Number 632 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the amendment had not been formally moved. Additionally, she said that the amendment was to SB 155, the Senate version of HB 222, and HB 222's sponsor did not support it. Number 641 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that he would not formally move the amendment, as there apparently were not enough votes to support it. He said that if the hearing on HB 222 were to be continued on another day, he would bring the amendment back before the committee, redrafted so that the format conformed with HB 222. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee now had HB 222, as amended by AMENDMENTS NO. 1 AND 2, before it. Number 650 SHERRIE GOLL, representing the ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, commented that HB 222 was substantially similar to landlord/tenant bills which had been before the legislature for the last five years. She said that the landlord/tenant law now in place had tried to balance the rights of landlords and tenants. She expressed an opinion that HB 222 tipped the balance too far in favor of landlords. She said that women, minorities, and low-income citizens were more likely to be renters than other Alaskans; for that reason, she said that the effects of HB 222 would disproportionately fall on those groups of people. MS. GOLL expressed her concern about HB 222's shortened notice periods. She appreciated the bill's accompanying fiscal note, to cover the cost of preparing a brochure explaining the new landlord/tenant law. She commented that in some instances, the bill was changing notice periods from ten days to five days; in other instances, notice periods were being decreased from ten days to 24 hours. She stated that the bill would result in more evictions. MS. GOLL agreed that there were bad tenants, but expressed doubts that changing the landlord/tenant law would have any impact on tenants who disregarded the law anyway. She said that in most cases, landlords were able to protect themselves by requiring references or deposits. She applauded AMENDMENT NO. 2, saying that it made HB 222 more balanced. She said that her organization supported the mediation process. MS. GOLL called attention to the section of HB 222 pertaining to a tenant who had been arrested for a crime. She said that by shortening the notice period, eviction proceedings would begin before the tenant was able to defend him- or herself against the crime for which he or she was arrested. And, if the tenant was convicted, she questioned what purpose would be served by putting that person's family out on the street. MS. GOLL summarized by saying that, when dealing with the landlord/tenant law, both parties needed to be respected. She reiterated her belief that HB 222 went too far in shifting the balance away from tenants and toward landlords. TAPE 93-59, SIDE A Number 000 ELLEN NORTHUP, DIRECTOR of THE GLORY HOLE homeless shelter in Juneau, distributed a letter to the members of the committee. She believed Americans were innocent until proven guilty, and said that some of HB 222's provisions ran counter to that tenet. However, she approved of many of the provisions of the bill. She was aware that shortening the notice period from ten days to five days was aimed at drug dealers and prostitutes, but said that it would also hit senior citizens whose social security checks were held up in the mail. MS. NORTHUP mentioned a current situation of which she was aware, involving an elderly man who had lived in the same apartment for about six years. The building was sold to another owner, who implemented a new requirement of first and last months' rent, plus a cleaning deposit. When the man first moved into the building, she said, he only had to pay his first month's rent. He was unable to pay for his last month, plus his cleaning deposit and, therefore, was evicted. MS. NORTHUP stated that her primary objection to HB 222 was its shortened notice periods. She suggested that landlords ask prospective tenants if they knew how to clean a house. Strange as it might seem, she said, some people had never kept an apartment. Number 135 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that tenants could only seek assistance from the general relief program of the Division of Public Assistance when they could present an eviction notice. Therefore, she said, eviction notices were sometimes given to tenants in order to benefit them. She said that in most cases, landlords were understanding in the situation of a welfare or social security check arriving late. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that landlords required first and last months' rent, plus deposits as a result of problems that had occurred due to the existing landlord/tenant law. She noted that if tenants were given a five-day notice period, and could not come up with rent money within that time, then they would probably also be unable to come up with the rent money in ten days. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the intention of the existing landlord/tenant law was to protect both parties. However, she said that during the fifteen years that it had been in effect, it had bent over backwards for tenants. She said that the existing law had resulted in many people who were unwilling to be landlords. She expressed an opinion that the state needed to encourage landlords to provide rental housing. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if she was aware of a memorandum from Jack Chenoweth of the Legislative Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services, which suggested that a particular amendment be made to HB 222. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she had seen the memorandum, and felt that if the amendment was necessary, then she would support including it. However, she said that if the amendment was unnecessary, then she would rather not include it. Number 195 MS. HORETSKI mentioned that a House Judiciary Committee substitute would need to be drafted anyway, due to the other amendments that had been made. She noted that she had seen Mr. Chenoweth's suggested amendment regarding court rule references, but was as yet uncertain as to whether HB 222 made procedural or substantive changes. Number 200 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she would like to hear Ms. Horetski's legal opinion of Mr. Chenoweth's suggested amendment. Number 209 CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee hold HB 222 in committee until the following Wednesday; in the meantime, he said, a committee substitute could be drafted and Ms. Horetski could research Mr. Chenoweth's concerns. Number 219 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that sections 1 and 6 of HB 222 would place additional requirements on police departments, including notifying property-owners if someone other than the property-owner was arrested, and aiding in the eviction process. He wondered what sort of impact the bill would have on the Alaska State Troopers and on local police departments. Number 234 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that there was a fiscal note accompanying HB 222. Number 238 LT. HARRIS commented that he supported the concept of section 1 of HB 222, while recognizing that it would create more work for the Troopers. He said that in most cases, it would be easy to find out who owned a piece of property and notify that person by letter. He said that in Anchorage and Fairbanks, records were computerized, thereby speeding up the notification process. In other areas of the state, he said, finding out who owned a particular piece of property would be more time-consuming. But, he said that notification of property-owners was an important thing to do. LT. HARRIS indicated his understanding that eviction notices were usually served by private process-servers, only asking the police for assistance if certain problems arose. At that time, he said, the police would provide assistance as part of its routine work. He stated that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) supported the concept of HB 222. Number 273 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it would be helpful to the police to have the cooperation of a property-owner in these instances. Additionally, police could use the opportunities presented in HB 222 to point out the owner's responsibilities toward bad tenants. He added that the police's involvement stemming from HB 222 would not necessarily be viewed as a problem. Number 288 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked how a court would interpret section 10 of HB 222, pertaining to a person's reputation in the community. Number 298 CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that a person's reputation in the community was a standard used in establishing the credibility of a witness. Number 311 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that HB 222 reduced a notice period from 20 days to 24 hours, for breach of a rental agreement. He asked if this would present due process problems. Number 325 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the 24-hour period pertained not to non-payment of rent, but to situations in which a rental unit was being damaged. Number 335 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he was referring to page 10, lines 8 and 9 of HB 222. Number 344 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the section to which Representative Nordlund was referring was where the committee had inserted the word "substantially." The effect of that section, she said, would give landlords an opportunity to evict tenants before damage became worse. She said that she had personal experiences in which property she owned was being damaged by tenants, and all she could do was to watch helplessly as the damage was perpetrated. She stated that the 24-hour notice period did not apply to non- payment of rent situations. Number 361 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a House Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 222 would be drafted, with or without Mr. Chenoweth's amendment, based on the outcome of Ms. Horetski's research. He said that the bill would be back before the committee on Wednesday. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.