04/09/2015 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB83 | |
| SB1 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2015
9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Stoltze, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to the Protective Occupation Retirement
Council; relating to participation of certain employees in the
defined benefit and defined contribution plans of the public
employees' retirement system; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 1
"An Act prohibiting smoking in certain places; relating to
education on the smoking prohibition; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 83
SHORT TITLE: PEACE OFFICER/FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE
03/20/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/15 (S) STA, FIN
04/09/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 1
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SMOKING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
01/21/15 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/15
01/21/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (S) HSS, STA, FIN
01/30/15 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/30/15 (S) HSS, STA, FIN
02/11/15 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/11/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/11/15 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/11/15 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/11/15 (S) Moved CSSSSB 1(HSS) Out of Committee
03/11/15 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/13/15 (S) HSS RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
03/13/15 (S) DP: GIESSEL, ELLIS
03/13/15 (S) NR: STEDMAN, KELLY, STOLTZE
04/02/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/15 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
GENEVIEVE WOJTUSIK, Staff
Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of SB 83.
WILLIAM FORNIA, Actuary
Pension Trustee Advisors, Inc.
Centennial, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an actuarial overview of the
proposed Variable Benefit Retirement System.
TOM WESCOTT, President
Alaska Professional Firefighters Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 83.
JEREMY CONKLING, Officer
Anchorage Police Department Employees Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 83.
DR. GEORGE STEWART, MD (retired), representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
JENNIFER WOOLEY, representing herself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
GAIL SCHIEMANN, representing herself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
DARA GLASS, representing herself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
LUAN JENSEN, representing herself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
SHEB GARFIELD, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
BEN NGUYEN, representing himself
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
JANET KINCAID, representing herself
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
BRENDA SHELDEN, representing herself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
ROBIN MINARD, Director of Public Affairs
Mat-Su Health Foundation,
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Read a colleague's letter supporting SB 1.
MISTY JENSEN, representing herself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Executive Director
Mat-Su Health Foundation,
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
GEORGE GATTER, representing himself
Kodiak, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
BETTY MACTAVISH, representing herself
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
TERRENCE ROBBINS, representing himself
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
JENNY OLENDORFF, representing herself
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
GARY SUPERMAN, representing himself
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
SUSAN SMALLEY, representing herself
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
CHRYSTAL SCHOENROCK, representing himself
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
DANIEL LYNCH, representing himself
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
MICHAEL PATTERSON, representing himself
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
ANDREW MACEBO, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
LARRY HACKENMILLER, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 1.
FLORA RODDY, representing herself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
ERIN SHEFFLETTE, representing herself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
ARIEL HASSE, representing herself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
LUCAS ARTHUR, representing himself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
KEA BEKKEDAHL, representing herself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 1.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:03:32 AM
CHAIR BILL STOLTZE called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Huggins, Coghill, Wielechowski, and Chair
Stoltze.
SB 83-PEACE OFFICER/FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT
9:04:11 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of SB 83.
9:04:37 AM
GENEVIEVE WOJTUSIK, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 83 on behalf of the
sponsor, reading the following sponsor statement into the
record:
An Act relating to the Protective Occupation
Retirement Council; relating to participation of
certain employees in the defined benefit plan and the
defined contribution plan of the public employees'
retirement system; and providing for an effective
date.
In 2005, Alaska moved away from a defined benefit to a
defined contribution retirement system for public
employees hired after July 1, 2006. Both the defined
benefit and the defined contribution plans contain
risks and benefits to employees and employers. With a
defined benefit plan comes the advantage of
professional money management, lower fees, pooled
risk, and long term investment strategies. However,
employers carry significant risk if investment returns
fall short or actuarial predictions prove inaccurate,
which they are shielded from in a defined contribution
plan. Taking both of these points of view into
account, the Variable Benefit Retirement System (VBRS)
was developed.
9:05:49 AM
WILLIAM FORNIA, actuary, Pension Trustee Advisors (PTA), Inc.,
Centennial, Colorado, stated that he is working on behalf of the
Alaska State Firefighters Association (ASFA). He said the focus
of his presentation on the VBRS Plan is to address the
following:
· Why the change is necessary.
· Proposed structure of the new variable retirement plan.
· Examples of how the variable retirement plan would have
worked if ASFA had the plan all along.
9:07:06 AM
MR. FORNIA explained that a hypothetical police officer or
firefighter that retires at age 56 with an average salary of
$80,000 would receive one of the following benefit plans:
· Tier 3 Defined Benefit (DB) Plan for people hired before
2005: $45,000 pension per year.
· Tier 4 Defined Contribution (DC) Plan for people hired
after 2005: $25,000 pension per year.
He noted that even though the retiree is not covered under
Social Security, the annual Social Security payment would be
$22,000. He summarized that the Tier 4 DC Plan is not a whole
lot better than Social Security and significantly less than what
an individual would receive from the Tier 3 DB Plan after a 25
year career in Alaska.
9:09:19 AM
He revealed that the current retiree healthcare provision is not
likely to provide adequate pre-Medicare benefits. He detailed
that due to healthcare costs escalating faster than wages, the
current average monthly premium will increase from 39 percent of
an average Alaska Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) pay
to over 58 percent by 2034.
He explained the pros and cons of the DB Plan approach versus
the DC Plan approach.
He said DB plans are more cost efficient at providing retirement
benefits and specified as follows:
· Pool longevity-risks.
· Maintains a better diversified portfolio because, unlike
individuals, the plan does not age.
· Achieve better investment returns because of professional
asset management and lower fees.
MR. FORNIA explained that DC plans are more consistent with
individual responsibility and specified as follows:
· Benefit is a clearly defined contribution from the employer
and employee to a trust.
· Benefit is more under the control and full ownership of the
individual.
· Benefit is much more portable.
· No risk of unfunded liabilities.
9:11:55 AM
He stated that VBRS tries to strike a compromise. He explained
that SB 83 fixes the employer contribution so that there's no
risk of the contribution going up. He specified that the bill
creates a board to figure out how to live within the fixed
contribution. He specified that the plan has targeted benefit
levels and the board will have some authority to figure out how
to adjust benefits or employee contributions as necessary to
provide the benefits out of the fixed contribution amount. He
added that VBRS is designed with a lower anticipated rate of
return to provide a cushion against a long term experience that
might be worse than expected.
9:13:06 AM
He explained that current members in the DB Plan pay 7.5 percent
of pay with employers paying 22 percent of pay for members in
the old plan; however, more than half is going towards paying
off old unfunded liabilities. He said individuals under the DC
Plan are putting in 8 percent of pay and the employer's amount
also adds up to 22 percent.
He set forth that the proposed VBRS Plan increases the member
contribution to 9 percent, keeps the employer pay at 22 percent
with 8 percent going towards "legacy" pre-funded liabilities,
and 14 percent going towards the VBRS Plan. He summarized that
the board will have to figure out how to make the 9 plus 14
percent work and how to provide the level of benefits. He
revealed that PTA's projections are that the VRBS Plan could
provide benefits similar to the Tier 3 DB Plan. He added that
there is a chance that the benefit projections will not work
out.
MR. FORNIA said there are safeguards that the board can use to
make adjustments and prevent the state from having to contribute
more than 22 percent:
· Increase employee contributions or decrease when things are
good.
· Provide cost of living increases.
· Adjust the benefit.
· Adjust how much goes towards healthcare.
9:15:34 AM
He explained that another safeguard is a built-in actuarial
assumptions margin where lower assumed rates of return provide a
higher threshold before action is required when returns are
lower. He added that better than expected returns will be used
to build reserves. He noted that the ongoing DB Plan assumes an
8 percent return, the VRBS Plan assumes a 7 percent return.
He referenced a chart that modeled the VRBS Plan if enacted in
1985 to present. He pointed out that funding levels would have
ranged from 80 percent to 158 percent. He noted that the VRBS
Plan would currently be 95 percent funded on a target level
basis and 110 percent funded on a guaranteed level basis. He
summarized that the chart demonstrates that the VRBS Plan should
work as long as the board is prudent in not guaranteeing more
than can be afforded.
9:17:21 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee meeting.
MR. FORNIA reviewed case studies of similar plans in four states
that have worked well:
· Wisconsin: a very well-funded plan with a board that has
the flexibility to generate cost of living adjustments
based on returns.
· South Dakota: same situation as Wisconsin.
· Ohio: most similar to Alaska where the contributions are
fixed so there is no increased contributions that have to
go through the Legislature; however, Ohio's board annually
decides how much to use for healthcare and pensions.
· Colorado: firefighters and police officers environment with
a fixed contribution rate where their board makes decisions
on how much to shift year after year.
9:19:36 AM
MR. FORNIA set forth that the VRBS Plan purposes that the
employers put in 14 percent of pay for police officers' and
firefighters' plans. He noted that a small group of people that
work in police and fire departments that are not police officers
or firefighters would receive a 12 percent of pay contribution.
He pointed out that the proposal is consistent with other plans
across the country as well as being consistent some of Alaska's
significant employers such as Wells Fargo or Alaska Airlines.
He remarked that the state is very concerned with future
unfunded liabilities and that is the reason why Alaska made a
change in 2005; however, the change is projected to not provide
adequate benefits for the next generation of police officers and
firefighters. He stated that SB 83 provides a potential solution
with benefits that are similar to Tier 3 DB Plan benefits;
however, lower returns will result in lower benefits. He
explained that the government takes the risk under Tier 3 DB
Plan and individuals each take the risk under Tier 4 DC Plan. He
summarized that the VRBS Plan is more efficient where the police
and firefighters take on risk as a "pooled" group.
9:22:04 AM
TOM WESCOTT, President, Alaska Professional Fire Fighters
Association, Anchorage, Alaska, specified that he is also a
captain in the Anchorage Fire Department working out of Station
5 in Spenard. He stated that fixing the Tier 4 DC Plan and its
shortcomings is very important.
MR. WESCOTT said the first goal of any retirement system should
be to ensure that participants are ready to retire and can
remain self-sufficient once they do retire. He asserted that
remaining self-sufficient for retirees is going to be difficult
under the Tier 4 DC Plan and noted that many are not eligible
for Social Security or for the Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan;
for example, firefighters or police officers in Kenai,
Anchorage, and Fairbanks do not participate in either plan.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the non-participations are federal
prohibitions.
MR. WESCOTT answered that the state has a Section 218 Agreement
with the federal government that outlines participants. He
detailed that firefighters and police officers traditionally
have participated in defined benefit plans based on the need to
retire at a younger age because of the physical nature of their
jobs.
MR. WESCOTT said the VBRS Plan from SB 83 is a better retirement
system that was borne out of listening to the Legislature's
concerns about risk and unfunded liabilities. The VBRS Plan
takes from other states' plans where tools were built-in to deal
with adverse experiences. He noted that Wisconsin's plan
remained nearly 100 percent funded after a financial collapse.
He asserted that large pooled retirement accounts earn higher
rates over the long haul versus individual retirement accounts.
He detailed that large pooled retirement accounts benefit from
lower fees through economies of scale and earn maximum returns
from professional management oversight. He added that the VBRS
Plan pools risk and maintains investment portfolio diversity for
all participants.
9:26:11 AM
He said SB 83 addresses three issues that the state should be
concerned about:
· Costs associated with recruitment, retention, and training
for new hires when police officers and firefighters leave
for competing jurisdictions.
· Higher workers' compensation where an older work force is
required to work "on the line."
· Increase in social welfare costs where retirees run out of
money.
He said a study has shown that individuals without defined
benefit pensions were nine times more likely to be in poverty
when they retired; the Alaska Professional Firefighters
Association worries that its members would be in the same boat
where individuals are not ready or ill prepared to retire.
He detailed that SB 83 allows employee contributions to
fluctuate in order to deal with adversities. Medical benefits
are paid with stipends as opposed to a level of coverage where
the costs are not known. The board determines optional cost of
living increases based on the plan's health. He added that as
opposed to guaranteed benefits, a portion of the benefit is
variable where payments are based on what the plan's financial
capabilities are.
He remarked that SB 83 is not perfect. He pointed out that legal
and fiscal concerns need to be addressed. He summarized that SB
83 addresses a problem and provides a better benefit for Alaska
Professional Firefighters Association members.
9:29:49 AM
JEREMY CONKLING, Officer, Anchorage Police Department Employees
Association, Anchorage, Alaska, explained that not having
defined benefits impacts the Anchorage Police Department's (APD)
recruitment and retention of officers.
MR. CONKLING detailed that APD is receiving 75 percent fewer
applications than were received in the late 90s and early 2000s.
He asserted that due to a lack of retirement, people don't have
an incentive to join APD and work for 20 years in Alaska with no
security on the back end.
He explained that retention is an issue where APD has shifted
from being a destination to a training ground where officers
leave after receiving training and certification. He detailed
that APD invests several hundred thousand dollars on training
and certification for each officer. He revealed that officers
from APD have left for places with defined benefit plans. He
noted that the Denver Police Department is offering officers the
ability to buy back up to ten years of service; for example, an
officer with 12 to 14 years can buy 10 years back and only do 10
more years and get a full retirement. He revealed that officers
in exit interviews are saying that not having defined benefits
is the reason why they are leaving.
He summarized that APD is unable to recruit and keep highly
trained, professional officers. He said passing SB 83 will give
APD a huge advantage for recruiting and retention.
9:33:05 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked the sponsor to comment on SB 83.
SENATOR MCGUIRE remarked that she is known for being an
innovator and visionary in reconsidering the way the Legislature
does things. She said she does not believe that things are black
and white. She explained that in 2005 Senate Bill 141 addressed
fiscal concerns to move away from a defined benefit plan to a
defined contribution plan for the state's firefighters,
teachers, and police officers. She said during her time in the
Legislature, men and women serving at the ground level have
testified about their concerns regarding recruitment, retention,
and retirement. She asserted that she wants to bring the noted
concerns forward for the Legislature to think about whether
there is a different way and asserted that SB 83's hybrid
approach is a possibility. She declared that the fine men and
women that serve and save Alaska's families deserve the
Legislature's attention on their retirement system.
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that SB 83 will get further review. He
asserted that the committee puts a lot of trust in the
administration to review the actuarial data and give their best
analysis. He asked that the committee receive a candid point-by-
point on SB 83. He summarized that SB 83 deals with a fiscal
issue which is one of the three legs of the state's deficit and
the committee will have no blindfolds on during the bill's next
hearing.
9:36:54 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that SB 83 will be held in committee.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked that analysis be provided with different
parameters for alternative courses.
CHAIR STOLTZE agreed that the committee wants to receive the
best information.
9:37:46 AM
At ease.
SB 1-REGULATION OF SMOKING
9:38:41 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE called the committee back to order and announced
that SB 1 is before the committee.
9:39:27 AM
DR. GEORGE STEWART, MD (retired), representing himself,
Anchorage, Alaska, said he supports SB 1. He specified that SB 1
is about protecting the health of Alaskans. He asserted that
secondhand smoke is toxic and causes cancerous diseases, Sudden
Infant Death Syndrome, harms children, harms women who are
pregnant, and harms babies in the uterus of the women who are
pregnant. He said Alaskans are entitled to have clean air. He
noted that he supports the indoor banning of e-cigarettes as
well.
9:43:33 AM
JENNIFER WOOLEY, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, said
she supports SB 1. She said health prioritization is at the
heart of SB 1 and the bill's intent is to protect working
Alaskans from secondhand smoke and aerosol.
9:45:02 AM
GAIL SCHIEMANN, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, said
she supports SB 1. She said she is a non-smoker who has worked
in the hospitality industry for 20 years where smoking was
allowed and now has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(COPD). She asserted that secondhand smoke makes employees sick,
is real, and it kills.
9:45:47 AM
DARA GLASS, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She revealed personal experiences that shows non-
smokers can acquire lung cancer. She added that her mother was a
non-smoker who contracted asthma due to secondhand smoke. She
asserted that secondhand smoke leads to COPD, heart issues, and
a variety of other things. She said SB 1 will help mitigate the
health issues created by secondhand smoke, improve the state's
economy, and lower the cost of medical care.
9:47:21 AM
LUAN JENSEN, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She stated that SB 1 will protect all Alaskans in
their workplaces. She asked that SB 1 include the indoor ban of
e-cigarettes. She cited a study demonstrating e-cigarettes'
possible consequences that are significant to respiratory
health.
9:48:19 AM
SHEB GARFIELD, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, said he
opposes SB 1. He noted that he is an ex-smoker, now an avid
vapor and a manager at a vaping café. He shared studies that
showed secondhand vapor as being risk-free. He noted that
nicotine is one of the safest drugs and the problem with
secondhand smoke is due to combusting tobacco.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that there has been a lot volume from the
public on the vaping issue.
9:52:16 AM
BEN NGUYEN, representing himself, Eagle River, Alaska, said he
opposes SB 1. He noted that he co-owns Cloud 49 in Eagle River,
a vape shop. He said he discontinued smoking two years ago and
currently uses e-cigarettes. He asserted that e-cigarettes are
an alternative to cigarette smokers with less harmful effects
and a lower cost. He asked that more time be given to study e-
cigarettes and noted their possible benefit in helping cigarette
smokers avoid lung cancer. He summarized that SB 1 simply
requests people to take smoking outside, but incorporating
electronic vaporizing into the bill will cause a domino-effect
that would demean the effort in helping people quit traditional
smoking.
9:57:16 AM
JANET KINCAID, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She noted that she spearheaded a campaign to make
Palmer smoke-free and the ordinance passed via referendum. She
detailed that most of Palmer's bar owners are grateful for the
ordinance with some noting that business has increased with a
decreased maintenance costs. She summarized that SB 1 is good
for business and good for health.
9:58:10 AM
BRENDA SHELDEN, representing herself, Wasilla, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She pointed out that regulations already in place
have dispelled the assertion that smoke-free laws will cause a
financial barrier for businesses. She added that studies have
shown the detriment of secondhand smoke. She summarized that
making an investment in employees' health by eliminating
secondhand smoke in workplaces will result in a safe and
productive worker with reduced healthcare costs.
9:59:12 AM
ROBIN MINARD, Director of Public Affairs, Mat-Su Health
Foundation, Wasilla, Alaska, read a submitted letter on record
from board member Benjamin Olmedo in support of SB 1. She read
that secondhand smoke has been proven to be directly responsible
for a number of poor health outcomes and banning indoor smoking
in the workplace is not about individual rights, but about
protecting public health.
10:01:31 AM
MISTY JENSEN, representing herself, Wasilla, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She set forth that everyone has the right to be
free from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, but not
everyone has the opportunity to choose where they work. She
pointed out that SB 1 is about taking smoking outdoors and is
about the smoke, not about the smoker. She summarized that SB 1
protects all Alaskans because everyone has the right to breathe
smoke-free air.
10:03:07 AM
ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Executive Director, Mat-Su Health Foundation,
Wasilla, Alaska, said she supports SB 1. She noted that Mat-Su
has some of the highest tobacco use rates in the nation, which
increases chronic respiratory disease rates. She asserted that
tobacco use costs Alaska $579 million annually in direct medical
costs and lost productivity due to tobacco related death. She
set forth that strengthening Alaska's smoke-free public and
workplace statutes will help reduce healthcare and Medicaid
costs attributed to tobacco use. She added that studies have
shown that smoke-free laws have led to increased smoke-free
policies in homes that have directly and positively impacted
children's health. She pointed out that every community that has
enacted smoking bans has seen a decrease in cardiovascular
events. She disclosed that increasing tobacco-free Alaskans is a
goal of Healthy Alaskans 2020 and clean indoor air is the number
one strategy of the Alaska Prevention and Control Program. She
revealed that only half of Alaskans are protected by smoke-free
workplace laws. She disclosed that many jurisdictions such as
the Mat-Su Borough do not have the health powers necessary to
pass an area wide smoke-free law. She said Alaska needs a more
robust clean indoor air statute, which includes e-cigarettes.
She asserted that SB 1 is the next step in further reducing the
smoking rates and secondhand smoke exposure in Alaska.
10:06:20 AM
GEORGE GATTER, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, said he
opposes SB 1. He noted that he owns both a smoking bar and non-
smoking bar in Kodiak. He disclosed that he and another bar
owner have switched between allowing and not allowing smoking.
He revealed that switching his establishment to non-smoking for
60 days saw a huge revenue decline. He pointed out that his
business is on private property and he reserves the right to
conduct business as he sees fit. He noted that everyone in his
establishment is over 21 and the bill does not protect anyone
that doesn't want to be at in his establishment. He asserted
that laws should be made to protect the youth and adults who
cannot protect themselves. He stated that pushing smokers from a
controlled space out into the streets in front of Alaska's
youthful eyes will create the next generation of smokers. He
remarked that Grandfather Rights have never been brought up for
smoking establishments and noted that his establishment has
allowed smoking for 45-plus years. He summarized that SB 1 will
dramatically affect his business.
10:08:41 AM
BETTY MACTAVISH, representing herself, Kodiak, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She revealed that Kodiak is not covered by any
smoke-free workplace law. She said SB 1 will protect the 50
percent of Alaskan workers who are not covered by smoke-free
workplace laws. She pointed out that Kodiak's local newspaper
conducted a survey and 71 percent responded in favor of passing
SB 1. She added that the Kodiak Island Borough passed a
resolution in support of SB 1. She summarized that lives are at
stake.
10:09:49 AM
TERRENCE ROBBINS, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, said
he supports SB 1. He said smoking is addictive and deadly. He
said protecting Alaskans from secondhand smoke will surely
prevent illness, save lives, help tobacco users quit smoking,
and reduce youth smoking rates.
10:10:50 AM
JENNY OLENDORFF, representing herself, Soldotna, Alaska, said
she supports SB 1. She disclosed that she was exposed to
secondhand smoke in an office for five years due to a
neighboring business. She revealed that the building's landlord
refused to honor their request to simply require the neighboring
business to have their employees and patrons take their smoking
outside. She summarized that SB 1 will protect all Alaskan
workers in their workplace from secondhand smoke and e-cigarette
aerosol.
10:12:07 AM
GARY SUPERMAN, representing himself, Nikiski, Alaska, said he
opposes SB 1. He disclosed that he owns the Hunger Hut Bar in
Nikiski; board member for the Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant,
and Retailers Association (CHARR); and president for the Kenai
Peninsula CHARR. He revealed that he presented a petition to the
Legislature with over 700 signatures and remarked that the
bill's sponsor indicated that the petition was inconsequential.
He stated that 99 percent of the locations noted in SB 1 will
ban smoking. He conceded that compelling reasons exist to ban
smoking where people enter locations that deal with travel,
healthcare, government services, shopping, or eating locations.
He asserted that no compelling reason exists to go into a bar
and the act is simply a choice that deserves the rights of
patrons to be preserved as the last public sanctuary that allows
smoking. He set forth that SB 1 is disingenuous and targets the
few bars that still allow smoking. He asked what harm is being
done to society by allowing the remaining bars to allow smoking.
He divulged that 30 states have complete bans, but asked that
Alaska stay in the category where 20 states allow smoking. He
asserted that countless testimony exists from businesses that
have closed or lost revenue due to smoking bans. He said SB 1 is
tailor-made to destroy his business and other businesses
throughout the state. He commented that people may not like the
way smokers carry on with their lives or some of their behavior;
however, smokers as a group should still be allowed to be
captains of their fate and masters of their destiny. He
summarized that smoking is a matter of choice and he asked that
the Legislature work towards a reasonable exemption clause in SB
1.
10:14:34 AM
SUSAN SMALLEY, representing herself, Kenai, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She disclosed that she is a cancer survivor and
concurred with Dr. Stewart's testimony on why SB 1 is so
critical. She asserted that all Alaskans have a right to breathe
clean air in the workplace.
10:16:21 AM
CHRYSTAL SCHOENROCK, representing herself, Nikiski, Alaska, said
she opposes SB 1. She disclosed that she owns Forelands Bar in
Nikiski. She explained that all of her business's patrons and
employees smoke and those that walk into her establishment that
do not smoke and or do not drink do so as a choice. She
suggested that a posting of sign be allowed where people are
warned that smoking is allowed and entering is at one's own
risk. She set forth that SB 1 takes away rights and asserted
that smokers have to have a place to smoke too. She said
supporters of SB 1 do not come into her bar and she asked why
her patrons and employees that smoke have to be punished.
10:17:41 AM
DANIEL LYNCH, representing himself, Soldotna, Alaska, said he
opposes SB 1. He set forth that tobacco is legal for adults and
many believe in a free market economy where businesses have the
freedom to choose how they operate. He pointed out that Kenai
and Soldotna offer a choice for owners, employees, and consumers
to choose between separate smoking non-smoking bars. He remarked
that restaurant employees that work in a drive-thru window are
exposed to 100 times more deadly carcinogens from automotive
exhaust than from cigarettes or e-cigarettes. He asserted that
Alaska does not have the funds to enforce the restrictions
imposed from SB 1 and added that the state, boroughs, and cities
will lose tobacco tax revenue. He said SB 1 will cause
unintended consequences. He said there is no reason for SB 1 and
pointed out that education and habits are annually decreasing
the number of smokers. He summarized that SB 1 is not a
workplace safety issue, but a freedom issue and an unfunded
mandate.
10:21:02 AM
MICHAEL PATTERSON, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, said he
supports SB 1. He said many people have died from secondhand
smoke and pointed out that no one decides to become a secondhand
smoker. He set forth that tobacco products being sold to
children is a clear and present danger. He asserted that SB 1
will positively affect all Alaskans. He asked that legislators
not be swayed by businesses that are in the tobacco business. He
summarized that he supports SB 1 with the inclusion of e-
cigarettes.
10:25:09 AM
ANDREW MACEBO, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, said he
opposes SB 1. He asserted that e-cigarettes should not be
included in the legislation because vaping is not the same thing
as combustion and smoke. He agreed that areas should be kept
clear of smoking from cigarettes, but e-cigarettes should not be
included.
10:26:22 AM
LARRY HACKENMILLER, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
said he opposes SB 1. He asserted that the bill's intent to
protect the public is a hazard-con. He remarked that he does not
understand why big government wants to protect public rights
because the people choose not to or don't have the government
power to do it themselves in their respective communities. He
stated that the con is representing secondhand smoke as a hazard
when every chemical associated with secondhand smoke falls under
the permissible exposure limits established by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) using the chemical list
provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He
recommended that signs be posted to identify smoking facilities
to allow the public to exercise their right to smoke-free air
and protect themselves from the perceived risks of inhaling
secondhand smoke. He added that proper signage would the less
restrictive means of advancing the state's public health
interest.
10:30:02 AM
FLORA RODDY, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1 with the inclusion of e-cigarettes.
10:30:24 AM
ERIN SHEFFLETTE, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said
she supports SB 1 with the inclusion of e-cigarettes.
10:31:30 AM
ARIEL HASSE, representing herself, Wasilla, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She asserted that SB 1 will protect future
generations from secondhand smoke.
10:34:59 AM
LUCAS ARTHUR, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, said he
supports SB 1 with the inclusion of e-cigarettes.
10:36:43 AM
KEA BEKKEDAHL, representing herself, Wasilla, Alaska, said she
supports SB 1. She asserted that allowing employees to smoke at
work encourages an unhealthy lifestyle.
10:38:14 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that SB 1 will be held in committee.
10:38:46 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stoltze adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee hearing at 10:38 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB1 DOT-IASO 3-27-15.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 1 |
| SB1 Letters of Support for SSTA (3-31-15 to 4-8-15).pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 1 |
| SB1 Letters of Opposition for SSTA (3-31-15 to 4-8-15).pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 1 |
| SB83 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB83 Presentation to SSTA - Variable Retirement Plan 4-9-15.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| 28th Legislature - HB247 Fiscal Note-DOA-DRB-02-28-2014.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| 28th Legislature - HB247 Actuarial Fiscal Note-DOA-DRB-02-28-2014.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB83 Support Document - Email Angie & Matt Fraize 4-10-15.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB83 Support Document - Letter (HB90) Patrick O'Connor 4-9-15.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 90 SB 83 |