Offices commission (APOC), as opposed to DOL.
He asked whether APOC had been consulted on the construction of
that responsibility.
MS. MILLS said no specific discussion with APOC had occurred.
She reasoned that APOC had specific penalties and laws that DOE
was unfamiliar with. She said, "Let's keep campaign finance
where it is."
3:32:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 95 was held over.
HB 177-REVISED PROGRAM: APPROPRIATIONS
3:32:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 177, "An Act relating to an increase of
an appropriation due to additional federal or other program
receipts; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was HB 177, as amended on 5/15/21.]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 1, adopted on
5/15/21, needed to be reconsidered.
3:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to rescind action on Amendment 1 to
HB 177 [labeled 32-LS0369\A.1, Marx, 5/12/21]. There being no
objection, passage of Amendment 1 was rescinded.
3:33:35 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew Amendment 1. He moved to adopt
Amendment 2, labeled 32-LS0369\A.2, Marx, 5/16/21, on behalf of
the bill sponsor, which read:
Page 1, line 10, following "program":
Insert "or project"
Page 1, line 12, through page 2, line 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) [45 DAYS SHALL ELAPSE BEFORE
COMMENCEMENT OF EXPENDITURES UNDER THE REVISED
PROGRAM] unless the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee earlier recommends that the governor expend
the receipts under the revised program or project, the
governor may not expend the receipts under the revised
program or project until the following periods have
elapsed:
(A) 45 days for expenditures not exceeding
$20,000,000;
(B) 90 days for expenditures greater than
$20,000,000 but not exceeding $50,000,000;
(C) 180 days for expenditures greater than
$50,000,000 but not exceeding $100,000,000;
(D) 270 days for expenditures greater than
$100,000,000 [STATE TAKE PART IN THE FEDERALLY OR
OTHERWISE FUNDED ACTIVITY];
(3) should the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee recommend within the applicable period
described in (2) of this subsection [45-DAY PERIOD]
that the governor not expend the receipts under the
revised program or project [STATE NOT INITIATE THE
ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY], the governor shall again review
the revised program or project, and, if the governor
determines to authorize the expenditure, the governor
shall provide the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee with a statement of the governor's reasons
before commencement of expenditures under the revised
program or project."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:33:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 177, explained that the proposed amendment would
create consistency throughout the bill language by inserting "or
project" following the word "program," thus reading "the amended
program or project."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Amendment 2 would
insert more explicit language that would leave less room for
"loosy goosy" interpretation by the executive branch.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered, "Yes, that's correct."
3:35:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 to
HB 177 was adopted.
3:36:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 177, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 177(STA) was moved
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 158-PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL FUND
3:36:37 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act relating to contributions
from permanent fund dividends to the general fund."
3:37:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PRAX, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 158. He paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 158 sets up a mechanism to give Alaskans
the choice of donating all or a portion of their
Permanent Fund dividends (PFDs) directly to the
state's general fund. Participants can donate from a
minimum of $25 to the full amount of their PFD in
increments of $25.
A donation to the State General fund, in some case,
can be counted as a charitable donation for federal
tax purposes. It is advised, however, that Alaskans
consult with a tax professional to verify how this may
apply to them individually.
Donations through HB 158 are subject to a seven
percent administrative fee paid to the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division. HB 158 also clarifies that
donations through Pick.Click.Give., take priority over
donations to the general fund if there is a shortfall.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX indicated that HB 158 would simplify the
donation process by enabling an option to donate that could be
selected during the electronic permanent fund dividend (PFD)
application process. He believed it would result in
"considerably more" dividends being returned to the general fund
(GF).
3:39:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referring to the fiscal note, pointed out
that there was no estimation of how many people might choose to
donate their dividend. She asked whether the bill sponsor had
discussed this with the Permanent Fund Dividend Division ("the
division") and whether the division had provided any projections
or information on the number of potential donations.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX answered no, he had not inquired about how
many people may donate.
3:40:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the sponsor was focusing on
people who wanted to donate all or a portion of their dividend.
He was unclear why a person would go through the process of
applying for a dividend if he/she intended to return it all to
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that a person would be able to
donate his/her dividend in increments of $25.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether a person who donated a
portion of the dividend would be taxed by the federal government
for the full amount.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said it was unclear whether it would be a
tax-deductible donation. He believed that as far as the
legislature was concerned, it did not matter.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he would be interested in knowing the
answer.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX assumed that it would not be tax deductible;
therefore, a person who donated his/her entire dividend to the
state, would still be taxed for the full dividend amount. He
suggested that anyone who was interested in donating could
calculate their tax liability and give the remainder to the
state.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recommended that Representative Prax
consult with Legislative Legal Services or other outside
experts, as he was interested in a more definitive answer.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX agreed to follow up with the requested
information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked who sponsored the companion bill in
the Senate during the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX answered Senator Wilson.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that the legislation
never made it out of the Senate Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX confirmed.
3:44:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Scherrer to comment from an
operational perspective on implementation.
3:44:49 PM
BOBBI SCHERRER, Appeals Manager, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), explained that if the
bill were to pass, the electronic PFD application would be
modified to allow for contributions to the GF in increments of
$25.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what would be entailed in modifying
the electronic application.
MS. SCHERRER conveyed that the program manager had completed a
deep dive on the modification process, which would entail
consideration of the requirements for gathering the data;
developing the application; testing the processes; rolling out
the final product. She said the time needed to modify the
online application and the MyInfo portal were the largest
contributing factors at approximately 150 hours each.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there would be an internal
hourly rate.
MS. SCHERRER responded that it would depend on staffing. She
noted that the time needed for developing and testing would
allow the applicant to have a more effective and less confusing
experience and ensure that the most accurate data was captured.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked her to elaborate on her previous
statement.
MS. SCHERRER indicated that the intent was for every Alaskan to
have an easy experience with the electronic application process.
3:47:31 PM
MS. SCHERRER, in response to a question from Representative
Tarr, said the majority of applicants submit their PFD
application electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether it would be difficult to
update the paper application to include the option to donate.
MS. SCHERRER clarified that the bill specifically stated that
the option to donate would be made available on the electronic
PFD application.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR sought to confirm that it would only be
added to the electronic option.
MS. SCHERRER confirmed.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the percentage of applicants that
apply electronically versus by paper.
MS. SCHERRER offered to follow up with the requested
information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the status of filling the
division's directorship.
MS. SCHERRER offered to follow up with the requested
information, as that was not something she monitored as the
appeals manager.
3:50:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN discussed the notion of a "bypass" rather
than a "pass through" and asked whether the sponsor was able to
gather more information on that as a more beneficial tax
structure for the program.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX answered no. He said after checking notes
on the bill from the previous legislature, it sounded like it
would be difficult to effectuate.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN acknowledged that it may be difficult;
nonetheless, he asked whether Ms. Scherrer had any comments on
the matter.
3:52:17 PM
MS. SCHERRER asked him to restate the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN wondered whether there was a way for the
recipient of the PFD to relinquish "ownership" of it, thus
allowing it to go directly from the Alaska Permanent Fund to the
GF, to avoid taxation.
MS. SCHERRER responded that she would have to confer with the
Tax Division, (DOR).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested a formal response on the
practicability of bypassing a person's receipt of the dividend
for the purpose of donation.
3:53:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how a contribution to the state
would be treated for purpose of the division's reporting
process.
MS. SCHERRER sought to confirm that Representative Claman was
inquiring about reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered yes. He considered a scenario in
which the dividend was $500, and a person donated the full $500
back to the state. He asked whether that person would report
$500 in revenue to the IRS.
MS. SCHERRER answered yes.
3:55:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 158 was held over.
HB 94-PROHIBITED COMMERCIAL LEASE PROVISIONS
3:55:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act prohibiting the use of
certain restrictive provisions in leases of space for business
use in certain federally established zones; and adding an
unlawful act to the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act."
3:56:21 PM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff, Representative Neal Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Foster, prime sponsor,
introduced HB 94. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 94 adds a prohibitive lease provision to the list
of Unlawful Acts and Practices under Alaska's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Statute. This
new provision eliminates restrictive covenants in
leases of space for business use. The spirit of the
bill is to increase competition in Alaska. The bill
prohibits contract clauses that prevent or limit
either party's ability to participate in businesses
that compete with the other party. Many of Alaska's
businesses are small. When large companies contract
with these businesses they are able to leverage
unfavorable terms that are designed to limit
competition. HB 251 aims to prevent that and improve
competition in Alaska's economy. The measure would
apply in historically underutilized business zones
established by the United States Small Business
Administration under 15 U.S.C. 657a (HUBZone Act of
1997).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed invited testimony.
3:57:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested an example to help her fully
understand the implications of the proposed legislation.
3:57:54 PM
NICK MOE, Azachorok Inc, provided a real-life example of the
noncompete clause that the bill would address, explaining that
Azachorok Inc was not allowed to sell similar items below the
high prices set by a company they are tied to by a commercial
lease agreement. He opined that HB 94 would encourage
competition in the free market, help drive down high prices, and
help local businesses. He urged the committee to support the
proposed legislation.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the company in question was
the Alaska Commercial Company.
MR. MOE confirmed.
4:01:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR gathered that if a village corporation was
leasing space for a small food store, their prices would have to
be based on the prices set by the "parent company" that they
lease from. She asked if that was correct.
MR. MOE answered yes, with a huge markup.
4:02:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there was "some unfair
aspect" that could be an unintended consequence of the
legislation, such as a nonprofit selling goods that would
undercut a commercial operation simply because it was operating
as a nonprofit.
MR. LABOLLE said that was not the intent of the bill. He
offered to follow up with the requested information.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN, attempting to clarify his question,
asked whether the bill would assure equal opportunity in trade
if it were to pass.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Moe if he was aware of similar
situations in other communities.
MR. MOE said he had heard of this problem persisting everywhere
that the Alaska Commercial Company operates.
4:05:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the intent of the bill was
to make the treble damages provisions of the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act applicable in this instance.
MR. LABOLLE stated that the bill was drafted so it would apply
to any portion of the "unfair labor practices."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that Mr. Labolle was
referring to unfair trade practices.
MR. LABOLLE clarified, "'The unlawful acts and practices' under
Alaska's unfair trade practices and consumer protection
statutes."
4:05:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 94 was held over.
HB 31-OBSERVE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME ALL YEAR
4:06:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act relating to daylight saving
time; and providing for an effective date."
4:06:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 31. He presented the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 31 establishes Daylight Saving Time (DST)
as the official time for the State of Alaska year-
round, subject to the authorization of federal law.
DST is observed between the second Sunday of March and
the first Sunday of November.
Adoption of this legislation is the first step. To
fully implement the change to full-time DST, action by
the United States Congress is required. Congress will
need to amend federal law to allow states to observe
DST throughout the calendar year.
Nationally, the initiative to change to full-time DST
is gaining traction. As of December 2020, 13 states
have enacted DST legislation. In 2020 alone, 32 states
considered DST legislation. On the west coast,
California voters authorized the change pending
legislation and in 2019, both Washington and Oregon
passed legislation similar to HB31.
Our Canadian neighbors have also taken steps to move
to full-time DST. British Columbia passed legislation
to implement full-time DST contingent on the U.S. west
coast also implementing it. Yukon began full-time DST
on March 8, 2020.
Because of our close economic and geographic ties to
the U.S. and Canadian west coasts, Alaska can avoid
being 'left in the dark' by passing HB31.
4:09:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the benefits of switching
to Daylight Savings Time (DST).
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ recalled that there was a bill introduced
in a previous legislature that proposed switching to Standard
Time, which received pushback, particularly from the tourism
industry due to a concern about less daylight in the summertime
and consequently, a potential decline in economic opportunity.
He believed that there would be less pushback if the state were
to switch to DST; nonetheless, it would still impact certain
communities, such as those on the Aleutian Islands during the
wintertime.
4:11:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to confirm that the proposed
legislation would align the state with its primary summertime
marketplace, the tourism industry, thus indicating a financial
bias.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ confirmed.
4:12:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ in response to a question from
Representative Tarr, stated that if the bill were to pass,
Alaska would be on a three-hour time difference from the East
Coast for half of the year, and a four-hour time difference for
the other half. He clarified that Alaska would not roll back in
the fall to Standard Time, at which time, the East Coast would
roll back, so Alaska would be one hour closer.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the bill sponsor was familiar
with the history of time zone law in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ answered, "Vaguely."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether it was within the purview of
the legislature to determine which parts of the state were in
what time zone.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ was unsure. He noted that the bill was
contingent on authorization from the federal government.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that Alaska used to have multiple
time zones, which led him to believe that the legislature
consolidated those time zones.
4:16:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that the state
must receive approval from the federal government to implement
changes to the time zone in different parts of the state;
however, he believed that the federal government tended to
approve those changes.
4:17:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN pointed out that the financial industry,
or other industries with strong ties to the East Coast, might
have concerns about this proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ agreed.
4:18:40 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 31 was held over.
4:19:52 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:19
p.m.