SSTA-260505-1530

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting to order. Let the record reflect it is Tuesday, May 5th, and the time is now 3:30 PM. We're in the Belts Committee Room in Juneau, Alaska. Members present today, Senator Gray Jackson, Senator Tilton, myself, Chair Kawasaki, we do have a quorum to conduct business. I'd like to thank Carrie Thippot from Senate Records and Chloe Miller, our moderator with the Legislative Information Office, for being here today.

We have a total of 7 items on today's agenda, but they will move fairly quickly. We wanted to first hear under consideration of the governor's appointees, Michael Craig, the Police Standards Council. We have a House Bill 25, Disposable Food Service Ware, by Representative Andy Josephson. Welcome. We have a hearing on House Bill 278, Economic Development Alaska Ireland Trade Commission, by Representative Mia Costello.

Thank you for being here. House Bill 176, University of Alaska Fee Transparency, by Representative Carrick. Second hearing and outlook to the will of the committee on Senate Bill 169, Welcoming Alaska Office, by Senator Tobin. We have a first hearing on House Bill 214, Motor Vehicles Proof of Insurance, SR 22, by Representative Lee Skalvin. And a first hearing on Senate Bill 286, Dalton Highway Tolls, by the Senate State Affairs Committee by request.

First, we will hear— also wanted to note that Vice Chair Senator Bjorkman is also present. We will first hear from Senate confirmation hearing on Police Standards Council appointee Michael Craig, and he is joining us on Teams this afternoon. Welcome to the Senate State Affairs Committee, Mr. Craig. Thank you for having me, and I appreciate the promptness of the meeting start. Yes, we do that here.

If you, you could just give us your spiel, tell us a little bit about yourself, maybe why you want to serve on this Police Standards Council and some of your experience. Yeah, thank you. I actually have been on the LAS Police Standards Council since 2017, so pretty close to right at the 10-year mark. It has been quite the experience. I've really enjoyed it.

Quite a bit. When I was first asked to consider being a part of the council back in 2017, I honestly told the person, "I don't even know what that is." So what I did was I went to a meeting just as a, you know, just a member of the public, just to see what they did. And then when they excuse people from— when they go to executive session and then everybody kind of hangs around, I just went around and talked to people about kind of what their thoughts are about what the APSC does. There was ex-law enforcement, fire people, there was people from the public, that sort of thing. So it just gave me a good feeling, good indicator of that, you know, certainly the council had a worthwhile mission and that I was wanting to be a part of it.

So again, 10 years, you know, being in that capacity, my experience has been great. I've been a public member for all that time, of course, and not one time in any of those conversations or deliberations or that sort of thing that I feel like I was being influenced by the law enforcement folks that are on that committee as well. They're very open to different points of views. So that's always been wonderful. It's a very open, very respectful, really very trusting process, and it's really valuable.

For me personally, I moved to Alaska with my family back in the early '60s. Primarily was raised in Glenallen, graduated from high school there. When I was going to high school, I was pumping gas and the pipeline is being built and all these trucks are stopping in. I'm thinking, oh my, I got to figure out how to get one of those jobs. So in 1983, I did get a job on the pipeline and I've been working on the pipeline ever since.

So I'm just right at my 43rd anniversary of doing that work and it's been really just tremendous. 33 Of those years I was in some capacity of security. So I started out in a college summer job at one of the surplus camps where they were selling off the buildings, and then moved all the way through the contractor ranks to the rank of captain through there, got hired by AIESCA in '97 directly, ended up in their corporate security team. And about 10 years ago, I was asked if I would want to move over into the business practices office as an employee concerns coordinator. And I initially was thinking, well, I really like the job I'm doing.

I'm really good at it. I'm comfortable with it. I know all the ins and outs. I'm not sure I really want to do something different. And then it just struck me that after having done that for the better part of 33 years, that maybe some change would work.

So I did jump over into this line of work, which is pretty similar to what the Alaska Police Standards Council does, where there's situations or cases involving law enforcement officers, corrections, and that sort of thing where people may have behaved or had cases, that got them to a point where we had to consider decertification, that sort of thing. In the civilian world, I investigate code of conduct violations. I investigate harassment, intimidation, retaliation, discrimination, hostile work environment, all those kinds of things. For that, I do have a professional certified investigator certification for that particular activity. So this is kind of a neat fit for that.

And yeah, my experience has been very, very good, and I thought, you know, I'm going to do another 4-year term before I retire.

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Craig. I appreciate your decade of service on the Commission or Council. Are there questions for Mr. Craig?

Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Craig, for serving as long as you have and also for your willingness to serve. Um, but my question is, um, I think it was in 2021 I introduced a series of police reform bills, actually public safety bills, not only to protect the citizens but also the police also. And I'm wondering what your thoughts were on my bills.

One of them passed, and the one that passed was the one that, um, required a public safety policies to be online, and that's the one that passed. And then I since kind of put a hold on them because I had other interests. But what, what, what'd you think of those bills when I put that package out there? It was about 5 bills.

Yeah, thank you for the question. And to be honest with you, I don't, you know, can't recall anything specific about those, you know, bills, you know, just standing here, you know, before you, I guess virtually, by the way. But the one that did pass that you speak to about, you know, the transparency and things being public. I can't remember how you framed it. It is certainly something I support.

I like openness. I like transparency. The more we have it, I feel like the better off we're going to be. So, yep, sorry I don't have any more kind of distinct memory of all those other things, but appreciate the question. Thank you.

Can I follow up, Mr. Chairman? Yes, follow up. No, I appreciate you telling me you don't remember because because I reached out, and that's okay, it really is, but I reached out to Police Standards Council and unions and everybody I could think of before I even introduced the bills to get feedback. And I am anticipating bringing one back next session dealing with de-escalation in some form. But anyway, you can look for that bill next year.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Um, Mr. Craig, I think something that's changed in the last decade since you've served on the Police Standards Council has been the use of body-worn cameras.

It's something that's pretty much ubiquitous nowadays. I'm just curious what your thoughts are on the use of police cameras or these body cameras, and then what should happen with the content of the body cameras after It is— I know there's a lot of folks who've asked for unredacted video. Uh, it does cost the agencies a lot to redact portions of the video before they show it to people. There's even some states that have allowed unredacted video to be shown to the family of a person who might be involved in a, in a particular case, uh, at the very beginning or very onset. Just curious what your thoughts are on that.

No, I appreciate that. You know, from the standpoint of the cameras availability, that sort of thing, I do support that. Again, it's openness, it's transparency. And then you start to get into all the nuance and layers of what does that mean, uh, you know, when they get turned on, when they're not, and what if they're not turned on, and all the stuff that that look— that looks like, particularly when you think about, you know, all the people— well, everybody really with phones, right? So there, in a, in a sense, there's cameras on everything or multiple cameras, and a lot of times when those come out, you get a snapshot, a snippet, a few seconds or a minute, and then the context doesn't necessarily get to be understood.

And the body camera does allow for context, certainly at least from that perspective. So as far as whether or not and when it can be released, that sort of thing, that's a pretty significant discussion to be had. I don't know that there's an open default answer, you know, to it. I think there's, you know, case by case in some ways where it would seem, you know, very worthwhile, exit circumstances, that sort of thing, and in some cases not based on the investigation process. And all that is frustrating, certainly, you know, to the public, but also meant to, you know, protect the, protect the public, protect the individuals involved, the privacy, that sort of thing.

So it isn't that easy of an answer, certainly not by default. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Craig. Are there further questions?

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, I will open up public testimony on Michael Craig. Public testimony is limited to 2 minutes. This is Michael Craig, once again, appointee for the Police Standards Council. Is there anybody online or in the room who would like to testify On Mr. Craig.

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will go ahead and close public testimony. Just wanted to once again thank you for your longstanding service. It really does help with people who have been around for a little bit, a little while, and that tenure certainly is helpful tenure. May I have a motion, Vice Chair Bjorkman?

Yes, sir, you may. Mr. Chairman, I move the appointment to the Police Standards Council of Michael Craig. I move it be forwarded to the joint session for consideration. This does not reflect the intent of any of the members of this committee to vote for or against the confirmation of this individual during any further session. Great.

Are there any objections? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, the following appointee is moved from joint to joint session for consideration. And if we will sign paperwork at the end after the meeting adjourns. Thank you again, Mr. Craig, and we'll sign off with you now.

Yeah, thank you very much. We'll take a brief at ease.

All right, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting back to order. We now have House Bill 25, Disposable Food Service, where it's sponsored by Representative Andy Josephson. Representative Josephson is in the room. I'd like to invite him forward if he has any questions before we allow for some public testimony today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Andy Josephson, House District 13, South Midtown Anchorage, a part of Senator Gray Jackson's greater district. I don't have any comments or questions. I appreciate your support of the bill. Thank you for being very brief.

Today. We do have some folks. We will— we will go ahead and open up public testimony. If we can try to limit public testimony to 2 minutes a person and allow for questions. We will move based on the time in which you joined this committee hearing.

The first person on the list is Ivy Britton. She's calling in to us from Sacramento, California. If you'd state your name and your affiliation for the record. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee.

I'm Ivy Britton, Western Region Director of State Government Affairs with the Plastics Industry Association, speaking today in respectful opposition to House Bill 25. The Plastics Industry Association supports the entire plastic supply chain, including material suppliers, equipment manufacturers, processors and recyclers. The U.S. plastics industry is a vital part of the nation's manufacturing base, producing essential materials and products used across nearly every sector of the economy, from healthcare and food systems to energy, transportation, and consumer goods. Our concerns with House Bill 25 center around the significant costs that a polystyrene ban could impose on Alaska's businesses, consumers, and taxpayers. Material bans eliminate a business's ability to determine the most effective food service packaging based on performance, cost, and environmental considerations.

Polystyrene food service containers are preferred by many businesses due to their durability, insulation properties, and affordability. Limiting the choice will impose unnecessary financial burdens on restaurants, particularly small and family-owned establishments, many of which operate on narrow profit margins. We've seen similar bans produce unintended consequences in other states. For example, in California, restrictions on polystyrene led to a surge in paper and molded fiber alternatives, which require more water and energy to produce. And New York City's ban resulted higher costs for businesses, with some small restaurants struggling to afford compliant packaging.

Lastly, we're also concerned that the fiscal note does not account for potential cost increases associated with shifting away from polystyrene food service containers to alternative materials. A material ban like House Bill 25 would likely amount to higher procurement costs for state agencies as they transition to more expensive alternatives. The Plastics Industry Association would instead encourage policies that improve recycling and waste management systems for all materials. Those investments in recycling infrastructure paired with data-driven policies such as a statewide needs assessment, we believe, would result in more substantial and long-term environmental benefits than banning a single material. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on House Bill 25.

Thank you for your time this afternoon. Great, thank you very much, Ms. Britton. And actually, I do have a question for you since you're in California and Styrofoam was banned there in 20— 25. It says also that there's an enforcement ban with a potential fine of up to $50,000 per day. I'm just curious how, um, what folks are using in California if they're not using polystyrene styrofoam.

Yeah, so, um, a surge in molded paper and fiber alternatives that we've seen, which does require more water and energy. And then another question, Miss Britton. What happens to this— since Styrofoam is not able to be used in the state of California, what happens to the Styrofoam? Do other states just have more of it now?

I'm not certain if more states are using more with not having polystyrene in California. I could certainly look into that and get back to you. Thank you very much, Miss Britton. Um, we will now move on to Deanie Chapman, the State Director of the Alaska something from Anchorage, Alaska. If you could state your name and your affiliation, welcome to the committee.

Yes, absolutely. Uh, good afternoon, Chair Kawasaki and Vice Chair Bjorkman. My name is Deanie Chapman and I'm the State Director of Alaska Environment. A statewide nonprofit organization that focuses on issues relating to clean air and water and open space, and we're in strong support of House Bill 25. Polystyrene is a plastic, and plastic pollution is a mounting problem.

If we continue in our current course of action, studies have predicted that there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish by 2050 by weight. And we have plastic pollution that's washing up on our shores around Alaska. We see it on our city streets, and when we look with the microscope, it's in our water as well. In the summer of 2023, our organization tested 39 water sources in south-central Alaska for microplastics and found them in 100% of the samples, including in Anchorage tap water. And similar studies have found similar results around the state.

This is bad for a host of reasons. First off, our wildlife often mistake small pieces of plastic for food. They can't always digest it, and if their belly is filled with plastic, it can lead to starvation. Studies have shown that salmon exposed to microplastics move more slowly and are less able to avoid predation. In humans and animals, exposures to microplastics have been linked to fertility problems, developmental issues, cancer, and most recently dementia and other neurological issues.

We need to take steps to tackle this problem, and the most important step is to turn off the tap. Polystyrene is one of the gnarliest of the plastics. It breaks down into small pieces that are incredibly hard to clean up. It floats and looks like food when it ends up in our waterways, and it's particularly toxic to humans and wildlife. It takes centuries to fully degrade.

A few different communities and many restaurants in Alaska have independently moved away from polystyrene, which indicates how possible it is, but it's definitely still common in the state. And we do have proof from other states and municipalities that when these bans pass, the litter decreases. Two trash collection machines in Baltimore's Inner Harbor were gathering almost 82% fewer foam containers one year after Maryland imposed a statewide ban on polystyrene foam food service products in October of 2020. Passing this bill will help get rid of some of the worst plastics and keep both people and our wildlife healthier. And bottom line, nothing that we use for just a couple minutes should pollute our environment for hundreds of years.

Great, thank you very much, Ms. Chapman. Are there any questions for Ms. Chapman today? I don't see any questions. Thank you very much for your, uh, call in today. I did want to recognize that Senator Wilkowski has joined us some time ago.

And then move on to the next speaker. We have Lindsay Stovall with the American Chemistry Council.

Good afternoon, Chair Kawasaki and members of the committee. My name is Lindsay Stovall and I am the Director of State and Regulatory Affairs with the American Chemistry Council, and I am here today in respectful opposition to HB 25. While we support efforts to reduce plastic waste, we believe this legislation would increase costs create implementation challenges, and not achieve its intended environmental objectives. HB 25 would impose significant economic impacts on businesses, consumers, and the state. Alternative food service materials are substantially more expensive than polystyrene, and these costs would likely be passed on to consumers.

Several state-level analyses illustrate the scale of these increases. For example, Pennsylvania's Independent Fiscal Office found alternatives cost between 100 and 193% more depending on the product, and Washington State's phone ban included a fiscal note that found trade costs would increase by 445%. To better understand Alaska's specific cost impacts, ACC commissioned an independent economic analysis in 2025 using GSA Advantage destination pricing, which found similar results. Even at the lowest available government prices, bio-preferred alternatives cost up to 313% more and paper alternatives cost up to 276% more than polystyrene. These higher costs translate into real impacts.

The study projected household spending on restaurant meals could increase by $5.9 to $11.4 million annually, while restaurants could lose $4.5 to $8.6 million in revenue due to reduced demand. State agencies could also incur higher costs. The Department of Corrections alone could face an additional $1.8 million to switch to paper clamshells or 2.6 million for biodegradable options, with similar impacts likely across other agencies. The fiscal note does not take into account these increases. The bill also raises operational concerns by limiting businesses' ability to choose packaging that best meets their performance needs, especially for temperature-sensitive items, and by including unclear exemption criteria that could lead to inconsistent application.

Lastly, the bill is unlikely to reduce overall waste, instead shifting from one material to another without addressing broader systemic challenges. A more effective approach would focus on improving recycling and waste management across all materials. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on HB 25. I thank you for this opportunity to testify today. Thank you very much, Ms. Stovall.

I think that you sent a letter in, or we have some document somewhere in our notes here. But thank you very much for your testimony today. We actually— let's see, we have 2 more people online. The first person is Brittany Robbins in Wrangell.

Can you guys all hear me? We sure can. Great. Um, for the record, my name is Brittany Robbins. I work in civic engagement, am a previous business owner of one of two grocery stores on Wrangle Island, a previous general manager and sous chef at the only bakery on Wrangle Island, previous executive director of the Wrangle Chamber of Commerce, previous vice president of Wrangle School Board, and previous borough assembly member.

Thank you, Chair Kawasaki and Vice Chair Bjorkman, for allowing for testimony today on House Bill 25 and Act relating to disposable food serviceware and containers provided by customers and providing for an effective date. Polystyrene, more commonly known as Styrofoam, is a highly toxic and volatile plastic that degrades into microplastics and nanoplastics contaminating Alaska's water and soil and are found in every species of fish in Alaska as well as seabirds and marine mammals. The litter mars the visual appeal of Alaska, including shorelines and hiking trails, floats in the water, adding to unappealing ocean debris. This plastic is not just unsightly but is a known carcinogen. At my family's business, we were able to be successful in a very small community of only 2,000 people while competing against a second grocery store that the community didn't need to sustain because we put our customers first.

The replacement of Styrofoam with more eco-friendly takeout ware has increased customer satisfaction and loyalty for many restaurants restaurants already and will continue to do so. As we as a society move toward a more sustainable way of life, the demand for eco-friendly products will rise, creating a new type of competitive business opportunity and decrease the price, uh, price point as the industry becomes more competitive. In the business of food, recalls happen constantly for health and safety. Is it convenient— is it inconvenient to pull an item off your shelves to be replaced with another? Absolutely.

But it is in the best interest of the consumer and the producer. Replacing banned stock with cleaner items is not a burden on the company or the industry. It is simply an inconvenience, one that should be happily taken on by the business because it helps protect their customers. In a quick cost comparison I did myself last March 2025, Webstaurant, a major supplier who sells all forms of takeout ware, I found the average difference in cost was approximately 3 cents per item. With the largest difference being the dinner-sized containers at 10 cents.

We've heard from the Alaska Chamber last session that even 10 cents an item could make or break a business. I would like to point out that 10,000 Styrofoam containers at 10 cents would equal $1,000, which should not have a major effect on your ability to continue business. Phasing out polystyrene food packaging in favor of safer alternatives makes sense from, from a business perspective as well as well as for health and our shared environment. Customers want to frequent businesses that care about them, not businesses that care about themselves. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss Robbins. Um, was Rangel one of the communities that did the styro— polystyrene ban on their own?

Was Rangel one of the communities? Yeah, there were a couple that had local bans. I wasn't sure. No. Okay.

No, but we actually only have one of our five restaurants that uses Styrofoam anymore. The rest have already switched over to eco-friendly packaging. Oh, well, I have a question that I'm kind of curious. What if there's only one, one business that uses Styrofoam? What's their reluctance to switch over if everybody else has?

I guess my idea is that if if Styrofoam were banned in Alaska, eventually they just wouldn't sell up here and then there would be no Styrofoam available.

Um, thank you for the question, Chair Kawasaki. To be transparent here, that person, um, I don't believe— it's not a restaurant. He, he sells some food out of a commercial kitchen sometimes. I think that it's more of that's what he can probably have shipped to Wrangle or get secondhand from somebody who, who phased it out of their restaurant. I guess what I'm trying to say without being negative is that it's not a true restaurant and he's kind of skirting some— he's working in the gray.

Thank you very much, Miss Robbins. Any other Questions? Okay, hearing and seeing none, we have one more person online. It's Heather Koponen from Fairbanks before we come to the room. Thank you, Chair Kawasaki.

Um, I'm a retired healthcare professional old enough that when I went to school, we did not have disposables. We, we brought our lunch in paper sacks or, or tins containers that are now antiques and sell for hundreds of dollars or something. I find the chemistry industry, plastics industry folks to not be worth considering having the best interest of the people of Alaska at heart. Their industry sponsors soiling our own nests. They claim that Styrofoam is durable.

It is not. And blaming personal— blaming personal recycling failures does not work. It has to be changed at the source. And pollution from our country pollutes the Arctic Ocean, the shorelines, and countries around the world. It's very awful when it burns, styrofoam is.

And then there's the considerable cost to municipality and village landfills, because styrofoam does not compact, and it stays in there, and then eventually leaches into the environment. And the costs are passed on to all of us of polluting, causing health effects including dementia. And in the village, I sent an email to all of you on this committee noting that there are other alternatives also, like going back to— we have the responsibility to bring a bag that we put our leftovers in, like our old lunch bags. And you'll see that in my email. Certainly the provision in this legislation to make sure that nobody claims that you can't use your own leftover containers, I appreciate that.

I haven't run into— I've only run into it a few times when they said I couldn't get my cup refilled and they had to give me a new cup. I thought that was so strange, so I'm glad that that provision is there. That's probably all. Thank you. Thank you very much, Heather.

I agree with you a lot on that. Let's see, in the room we have John Sonnen. If you would like to come forward, state your name and your affiliation for the record. And if you could limit your comments to 2 minutes, that would be great. That's usually kind of difficult for me.

Thanks, though.

I'm John Sonnen. I live over on Douglas, and I am an advocate and a lawyer, I guess, for eco-justice, for humanity, for our civilized order, and the consequences much to the adverse of what the first testimony stated, is excessive cost for all of us. Not only in our physical health and our mental health, because who knows what that means. In the ecosphere, we're impacted by everything in the ecology, in the environment. And breathing this in is what we're doing right now.

All these nanobeads are soaking our blood, and not only is it killing off the sustenance that we require to survive, but it's killing us off physically. And I think that there might be some impact neurologically from all that plastic that's running through our blood right now.

[Speaker:MR. KATZ] I think the cost, which was about the only aversion I heard from the industry, is being borne by us. And we must, to make capitalism work, have the manufacturers pay for their waste. And right now, I mean, fossil fuels, that's what's creating it. And the consequences of that is going to be a little time to rectify. But plastics we can stop making right from the source.

It's only— especially now that they're fracking, pumping— it might be toxic water full of Well, it's also got chemicals, but full of microplastics too, but to break up the bedrock to squeeze out more gas to make more oil. I mean, this is just insane. And I think the industry might want to consider the cost that we are bearing and stop producing it right from the start. I'm sorry. Thanks for letting me rant for no reason.

But I had a couple notes here too, actually. Oh, the recycling. It can't be recycled. The only recycling we'll have for this plastic distortion of our environment will be when we're all wiped out from a conflagration of some sort that destroys the planet, 'cause that's the only way that we're gonna end— we're gonna get rid of these synthetics. And the water use, ah, the water use from making fracking is exceptionally higher than the water used to make plastic containers, I think.

All right, sorry. Thanks. Thank you very much, Mr. Sonnen. Uh, is there anybody else you'd like to test? Yeah, no questions anymore.

Give you any evidence for a question? I guess we don't have any questions. Thanks. Thanks for listening. Are there—.

Is there anybody else in the room who'd like to testify on House Bill 25? We do also have, just for the record, the director of the Division of Environmental Health, @dec.online, but for questions only.

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will bring the bill back to committee. I'll just say that I personally like this bill. I thank the sponsor for bringing this bill forward. I think it's a long time in the making.

I also— I was glad to hear that in places like Wrangell that they can sort of almost do it on their own, and they, they seem to have done that. Um, you know, especially after cleanup day was just a couple days ago and we saw the snow melt and then all the garbage emerge that's been sitting there all winter long. It's, um, you know, it's just one of those things that is always bugged me. Are there any other comments on House Bill 25, or do you have a final statement, Representative Josephson?

I do, and, and because we've on day 106 or something, I will be very fast. I'm Andy Josephson, House District 13. Not surprisingly, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just offer some rebuttal to a couple testifiers Ivy Britton of the plastics industry talked about that the cost increases are not shown on the fiscal note. They talk about DOC's increases. Well, DOC didn't offer a fiscal note, and there are lots of grown-ups there who know how to do that.

One person on the floor noted something about there aren't a need— reluctant to say this, but there's not a need for a lot of takeout containers. In our state prisons. Um, and so I don't know what they're talking about, but, but they're quite alarmed about DOC in particular. Um, they, they want us to focus on recycling, but the fact is you cannot recycle polystyrene. It can't be done.

Um, and so they don't mention that. And then finally, as to Ms. Stovall, I mentioned her obliquely. She's with the American Chemistry Council. She actually made the bill better. I think I noted in the— in my opening statement last week or the previous week, she did that by helping us identify a sort of complicated feature of the bill which would have required all plastics to be biodegradable or compostable.

That's not a requirement of the bill. And in fact, the way it had been written inadvertently would have banned any alternative to polystyrene. That is no longer in the bill. So Ms. Stovall identified those things. We corrected those things.

Her opening statement, she said that she wanted to reduce plastic waste, that that was a goal of the American Chemistry Council. But I just don't see that. I don't— she doesn't describe how they intend to do that or what their efforts are in that respect. And she closed with again saying, "We should focus on recycling." Again, you can't recycle this material. And neither testifier from the plastics industry contends with the fact that it's, it's particularly toxic.

They don't discuss that. So, and, and finally, Ms. Stovall talked about how it's substantially more expensive, and I think we've supplied evidence that that's, that's inaccurate, we think. So thank you, Mr. Senator— Representative Josephson, are there any questions for the sponsor of the bill?

Okay, hearing and seeing none, we'll close public testimony if I hadn't done that already, and we'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that committee substitute for House Bill 2534, Larry Sugar 0256, /nickel.apple be reported from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Gray Jackson. Are there any objections? Hearing and seeing none, Senate Bill— sorry, House Bill 25, work draft 34LS0256/n.a is reported from committee with individual recommendations in the attached fiscal notes, and we'll take a brief at ease.

Well, next here, House Bill 278, Economic Development Alaska Ireland Trade Commission, where we have brought this Bill back before us. We have Representative Mia Costello, House District 15, to present the bill with her staff, Jack Thompson. We also have two people who are off-net potentially to speak: Senator Mark Daly, the Irish Senate President, and Hannah Laugher, the Director of the Division of Administrative Services within the Department of Commerce. Um, Representative Costello. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Mia Costello, representative from District 15, and I'm here with my aide, Jack Thompson. And we're really pleased to have this bill before the committee again. As we mentioned earlier, it's something that Senator Daley, the president of the Senate there in Ireland, has been working on in several states, and Alaska is a state that he's visited.

And we're hoping that we can get this trade commission off the ground this year. So thank you. Thank you, Representative Costello. Are there any questions for the sponsor of the bill?

I will see if Senator Mark Daly is online, if he'd like to make a comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing me back before your committee, and I'm just grateful for Mia and all of you for considering this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Senator Daley. I guess the question is, what time is it in Ireland right now?

Well, it's fine. It's 10 minutes past 1 in the morning. The regretful news about that is all the bars are shut, so, you know, I have to testify from home. I can't testify from a bar. It would not be appropriate, obviously.

Would not be appropriate. Thank you, Senator Daley. Yeah, I thought it was pretty early there. We appreciate you being online to see this bill move along. Let's take it back to the committee.

We'll go ahead and close public testimony. Ceremony. If there's any comments— we get— are there any last-minute comments you would like to make, Representative Costello? No, just thank the committee for your time on this. Thank you.

May I have a motion, Representative Smith? Senator Tilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move HB 27834-LS1299/w to be reported from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Are there objections?

Great. Hearing and seeing none, House Bill 27834-LS1299/w Item W is reported from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note, and we will take an end ease.

Yes.

Okay, I'd like to call the State Affairs Committee back to order. We have Senate Bill 169, the Welcoming Alaska Office, uh, under bills previously heard. We did have this up on Saturday. Thank you three for attending, not these two for not attending. But we do thank you for being there on a Saturday.

We have every day. Every day is a day. We do have a committee substitute for Senate Bill 169. Vice Chair Senator Bjorkman, may I have a motion? Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the committee substitute for CS for Senate Bill 169. Work Draft 34-LS0125/h, as in huslia, as our working document. Great. I will object for purposes of discussion and bring Joe Hayes, staff to the Senate State Affairs Committee, to explain the changes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee. My name is Joe Hayes, staff to State Affairs, and instead of going through the entire summary of changes, I'll just hit the highlights. Section 1, throughout AS2305.31, the phrase "new immigrants" is replaced with "immigrants." Page 1, lines 6 and 7, the location of the welcoming Alaska office is moved from within the Office of the Commissioner to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Version H has a new purpose statement emphasizing economic integration and workforce workforce security. On page 2, lines 3 and 4, it updates subsection 2 to establish the working— the Welcoming Alaska Office as the coordinating entity among stakeholders, including state agencies and local governments, to align strategies to reduce licensing and other barriers that hinder immigrants, refugees, and newcomers from gaining employment or starting businesses.

Page 3, lines 19 to 21, Version H adds to the duties of the Welcoming Alaska Office that it shall coordinate refugee programs, including education, training, employment, housing, and medical support and other services for refugees who no longer receive assistance. Page 3, line 26 requires the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development to appoint the Executive Director of the Welcoming Alaska Office. And it authorizes the governor to appoint the executive director. Page 4, line 15, changes the new AS2305.133, Welcoming Alaska Advisory Committee, to increase the, the size of the committee from 9 members to 13 members. On page 4, line 30 through page 5, line 5, it adds 4 additional members f, a representative of a refugee resettlement agency operating in the state; g, a representative of a refugee-led or immigrant service community-based organization; h, a representative for expertise and workforce development or labor market analysis; and then a representative from the healthcare delivery sector.

Section 2, page 8, line 29 through page 9, line 7, adds a new subsection requiring the welcoming Alaska office to serve as the state's Refugee Services Program under the Federal Refugee Act of 1980 and assumes responsibilities previously carried out by the state designee, including multiple things. And, uh, Section 3, Subsection F requires the Commissioner of the Department of Health to designate an employee to serve as the coordinator of refugee health services under the state's coordinated refugee health program consistent with guidance from the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, and some other things that are not as important. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you for the thorough sectional and summary of changes. Are there any questions for Mr. Hayes?

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, I will withdraw my objection to adopting the work draft version H. Are there any other objections? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we do have version H before us.

And before I go to invited and public testimony, I wanted to see if Mr. Mason, staff to Senator Lukey Gail Tobin, would like to offer any comments about either the version H or the bill itself. Well, as Mike Mason, staff to Senator Lucy Yeltobin, as Joe Hayes just mentioned, kind of the biggest change here is in Section 2, where it adds that new section requiring the Welcoming Alaska Office to now serve as the state's refugee services program under the Federal Refugee Act of 1980. That was previously done by Catholic Social Services. There's been direction from the federal government that that now needs to be brought into state government.

So that's kind of the big change. Just one other thing that I appreciate you all hearing the bill on Saturday. As Senator Tobin noted in her introductory remarks on Saturday, the proposed Welcoming Alaska Office is not entirely new. Rather, SB 169 replaces that underused Office of Citizenship Assistance, which was dormant for many years up until 2023. 3.

The main function of that Office of Citizenship Assistance is to provide employment information and also service referrals to— for legal aliens. That office can provide information on how to deal with job discrimination, unsafe working conditions, and other labor issues. I would note that legal alien means an individual who resides in Alaska but is not a citizen of the United States. That means that current Office of Citizenship Assistance cannot help U.S. citizens who move to the United— move to Alaska from other states, nor can it help with many of the other things that would make Alaska a more welcoming place to live, work, and play. And that is at the heart of Senate Bill 169.

Thank you. We do have some invited testifiers that can answer questions and provide some insight, including Mike Zimmer. He serves as the senior policy consultant for World Education Services He's been helping us for well over 2 years and has been a very invaluable resource in the development of Senate Bill 169 and also the House companion bill, which is House Bill 188. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mason.

Other questions? Senator Tilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Mason. I— you've already said this, but I just want to make sure that this is clarified for the record. I was having a conversation with another legislator and we just we had different ideas of what happens with the— I think what you said is that this would replace the Citizenship Assistance Office, so it would be replacing the office, not in addition to.

And, and that was a conversation I had with another legislator, and they were unclear on that. So I want to just be very clear for the record. So essentially, uh, Senate Bill 169 repeals that Office of Citizenship Assistance and replaces it with the Welcoming Alaska Office and its expanded duties. The new CS adds to those duties where it's— we are— the office would now be the coordinating entity for refugees in the state of Alaska, which was previously done by Catholic Social Services. And we have the current coordinator, or we have the current coordinator for Catholic Social Services is one of the invited testifiers and can ask, can answer questions.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Mason. Follow-up? Yes. Second question?

Senator Tilton. Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just—. There is an increase in the number of people that would be sitting on the commission or— is it a committee?

The advisory committee. The advisory committee, yes. And I just— the larger advisory committees get, the more kind of unattainable they become, and I am just wondering if that number of having 13 members seems like something that would be functioning well. So that was, once again, Mike Mason, staff to Senator Lukey Yeltobin, through the chair. That was a change that was made in the House, and that was done in cooperation with a lot of the stakeholders.

So when the bill was initially drafted, and Mike Zimmer can talk to this, we had to make some choices about, like, how big the committee was going to be. And at the time, we kind of thought that the smaller committee would be more workable. Through testimony, it's become clear that that committee would be more useful if there were more representatives on there. So, we believe that the larger advisory committee will be totally workable. Great.

Thank you. Thank you. Good question. Let's see, are there any other questions for Mr. Mason?

Hearing and seeing none, we will go back to public testimony. We do have— we never closed public or open testimony, so we do have a couple people who are online. We have first in the queue Jennifer Schmitz, the director of the Alaska Educator Retention and Recruitment Center based in Anchorage.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? We sure can. Excellent.

Thank you, Chair and members of committee. For the record, my name is Jennifer Schmitz. I'm the director of the Alaska Educator Retention and Recruitment Center, which is division of the Alaska Council of School Administrators, and I'm here today to support Senate Bill 169. This bill is about making Alaska a place where people can come, stay, and succeed. Right now that work is happening, but it's inconsistent across the state.

School districts School districts and organizations like ours are stepping in to support new-to-Alaska employees. This includes international educators. We help with everything from navigating visas to getting settled in with daily life. But that support varies widely depending on location and capacity, and the need is significant. Currently, 30 school districts in Alaska rely on international teachers to fill critical vacancies.

These educators are essential to keeping our classrooms open. At the same time, navigating immigration, employment, employment and basic services is complex for both employees and employers. Senate Bill 169 brings coordination to this work by establishing the Welcoming Alaska Office within the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The state can better align services, support employees and employers, and help new Alaskans transition successfully. This strengthens existing efforts and ensures more consistent support statewide.

At the end of the day, this bill supports people, and when we support them well, we strengthen Alaska's workforce, schools, and communities. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Schmitz. Are there any questions? Thank you for being able to testify on Senate Bill 169.

We will now move to Sarah Schinkfield, Alaska State Refugee Coordinator with Catholic Social Services.

Hi there, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes, we can. Great, um, thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify today on Senate Bill 169, uh, the Welcoming Alaska Bill. My name is Sarah Shingfield and I serve as Alaska's state refugee coordinator, and I'm testifying in support of Senate Bill 169 today, which would establish a permanent state office for coordinated refugee resettlement and create long-term stability for this work in Alaska.

For over 20 years, Alaska's federally funded refugee resettlement program has been administered through the Alaska Office for Refugees at Catholic Social Services, operating as a replacement designee under the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR. Under this model, ORR provides funding and sets program requirements while the Alaska Office Office for Refugees at Catholic Social Services has been responsible for administering the Refugee Support Services Program, which includes subgranting funds, coordinating statewide services, monitoring performance, providing technical assistance, and reporting. However, this structure is now required to change. In March 2025, ORR issued Policy Letter 2504 requiring that all states transition away from the replacement designee model to a state-administered, state-led resettlement system. This is a federal requirement.

And this transition includes several key components that I wanted to quickly outline. First, the administration of the Refugee Support Services Program, or RSS, must transfer to the state in federal fiscal year 2026. And this is underway as we continue to work with our colleagues at the Department of Labor and Workforce development. Second, the administration of the Cash and Medical Assistance Program, or CMA, which also provides funds for RSS program administration, must transfer to the state in federal fiscal year 2027. And this has been designed to transfer to the state only once the replacement designee, or Catholic Social Services, has finalized administering its remaining multi-year funding.

And this will be finalized by June 2027. And then third, full implementation of a state-led resettlement model is being required by the federal government by the beginning of federal fiscal year 2028. And so, these changes mean that Alaska needs to establish the infrastructure within state government to directly receive, manage, and oversee these federal funds and programs. Senate Bill 169 provides the structure necessary necessary to do exactly that. Critically, this bill would bring the State Refugee Coordinator into state government with a dedicated Welcoming Alaska Office, and this is essential to ensure clear accountability, federal compliance, and continuity of leadership during and after this transition, while at the same time strengthening statewide coordination and planning for refugee resettlement services.

Locating the State Refugee Coordinator role within state government The new agreement will improve coordination across agencies, helping to reduce duplication, better align services, and leverage braided funding to maximize impact for both newcomers and Alaska's broader systems. Since 2003, Alaska has welcomed just under 3,000 refugees from 54 countries. And currently, nearly 1,200 individuals are being served across the state. Of those, 65% are of working age, and 78% of that group is employed, representing more than 700 workers contributing over 40 different skill sets to Alaska's economy. These workers are helping address critical labor shortages in healthcare, construction, and food service.

A coordinated state-led system will allow Alaska to better align refugee services with workforce development, health systems, and education while maintaining strong partnerships with community-based providers. Senate Bill 169 ensures that Alaska can meet federal requirements. It can access critical funding streams like RSF and CNA and continue delivering effective coordinated services without interruption. I respectfully ask for your support of Senate Bill 169. It would be a practical response to federal changes that also strengthens Alaska's workforce and preserves continuity of services for New Alaskans.

Thank you. Great. Thank you very much, Ms. Shingfield. Are there any questions? I don't see any questions here.

Just wanted to thank you for your testimony and thank you for what you do at Catholic Social Services. We will now move on to Mike Zimmer. Uh, he is calling to us from East Lansing, Michigan. Welcome to the committee. Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Mike Zimmer with World Education Services. I'd initially thank you for allowing us the opportunity to testify on behalf of Senate Bill 169 and to thank its sponsor, Senator Tobin, for her leadership on this issue. By way of introduction, WES is a nonprofit social enterprise that for over 50 years has been dedicated to helping international students, immigrants, and refugees achieve their educational and career goals in the U.S. and Canada. In a more personal introduction, prior to coming to WES, I was honored to serve as the Cabinet Director for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder where I helped establish the Michigan ONA way back in 2014.

WASC and the American Immigration Council are proud to co-convine the ONA Network, which is an informal grouping of states that are half established or in the process of establishing ONAs. Office of New Americans have evolved since the first ones were created in the early 2000s in Maryland, California, and Massachusetts. While all play convener roles and all serve as points of contact and resources for the governor and legislature, programmatic emphasis has responded to the changing times. Indeed, the last 4 ONAs, like the proposal before you, have a specific and prioritized focus on immigration attraction added to the mix. Those states would be Maryland, I'm sorry, Maine, North Dakota, Delaware, and Utah.

At present, there are 23 states in the network from a broad geographical and political spectrum. With Senate Bill 169, Alaska would become the 24th. Senate Bill 169 pulls the best practices from all of these existing owners. The Welcoming Alaska's Office charged to focus on welcoming immigrants as well as well as some of its workforce emphasis mirrors the successful efforts of other more established ONAs. I'm also particularly impressed by the statutory liaison role dedicated for each department, making sure that meaningful coordinated responses and initiatives are created.

Again, thank you very much for allowing me and Wes to offer our strong support for this important bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer. Are there questions? Okay, I don't see any questions. Is there anybody else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 169, either in the room or online? Okay, hearing and seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee and see if Mr. Mason, staff to Senator Tobin, would like to make any final comments.

I will just— Mike Mason, staff to Senator Lukey Yltobin. I will just make one kind of observation. Uh, in Senator Tobin's sponsor statement, uh, she noted that Alaska is a vast state with ample room and economic opportunities for newcomers and new immigrants. Right now, our population density is 1.3 persons per square mile. The next lowest is Wyoming at 6.1 persons per square mile.

We have plenty of room, uh, for more people to come to Alaska to live, work, and start a new life. And then regarding economic opportunities, right now employers across the The state are gearing up for the summer to visit the summer tourist season and also the fishing season. There are job openings in every region of the state, especially for very skilled workers. So we need teachers, electricians, carpenters, nurses, and many more highly skilled workers to join the workforce. Alaska is the true land of opportunity, and Senate Bill 169 will help people seize on that opportunity.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Mr. Mason. Are there any questions for the sponsor? Or a senator's designee?

Great. Hearing and seeing none, may I have a motion? Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 169, 34-Larry Sugar 0125/H, as in Harry, to be reported from Committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other objections? Hearing and seeing none, Senate Bill 169, that is 34LS0125H, is reported from committee with individual recommendations in the attached fiscal note, and we will take a brief at ease.

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee back to order. We have before us House Bill 176. House Bill 176 was heard on Saturday, and we appreciated you being able to be there to testify. We have Griffin Sukau, Staff to Representative Ashley Carrick here to brief us on the bill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate State Affairs Committee.

For the record, Griffin Tsukeo, staff to Representative Carrick. Representative Carrick is currently chairing the House State Affairs Committee and is unfortunately unable to join us today, but we appreciate the committee's understanding and thank you for taking this bill up again. Briefly, House Bill 176 came from hearing from students and families about their concerns around what they're paying for when they're paying for tuition. House Bill 176 requires the University of Alaska Board of Regents to give students notice when new fees are implemented and/or raised within 30 days when practicable. Additionally, it requires the university to implement and maintain an itemized bill structure.

Our office worked with the university administration to come to the language enacted in this bill. Through working with the university, we feel that we have struck a balance to ensure that the intent of the bill is fulfilled while also ensuring that there isn't undue burden to— on the university administration. In closing, House Bill 176 ensures transparency for students and families paying for tuition across the University of Alaska system. Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you, Mr. Tsukeo. Are there any questions? We also do have Julie McQueen, Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, online for questions. We also have Katie McCall in the back of the room, Government Relations Manager, for questions about the university. Are there any questions for either of those two?

No questions. Okay. We also have Senator Rob Myers sitting in the gallery and Dawson Mann, staff to Representative— or Senator Rob Myers. I don't know if you'd like to testify on this bill. Ah, man.

Okay. I guess we— is there— are there any final comments or any closing remarks from members of the committee? Okay. Senator Bjorkman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move House Bill 176, version 34-LS0880, /g as in Galvin be reported out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Great. Are there questions— or, I'm sorry, are there objections? Hearing and seeing none, House Bill 176, version 34LS0880/g, is reported from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. We will take a brief recess.

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee back to order. We are moving very quickly, and we're pleased to have Representative Elise Galvin before us to present House Bill 214, Proof of Insurance. Her staff, Lacey Matula, is also here to give us an opening.

Thank you, Chair Kawasaki, and thank you to the State Affairs Committee for hearing this bill today. For the record, I am Elise Galvin, and I'm representing Spinard Rogers Park Midtown Anchorage District 14. Joining me here today, as you mentioned, is my staff member Lacey Matula. So House Bill 14 relates to proof of insurance form issued by insurance companies, commonly known SSR-22 certificate, which is required by the DMV after an unsatisfied judgment connected to a motor vehicle accident. Under current law, the way it sits now, if someone is found responsible for damages after a car accident and the claim is not resolved on time, and that's a civil judgment, then the this judgment may be issued against them.

If the judgment goes unsatisfied for over 30 days, it results in suspension of the per— person's, uh, driver's license. To reinstate the license, the individual must satisfy the judgment and provide proof of insurance, uh, through the SR-22 that I mentioned earlier. And that certificate is required, it— because it ensures accountability and it verifies the active coverage. The problem is that the current law in existence right now, it retains the SR-22 requirement for the remainder of the person's life. And every other state in the nation places a time limit on the SR-22 requirement for unsatisfied judgments.

So, to be clear, also the House Bill 214 only affects this part, the SR-22 requirements for unsatisfied civil judgments. It does not change requirements that may come from a DUI or any other penalty. Um, those consequences would still remain. So it— this is not related to criminal penalties whatsoever. So as we understand it, um, The SR-22 requirement can cost upwards of a couple of thousand dollars a year, and these funds go to an insurance company.

It is not a fee paid to the state. House Bill 214 sets up a graduated escalating penalty based on the number of times a person incurs an unsatisfied judgment. So after the First, the SR-22 requirement is in place for 1 year following that satisfy— following satisfaction of the judgment. For second, it is 3 years. A third causes a 10-year penalty, and the fourth results in a lifetime requirement.

This approach preserves accountability while providing a path forward once the individuals met their obligations and are demonstrating an understanding of the importance of maintaining insurance. We have heard from many Alaskans who rely on their driver's licenses to perform or to get to their work, and that it is in— this indefinite financial burden creates a real hardship and the needs— and really needs to be addressed. For those of you wondering how many Alaskans Currently, what we know from the DMV is there are over 3,500 Alaskans who are on an SR-22. Um, the House Bill 214 creates a fair balance, maintaining responsibility without imposing an indefinite requirement or lifetime requirement that can be overly punitive and harmful to individuals and the workforce that depends on reliable transp— transportation. So I thank you again for allowing me to present this.

And Lacey, if it is the will of the committee, she is here and happy to go over.

If you want a sectional, she's here. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Galvin. Yeah, we will go ahead and we'd love to hear from Lacey Matula if you would like to give us a sectional analysis on House Bill 214. For the record, my name is Lacey Matula, staff to Representative Elise Galvin.

Thank you for the opportunity to briefly walk through the committee substitute for House Bill 214 and the reason it has been brought forward. Section 1 amends Alaska statute by establishing a tiered time frame for maintaining proof of financial responsibility after a judgment has been satisfied or Under this version of the bill, the length of time a person must maintain proof depends on the number of prior suspensions: 1 year for the first suspension, 3 years for the second, 10 years for the third, and for a fourth suspension, the requirement remains in place for as long as the person holds a license. This approach provides a clear and predictable timeline in first-time offenders while maintaining a stronger requirement for repeat offenders. Repeat offenses. Sections 2 and 3 address implementations.

This bill applies to suspensions occurring before, on, or after the effective date and requires insurance companies to notify customers of these changes within 6 months. Thank you for hearing House Bill 214 today, and happy to answer any questions. Great, thank you. Are there any questions for Senator Gray Jackson? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Representative Galvin, for bringing this very important bill forward. But so is the fee in addition to the cost for insurance? Yes, it is. And like I say, it's too— roughly depends on the insurance company. There are different companies have different amounts to do this, but it is roughly $2,000 per year plus the cost for insurance, plus the cost of insurance.

And insurance likely would have gone up for this individual because they were in an accident. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gray Jackson. Are there any questions for sponsor of the legislation?

I'll just say thank you for bringing this forward. I know we've talked about it a couple times, and we have sort of just one or two people once in a while we hear about this, and it becomes a big issue because it's a huge costly burden for a person that may have made a mistake driving with are without insurance or underinsured, and then suddenly they have this huge— and they can't get out from under it. And it just seems like, uh, anyways, we, we do, um, I know there are some folks who wanted to testify on behalf of House Bill 214, uh, when we actually— we have one person online right now. We, um, are there any other questions? Uh, Senator Tilton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Representative Galvin for being here and bringing this bill forward. I have just a quick question just on your graduated years and what, what was the process behind what you thought about in those graduations? You went from 1, 3, 5, or 1, 3, 10, and then life. Can you share that with us? Yeah, sure.

Thank you for asking the question because originally I had put it at 1. And just let it go. But I will say that the State Affairs Committee in the House made it, I think, a better bill. We heard from the member from Sutton— I think it's Sutton— a new representative who is doing a fantastic job, and he felt that we needed to, for repeat offenders, have a longer period. And I agreed with him.

And looking at— and other— every state does it differently, so So it's hard to calibrate it, but this also does align somewhat with the DUI, which is a whole different section in statute. But we thought that that might make sense. So I worked together with the other representative to come up with this. Thank you. Thank you for the question.

Thank you, Representative Galvin, for bringing this forward. We're going to go ahead and open up invited and public testimony on House Bill 214. We have one— we just have one person online, Taffy Montalvo. If you would state your name and your affiliation for the record, and if you could try to limit your testimony to 2 minutes.

Okay, thank you. My name is Taffy Montalvo. I'm from Alaska. My family's My homestead is in Tokitna, and I now live in Illinois. I'm testifying in support of House Bill 214 that changes the lifetime requirement of SR-22 insurance for an unsettled judgment.

I have been paying the high cost of SR-22 insurance for 10 years now. I made mistakes in my past when I was young and irresponsible back in 2012 when I got into a wreck without insurance and received an unsatisfied judgment against me for not paying the debt in 30 days. However, over the past 12 years, I allowed God to transform my life for the better. In 2016, I entered into a payment arrangement for my judgment, acquired SR-22, and paid my DMV fines to get my license back. In 2022, I paid off my debt and satisfied the judgment, but when I called the DMV to ask them to remove the requirement.

That's when I found out Alaska state law requires one to pay SR-22 for the rest of their life, even if the judgment is satisfied. In 2023, I started emailing the legislation in regards to this law. The only other time SR-22 is required for life is if someone's had 4 DUI arrests. I find it hard to believe that one unsatisfied judgment of financial penalty carries the same great penalty as that. Another thought is, due to the high cost of SR-22 and lifetime requirements, there's a risk that people who can't afford it will drive without any insurance at all.

I believe the law was put in place around 1959 and is in need of a revision. This is a law with no second chances, and I believe people deserve that. Thank you so much for taking time to listen to this loss and me today. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Montalvo, for your testimony.

I think you're the— I've heard these stories over and over again, just like one here, one there, but this is definitely something that we can address hopefully this year. Are there any questions for this, um, for the testifier? I don't see any. And I— is there anybody else who'd like to like to testify on House Bill 214, either in the room or online?

Seeing none, we will go ahead and we will close public testimony, but it will remain— I'm sorry, we will keep public testimony open. If anybody would like to testify on House Bill 214, they can send it to [email protected]. That is Senate State Affairs. @Akleg.gov. And we will be hearing this bill on Thursday as well.

Do you have any final comments you'd like to make before we set House Bill 214 aside? Thank you, co-chair— or thank you, Chair Kawasaki. I just really want to accentuate that hearing the testimony, that is exactly why I put this forward. It's been put forward before before and it's passed both bodies at different times but not together because it's always been at the end of session like we are today. And so really rough to know that.

I think about the young person who's trying to get started, made a mistake, and has trouble digging themselves out. And this is certainly, I think, one of those places where we can make a difference together. So I urge you all to think about how I'm able to make it stronger. I'm happy to work with your offices if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Galvin. Uh, we will go ahead and set House Bill 214 aside, and we will be hearing this bill on Thursday. We do have 14 whole— 15 whole days— 14 now whole days left, so that's plenty of time to get this dispatched. We will not take a break, but we will go ahead and bring up Senate Bill 286. Senate Bill 286 is entitled Dalton Highway Tolls.

It is sponsored by myself, and I brought staff. Maddy Hall will come and present the legislation. I will speak from here instead of the dais. Senate Bill 286 was brought forward We've been looking at models for a number of years. Uh, we've had, of course, a lot of discussion this last year with the governor introducing a statewide sales tax, um, and other different ways to try and balance the budget.

We've heard a lot in Senate Resources about how much it's gonna cost for these big pipeline trucks to come up and down the Dalton Highway and how much that is going to damage the roads. We are, you know, we have got a— of course, we have got a budget that is going to come before the House— before the Senate tomorrow. And we are trying to find ways to balance this budget where the cost causers are the cost payers in that we looked at this highway toll. Not a lot of people use the Dalton Highway. I know I've— I think some people have driven it the whole way.

I think the only person might be the person who's sitting at the back of the room, Senator Myers, who frequently drives it, but on behalf of his— on behalf of the company that he works for.

Tolls are used across the country in various, various ways.

There are sometimes there are private tolls for private roads. Sometimes there are public tolls for public roads. This is just a model that we tried to come up with a couple years ago and just again introducing this because rather than going to sales taxes or cutting permanent fund dividends, to try to pay for maintenance of roads, especially the Dalton Highway, which is pretty much exclusively used by oil and gas companies. We wanted to try to find a different way to, again, offset that cost. So if, um, Matty Hall, you'd like to present the bill.

For the record, Matty Hall, staff to Senator Scott Kawasaki. Thank you so much for hearing SB 287. Act establishing a toll for use at the James Dalton Highway by certain vehicles. For decades, the Dalton Highway has been an essential corridor to Alaska's North Slope, acting as an over 400-mile route that supports our state's natural resource development. A toll on the Dalton Highway has been long considered, starting back all the way in 1988 by Governor Cooper along with other members of the Alaska Legislature, and they have considered how, how to best maintain this important artery.

Along this artery is some of the most treacherous weather conditions and heavy wear and tear from industrial traffic. The Dalton Highway is expensive to maintain, about $16 million annually. Right now Most of that cost is falling on working Alaskans. Senate Bill 286 aims to update how we pay for this highway by using a straightforward user-pay system. This bill would set up a toll near Deadhorse for vehicles carrying people or goods for oil and gas companies.

To be clear, this is not a tax on the public. 286 Clearly exempts locals tourists, and subsistence hunters, as well as the Alaska Pipeline Service Company vehicles. We want to ensure that everyone can access state lands without additional costs. The toll is set to reflect the real maintenance and repair costs for industrial use. This way, companies that benefit from the highway help pay to keep it in good shape.

Many small businesses do provide logistical services, so this bill has created a reimbursement system. If a small operator pays the toll while working for a major producer, that producer must pay them back within 30 days. An important note is that the toll money accounted for is, is accounted for separately and gives the legislature a clear way to put those funds back into the Dalton Highway for safety improvements and road repairs. Passing SB SB 286 would help keep our most important industrial road in good shape and ease the strain on the state budget. Let's ensure that the Dalton Highway remains safe and usable for years to come.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Are there any questions about— on Senate Bill 286 at this time? There's also a couple folks online for questions only, we do have Ian Walsh, legal counsel on behalf of Legislative Legal Services. We have Lauren Little, the acting director of the Northern Region DOT.

We also have Jason Saklaskas, the chief of maintenance and operations for the Northern Region from the Alaska DOT. Are there any questions for— Any of those folks? Senator Tilton. I'm just full of questions today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the sponsor statement, it says the legislation introduces a dedicated toll, but then down a few paragraphs down, it said revenue from these tolls may be allocated. I was just wondering about that. I can try and answer that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question, Senator Tilton.

Basically what we're trying to do is designate a toll, so it would be a designated toll. It wouldn't be a designated fund. The fund would go, of course, to the general fund that would be dispersed, you know, we would hope for, for the, for the northern region and specifically for the Dalton Highway.

—Because, I mean, we would—it's up to the legislature, of course, to make those appropriations annually.

Just thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. It just—the dedicated part had me just kind of wondering about that, and then with the May. So understandably that it's all subject to appropriation. Yes, that is our understanding is that we would create this James Dalton toll, but that the toll would be subject to appropriation annually. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further questions? Senator Bjorkman. Thank you very much, Chair Kawasaki. My question is for DOT folks.

I seem to recall that there is some federal implication or some federal requirement, permission, special dispensation from someone in order for the state to implement tolling on a highway. Have we received such dispensation from the powers that be at USDOT?

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER MILLER] This might be a question more for legal services. We do have Ian Walsh, legislative counsel for legislative legal, who did the drafting of the legislation. I do believe there was a memo that might not be part of this packet. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER HART] It looks like Special Assistant to the Commissioner, the illustrious Andy Mills, is also in the audience, eager to answer questions. All right.

Well, if he's that eager, we will bring forward Mr. Andy Mills, Legislative Liaison to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Welcome to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

For the record, my name is Andy Mills, Legislative Liaison and Special Assistant to the Commissioner at the Alaska Department of Transportation. Transportation and Public Facilities. And eager is not the characterization I would have. Available for your questions is certainly— but through the Chair to wherever the origination of the question was, I believe Senator Bjorkman or Tilton. At this time, the dispensation, I guess I would interpret that to mean we don't currently have authorization from our federal partners for implementation of a toll facility.

That would require a feasibility study typically on the corridor itself. And again, Acting Director Lauren Little probably is well positioned to assist in answering that. To establish a toll facility on a federal aid route or highway, meaning that we use federal dollars to make capital improvements on this corridor that there are requirements to make certain modifications before a toll facility can be established on that. Otherwise, federal funds are typically applied and then the requirement is that that's accessible to anyone without certain toll restrictions until such conditions are met. And those conditions we can go through at your leisure, but I'll leave it there for the Senator Bjorkman, questions for Mr.

Mills since he is sitting right there and eager or anxious? No? No takers. I don't see any questions. And I don't see any questions for Ms.

Little or Mr. Sakalaskis. We will have some follow-up conversations a little bit later. About the legal aspect about tolling at a potential future hearing. I did want to see if there's any last comments by Mr.

Hall.

Through the Chair to Matthew, uh, Matthew Hall, staff to Senator Scott Kawasaki. No, I thank you so much for hearing SB 286 and considering it. I know as we have escalating fuel prices that working-class Alaskans are feeling the pinch, so to speak. And so I'm very grateful to the committee for considering other revenue options. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let's see, are there any other— is there any other business to come before the committee? I will— I would like to set a— we'll set Senate Bill 286 aside for a future hearing. It's got a long way to go, but I wanted to make sure that folks knew that I was going to introduce it. And I had already talked to the truckers and the miners when they were up here 2 months ago that I was going to introduce it.

So no surprises, but I did want to bring this forward so that we could have the discussions. I did want to set an amendment deadline for House Bill 214. House Bill 214 was the one we just heard on SR-22 insurance. Set it for tomorrow at close of business if you do have any comments, questions, or thoughts on 214. And set an amendment deadline on Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 for the same time.

That's tomorrow, close of business. Senate Concurrent Resolution was on the State Seal Commission. So that concludes our meeting for today. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 7th, where we will have a second hearing on House Bill 214. We will also have a first hearing on House Bill 221, Arts and Culture Day.

We've heard the Senate companion twice already. I don't think there's any differences between the two, but if it— if there's a motion to move the bill at that first hearing, we will enter retain it. Otherwise, we'll keep it over for a second hearing. I don't know that we're going to hear anything else, but we'll just calendar that we will hear invited and public testimony on bills previously heard, and there's only a couple of them. I don't anticipate we're going to have a meeting the following week, but we will— who knows?

Who knows if we'll be here still a month from now. If there is nothing else before the Committee, appreciate the time, appreciate everybody for being here. This meeting is adjourned. Let the record reflect that it is 5:03 PM.