Senate Labor & Commerce, 5/11/26, 1:30PM

Good afternoon. I would like to call this meeting of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee to order. The time is 1:43 p.m. We are in Belt Room 105 of the Thomas Stewart Building. In the nation's most beautiful capital city of Juneau, Alaska. Today is Monday, May 11th.

Members present are Senator Gray Jackson, Senator Yunt, Senator Dunbar, and myself, Senator Bjorkman. Senator Merrick is in the Finance Committee. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. Welcome everyone to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please turn off or silence your cell phones.

I would like to recognize and welcome our recording secretary, Carrie Tupou, and our LEO moderator, Doug Bridges. Our agenda for today is House Bill 126, reinstatement of Native corporations, religious corporations. House Bill 25, disposal of food serviceware. House Bill 211, insurance prepaid legal plans. House Bill 244, CNA training.

And we'll round out with Senate Bill 207. First up is House Bill 126. This is the third hearing on the bill. During our previous hearings, we had a presentation of the bill and took invited testimony. During our last meeting, we considered a committee substitute which made some changes to the reporting requirements of some Native corporations.

That committee substitute was laid on the table and set aside prior to its adoption as a working document.

I would like to invite the bill sponsor, Honorable Representative Neil Foster— his staff is here in lieu of the bill sponsor, Mr. Paul LaBolle— to the table to provide a brief recap of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Bull, staff to Representative Foster. Apologies, he couldn't be there. He's in Finance Committee right now. House Bill 126 allows unintentionally dissolved Native corporations to be reinstated as the same legal entity, thereby retaining their ANCSA assets.

Very good. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor? Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Mr. LaBolle. So we didn't have a detailed discussion about the CS, the S version, I'm sorry, the CS here, and this additional provision that's been added that gets rid of the reporting requirements for most if not all village corporations.

And I guess I'd first like to hear your thoughts on that. And, you know, whether you feel this bill should go forward without it, I think, is sort of one of my questions. Is that additional provision at the heart of what you're trying to accomplish with this bill? Because it seems like a fairly significant change that is significantly different from the bill as it passed the other body.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We consider the chairman's language in the CS a friendly amendment. It's not core to what the bill itself does, but we are not opposed to it. Follow-up? Senator Dunbar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we received a rather lengthy, um, uh, sort of brief about an amendment that I offered, um, that would exempt most Alaska Native village corporations but perhaps not some others. Um, and, uh, I guess my question is, would you prefer, uh, that language to, um, to nothing is sort of my question. You know, we could either adopt the CS and I'm going to try to amend it, or we could not adopt the CS and go forward with the original bill.

Which of those two would you prefer? I think the sponsor would be happy either way. Okay.

Senator Young. Uh, thank you. Through the chair to the presenter, one, one more option.

Would you prefer no CS and no amendment and continue on as it was before?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I might have misunderstood Senator Dunbar's question because I thought that was the question he asked me. That was the question I asked. Yeah.

Anything further?

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much, Mr. LaBolle. We appreciate your brief recap and being available for questions. Online, also available for questions, we have Director Sylvan Robb from the Division of Corporations, Businesses, and Professional Licensing. And also, Ms. Ann Sivilich, Chief of ANCSA and Securities with the Division of Banking and Securities.

And also, Chris Slote. He is a lawyer with the Alaska Native Village Corporation Association. Do any folks have questions for either of those three folks?

I have a question for Ms. Sivilich. Ms. Sivilich, could you— as we're under discussion now of whether we're going to adopt CS for House Bill 26, version T— could you just recap for the committee If we adopt the change that removes kind of that asset threshold and recalibrates the shareholder member threshold to 500 original members, could you just review for the committee and the public how that change would affect your work and what you do? How would it change the process of reporting, and how would that change the way the public has access to information? [Speaker:ANN SIBELICH] Currently, good afternoon. Through the Chair, for the record, my name is Ann Sibelich, and I am the Chief of Anxieties and Securities with the Division of Banking and Securities.

So, currently, as our statute currently stands, any— any corporation that has 500 or more shareholders and over $1 million in assets must file their annual meeting materials with us. So proxy solicitation materials, annual report, and proxy statements. If the language is changed, then fewer corporations would be required to file those materials. With the Division. And what the Division does is that we house those as public documents.

We put those on a portal for the public to also see, but we also assist shareholders if they have concerns with any of the materials that have been provided to them, like if they find them misleading or false or have questions regarding them. We can do investigations into them and look into those. Issues. If so, under the proposed committee substitute, fewer corporations would be filing with our office. Therefore, we would be able to assist fewer number of corporations— fewer shareholders because less corporations will be filing with us.

Okay, Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I remember from our previous discussion, Ms. Sibulich, that I think it's 59 corporations currently file, and then you'd said with the CS, it would be 22 would file, or was it— or it would be 22 that wouldn't file anymore? Can you remind me?

Ms. Sivilich, if you're there. Through the chair, um, sorry, through the chair, um, yes, so 59 currently are required to file with us, and through our research, um, 22 would still be required to file with us under the proposed language. So follow, Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar.

So under the CS 37 would then be exempt. Um, and, uh, I think it's been expressed to us that none of the 12, 12 or 13 regional corporations would be exempt. So we're talking about about a dozen village corporations. Um, have you, Ms. Civilec, have you had a chance to look at my proposed amendment?

We just saw that this morning. And I don't suppose— fault, Mr. Chair. Yes. I don't suppose you've been able to sort of determine in that quick time how many corporations would still have to file under that standard?

Through the chair, yes. So, yes. So unfortunately, we would not know that information. We see that you had on here has an annual gross revenue of less than $100 million. That's not something we track, so we would have to go look and see how that standard would impact how many would have to file with us.

Follow-up, Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar. Thank you, but you do track their assets, correct? Because you must apply that $1 million threshold that exists in the law currently.

Through the chair, that is correct. Okay. Um, I, I would sort of submit that revenue is easier to track than assets, um, and hopefully this will be easier to administer going forward. Um, we know that there are lists of, of, uh, uh, the largest companies in Alaska and sort of where they fall in terms of gross revenue. Um, and this places, uh You know, the— this would be a smaller list than the 49 largest companies in Alaska.

Um, but, uh, let's see here. Um, that, that, that's all I had, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Dunbar.

Ms. Sivilich, I'm wondering, does this proposed change— does this change access to information that shareholders have in their own corporation? So are they required under current law for, for the corporation to, to give the same information to all their shareholders?

Through the chair, so what information shareholders have access to falls mostly underneath the Corporations Code. Which is overseen by the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. And what the Division of Banking and Securities jurisdiction is limited to are the annual meeting materials. And some of the specific things that are required under our regulations are what is to be disclosed within the proxy statement. And so if a corporation doesn't fall within our jurisdiction, they don't have to disclose certain items within that proxy statement for the annual meeting, and that would be left up to the corporation.

So I'm not sure which corporations would require which information within that proxy statement to be provided to their shareholders if it was not required specifically under our jurisdiction.

Okay. Ms. Sivilich, what I heard you say is that currently folks would have to submit proxy statements to the Division of Banking and Securities, and they would not have— they would not have to necessarily submit those same proxy statements to their members?

Through the chair, what the information that is provided within those proxy statements, we specifically lay out certain items that must be disclosed to shareholders, and I am not sure if under the Corporations Code there's a similar requirement. For that.

Understood. Chris Slade is also online. Maybe, Mr. Slade, could you help us out with that question?

Yes, through the Chair, thank you very much. This is Christopher Slade. I'm a lawyer with the law firm of Schwab, Williamson Wyatt, appearing today on behalf of the Alaska Native Village Corporation Association. And just to clarify on this issue, Under— so under the Corporations Code, there are certain— an annual report that needs to be provided to the shareholders. And shareholders also have the right to inspect the books and records and receive financial statements.

Of the corporation. But that is not the only disclosure requirement. Under ANCSA, specifically 43 USC 1625(c), it states that a Native corporation that but for this section would be subject to the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 shall annually prepare and transmit to its shareholders a report that contains substantially all of the information required to be included in an annual report to shareholders by a corporation subject to that act. And so that language in ANCSA states that for Alaska Native corporations that have a shareholder base that would otherwise have subjected them to the SEC Act but are exempted because of ANCSA still have to provide the same annual report to the shareholders that publicly filed— publicly traded companies would. And so that includes substantially the most of the information that is required by the Division of Banking and Security.

Because the Division of Banking and Securities regulations track the SEC disclosure requirements. That is interesting.

Senator Dunbar, did you have a question? Yeah. I have a question for Ms. Sivilich, if I could.

Ms. Sivilich, so this might be— I hope you are able to answer this question, but Mr. Slotty just brought up the SEC, and it occurs to me that this reporting requirement was created because the Alaska Native corporations, I think correctly, are exempt from the SEC requirements. Now, in this legal memo that was provided to us, there's a line here, it says a privately held Alaska C corporation, and I guess I, I didn't— my understanding was that privately held corporations were S corporations or LLCs. Can you describe to me what is a privately C-corporation?

Through the Chair, I believe that would probably be a question better answered by the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. Do we have someone, Mr. Chair?

Oh, very good.

Who is it? Ms. Glenn-Saviors is online. Ms. Saviors, my question is, can you describe to me what is a privately held Alaska C corporation?

Uh, through the chair, Senator Dunbar, for the record, this is Glenn-Saviors, Deputy Director of the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. Um, Senator Dunbar, our office does not collect, uh, structures down to that little C corp and S corp. That is not something we have information on. That's at the federal level, but our registration doesn't include that. Follow-up, Mr. Chair?

Yeah, I— this legal memo that was crafted to oppose my amendment, it seems to be conflating a couple of things. So you have privately held corporations like S corporations, and it's true that under the current law or my amendment as proposed, that Alaska Native corporations would be treated differently than other S corporations or other privately held corporations. But I think the issue is that Alaska Native corporations in general are not structured like privately held corporations. They have large numbers of shareholders, so they are more like C corporations, and C corporations are generally not privately held. In fact, I think they are just not privately held.

I wish we had someone with that kind of specific corporate law knowledge at the administration to talk about that, but I think that is the issue here, is that there's a special system carved out because they are exempt from the SEC. And so I guess my question to anyone online that's able to answer this is, how many shareholders do you need in order to be subjected to SEC regulations, SEC reporting? At what number of shareholders does SEC reporting kick in for a non-Alaska Native corporation? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Through the Chair to Senator Dunbar, this is Glenn Saviors again. For the record, I apologize, sir, that is just not information I have.

If anyone else on the call does, I would absolutely defer to them. We can see if we can find anything to help you there, but because that's done at the federal level and not by our office or under our statutes, um, a little bit of a loss on that one. Mr. Chair, Senator Dunbar, can I ask Mr. Slotty if he'd be willing to answer? One, what is a privately held Alaska C corporation?

And then two, um, at what number of shareholders do C corporations have to start doing SEC reporting?

Mr.— through the chair to Senator Dunbar, in regards to the distinction between a C corp and an S corp, those are— the designation of a C corp versus an S corp, it's purely a federal tax designation. So an S corp is a corporation that has chosen to be taxed like a partnership. Essentially, you avoid double taxation and it's limited to— you only have a certain number of shareholders to be taxed as an S corp. Versus a C corp is their traditional corporation, which means that it's subject to double taxation, i.e., the corporation pays taxes and then its shareholders pay taxes when they receive dividends. But you could have any number of shareholders in a C corporation.

In terms of— you can have— privately held C corporations. You typically don't because of the tax advantages of being an S corp, but that's really the only distinction between a privately held corporation, S corp versus C corp, is one is taxed as a partnership, the other is not. In regards to the privately held corporations, when they become subject to SEC regulation, a corporation is subject to SEC regulation if it has 500 or more persons who are not accredited investors. And that is why we see in the divisions in the statute in that it exempted— it was really trying to mirror those SEC regulations. And that is why it had that initial 500 shareholder level, because under SEC rules, once you got to more than 500 shareholders, you had to be registered with the SEC.

Now I would note that in the context of, you know, SEC registration, it's important to recognize that the fundamental purpose of SEC regulation is publicly filed documents with the SEC that are publicly available is because those corporations that are registered with the SEC, their shares are typically are tradable, right? People are buying and selling their shares and having that information public, the quarterly earnings statements, the publicly filed financial statements, et cetera. Is important to have the market be fully informed so you can have, you know, avoid fraud and have a, you know, a functioning market for the sale of the shares. And of course, with Alaska Native corporations, that consideration is not present because Alaska Native corporations are not sold. They cannot be sold.

There is no market for ANC shares. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dunbar. Thank you.

That's interesting discussion. Thank you. Mr. Chair. And I actually— again, this is a question I don't actually know the answer to.

Are— for Mr. Slotty— are Alaska Native individuals, or whomever, that receive dividends from Alaska Native corporations, are they taxed on those dividends? Yes. It kind of depends on the individual tax— individual persons, because some people don't earn enough to have fall in the tax bracket where you pay taxes on dividends, but generally dividends from Alaska Native corporations are taxable income to the shareholders who receive them. Yeah, so I guess I'll just note, Mr. Chair, then, so this is, this is why, this is why this unique legal structure, uh, is set up, because these are corporations that are 500 or more folks where the dividends are taxable.

In that way, they look a lot more like C corporations than a privately held company. On On the other hand, as Mr. Slade rightly notes, these shares cannot be traded in the traditional sense. They can't be— they're not supposed to be able to be sold or obviously publicly traded, and they have to be inherited and the rest of it. So there is a unique legal structure that we are talking about here, but I could speak more to that if we get to my amendment. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Dunbar. Is there anything further?

Hearing and seeing nothing further, we're at a stage gate here in our meeting on this bill. Um, we've discussed in the CS that's been laid on the table. Is there further objection to the adoption of the CS? I object, Mr. Chair.

Further objection is noted. Would you like to speak to your objection, Senator Dunbar? Sure, and I, I will remove my objection, but I want to have a discussion first. I guess I'd like to hear folks' thoughts on the amendment. The amendment is very much in line with this proposal, Section 2.

It's just.

Quite as broad.

This proposal—. One second, Senator Dommare. Before we talk about the amendment, can we just talk about adopting the CS? They are one and the same, Mr. Chair, because there are 4 people here, not 5.

And so—. Oh, okay, gotcha. Yeah, so I just want to feel people out and think about what we're going to do here, because if I maintain my objection and 2 of us oppose, then we just go forward with a clean version of the bill and member from the other body gets to pass a clean version of his bill. If I remove it, I'm hoping that folks support the amendment because it will go a long way to achieving what this— what this section is seeking out to do. It will exempt a large number of village corporations that I think are unduly burdened by these reporting requirements.

Requirements, and it also has a provision that says if they ever are subject to the SEC rules that require reporting, then these rules go away, so they're not more burdensome. But, you know, I— so I think they're very much in line with what Section 2 is seeking to do, but I am concerned that Section 2 as it's written, because it takes away both the, the number of shareholders but also the asset, uh, it is, it is sort of totally open-ended and it leaves, um, both the public and in some cases, according, you know, following Ms. Sivilich's testimony, some shareholders as well with potentially less recourse. And so, um, I guess I want to hear folks' thoughts as to why we should adopt the CS.

Senator Yunt. Brief it is. Brief it is.

We're back on the record continuing under discussion of the draft proposed committee substitute version T. We had a discussion from Senator Dunbar about some some questions and a potential forthcoming amendment. Um, and so I think at this time, um, do you maintain your objection? No, I'll remove my objection. Okay, the objection is removed. Hearing no further objection, Committee Substitute for House Bill 126, version 34-LS0099, \T as in Tanana is before us as the working document.

Public testimony is still open for House Bill 126. We've had some significant discussion. Is there anyone in the room or online wishing to testify to House Bill 126?

Seeing and hearing none, public testimony is closed.

Mr. Chair, members have in their packets a proposed amendment.

Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment H.3. Object for purposes of discussion.

So just to explain it, so this accomplishes much the same as the, as the Section 2 with a, with sort of one exception. So, like Section 2 that was inserted, it removes the asset requirement. It also says a corporation is exempt if they have 500 or fewer persons. It makes them exempt if they are ever subject to the SEC reporting requirements, and I think that speaks to a lot of the concerns addressed in this legal memo, which is these— this seems discriminatory unless you take into account the exemption from the SEC requirements. And then it places an exemption for any company making less than $100 million a year in gross revenue.

And that would, based on the research that my office have done, exempt— these three things together would exempt the vast majority of Alaska Native corporations from reporting. And so, it goes a long way to achieving the same thing as Section 2. But for some of the very largest corporations, they would still— the ones that sort of for which this reporting isn't really a burden or isn't as much of a burden, they would still have to do the reporting. And again, were they not exempt from— in the federal law, they would likely have to do it under the SEC and make this information public. I think it's a good compromise that achieves much the same goal as Section 2.

Just a small number of very large companies would still be asked to do the reporting. That's the amendment, Mr. Chair. Very good. Thank you.

Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to my colleague for offering this amendment, but I'd like to hear what the sponsor's thoughts are. On this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Bull, staff to Representative Foster. I've discussed it with the sponsor, and the sponsor prefers the chairman's language. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

[Speaker:MR. BRYANT] I have a couple of comments. I found this exploration of this concept very interesting.

My concern and interest in being interested, if that makes any sense at all, in this conversation about what Native corporations are required to do rests in whether or not members will have equal access to information whether we adopt the CS and move a bill— well, we have adopted the CS, but whether we pass the bill as is or have, have the same information. We've received some answers that say that they will have access to some of the same information, but I'm not sure that is 100% of the information. However, I can tell you for a fact that we have colleagues who are much more well-versed in this topic than I am to have the conversation further. And so I guess my feeling at this time is we continue in the process to talk about the language that is incorporated into the new committee substitute, and then if we need to amend that to create additional clarity later in the process as we talk about it on the floor, I think that's entirely appropriate. I don't, I don't believe that the, the change that we're making here is necessarily a small one.

I think members of the media might be interested in information herein, but at the end of the day, I also don't know that that information is their business because it happens within the confines of Native Corporation. So my main concern is that shareholders will have access to the information as they need it and as is warranted. Reading between the words I heard from Ms. Sivilich, it sounds like Banking and Securities has an interest in being able to represent people who come to them and ask for help. But this is a conversation that I want to continue to have as a full body and discuss the implications of this change.

Decisions that we make. So at this time I'll oppose the amendment, but I want to consider further conversations and think about the issue further for sure. Are there any other comments?

Hearing and seeing none, Senator Dunbar. Yeah, I guess I would urge folks to support the amendment. It achieves what the stated— you know, the folks that brought the language state they want to relieve this burden from small village corporations. I totally agree. The amendment does exactly that.

And I don't fully understand— the legal memo doesn't really make sense because it doesn't take into account the SEC exemption.

And it, and like, as you said, this sort of limits the ability of Bankings and Security to protect, to conduct investigations and protect certain shareholders. And so I'm sort of puzzled by this discussion. It's like there's a goal that's being pursued that doesn't seem to match what the stated goals of the amendment are. And so I would urge I urge folks to vote for the amendment and we can achieve these goals. And if there's some other goal that isn't served by the amendment, I'd like folks to come forward and say what those goals are.

The amendment achieves what the folks who inserted this language claim they want to achieve.

And so I am puzzled by the opposition to it. And I've tried to get straight answers as to what what exactly it is that drives the opposition to the amendment. It doesn't make sense, nor does this memo. It talks about things that are already existing. This idea that the $100 million is a new requirement.

Well, right now in the law, it's $1 million. So, what you're doing is increasing from $1 million to $100 million. So, why is that so— Why is that leading to such opposition? I just find it puzzling. So I would urge folks to vote for the amendment, and I would ask for a roll call vote.

Any further discussion?

The amendment is before us. The clerk will call the roll.

Senator Yunt? No. Senator Dunbar? Yes. Senator Gray Jackson?

No.

Senator Bjorkman? No.

3 Nays, 1 yay.

By a vote of 1 yay and 3 nays, the amendment is not adopted. That brings the underlying bill back before the committee. Is there any further committee discussion on House Bill 126? Yes, Mr. Chair.

Senator Dunbar. Yeah, I think, um, you urged us to have further discussion on the floor. I, I think that is going to be a very fraught discussion, and I am curious to see what that amendment would look like. And I guess I would urge the folks that put this into this bill to sort of more clearly articulate to the public why this was necessary, given that my amendment achieved what they said they wanted to achieve. So something is happening with this bill, and I don't fully understand it.

And I find it frustrating because there's folks that I, I, you know, I, I used to work at Alaska Native Corporation. I really want Alaska Native corporations to be able to function well and, and to not be discriminated against. I totally agree with that. And I'm just sort of baffled by what is happening to an otherwise pretty straightforward bill. And so I don't know if you intend to move this today, Mr.

Chair, but I do not think we want to have a really detailed discussion about corporate law on the floor. I think that would be a mistake. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Dunbar.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing and hearing no further discussion, what are the wishes of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move to report committee substitute for House Bill 126, version 34, Larry Sugar, 0099/TOM, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any objection?

Hearing and seeing no objection, committee substitute for House Bill 126, version 34-LS0099/T, as in Tanana, is reported from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. We'll take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for the next bill.

We're back on the record. Next up is House Bill 25, sponsored by the Honorable Representative Andy Josephson. This is our first hearing on the bill. To present the bill, we have the bill sponsor, the Honorable Representative Andy Josephson, and his staff, Ken Elper. Please place yourselves on the record and begin your presentation of the bill.

Thank you, Chairman Bjorkman and Senate Labor and Commerce Committee I'm Andy Josephson. I represent District 13 in South Midtown Anchorage. With me is my trusted aide, Ken Alper, who handles much of my legislation. This is a— I told your colleagues in the Senate State Affairs Committee, a potentially historic bill. This bill would ban the use of polystyrene principally in two ways and not in other ways.

That's important. One is in food service ware and the other is in state procurement relating to effectively state restaurants, if you will. So think of the state ferries, for example.

The reason for this bill, or the, the origin of this bill, is as follows. The first thing is I attend meetings of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. And it is remarkable, Mr. Chairman, how much effort other states all across the country are putting into trying to curb the proliferation of plastic in our environment. I know it's something the chair is aware of as well.

This bill focuses on polystyrene for two principal reasons. And, and not other types of plastic. The first is that polystyrene is a toxin and a known carcinogen. The second is that it is not recyclable, contrary to a recent letter posted the last, I think, 24 or 48 hours. There was one place in 2004 where you could try to recycle polystyrene or Styrofoam.

That has since closed. And when I say one, I mean one in the United States. Polystyrene leaches because it's not chemically bound. It, it can actually get into food itself, particularly when the container is matched with a hot or warm food or milk product. Polystyrene has been linked to leukemia and lymphoma, increase in white blood cells or lymphocytes.

It can disrupt the endocrine function, trigger inflammation and cellular toxicity, and even impact reproductive health. Finally, it's, it's a cancer that has been associated with increased risk of pancreatic and esophageal cancer. It's ubiquitous, so I could give you all sorts of numbers on this, but just two I'll give you. 80% Of American consumers reported receiving plastic food foamware in their takeout containers, and 22% of all U.S. takeout and food delivery orders include include plastic foam. Now, having said that, if we think we've got something over 300 million Americans, um, something over 100 million of them live in the states where polystyrene has been banned.

That's about 11 or 12 states, 250 local governments, including some local governments in Alaska. And I have that list here, but it includes, I think, Bethel, Seward, Cordova, a couple others.

The one thing that the opponents of the bill don't, I think, fully contend with is that— is these two factors: that it's not recyclable and that it is not— and that it is a carcinogen. The U.S. Plastics Pact, which includes voluntary industry-driven initiatives, placed.

Polystyrene on its problematic and unnecessary materials list. And, and one of the factors, along with the two I've just given you, is that the material fragments, it's friable, it breaks down and is not collectible. It's often found on beaches. It's the 7th most found item during cleanup efforts around the country. And we know that, that banning its use, or limiting its use, I should say limiting its use, has been successful in places like Charleston, South Carolina, Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay, along the Anacostia River, and in parts of California.

The bans have been proven to be successful just by seeing those reductions. The bill has, I think, fairly broad bipartisan support, including one of my colleagues sitting behind me. The Matsu Valley in particular has— I don't have a poll of the Mat-Su Valley. That would be hard to, to procure. But the Mid-Valley Recycling Group, the Big Lake Recycling Center has written letters of support.

Valley Community for Recycling Solutions and the Mat-Su Zero Waste Coalition all have supported this. And we understand, you know, critics again will say, well, this is, this is a big elephant. You're not solving the size of it. And of course, the answer is you eat an elephant one bite at a time. And that's what this bill tries to do.

Um, there was much said on the floor about enforcement. The enforcement of the bill would occur through DEC in the same way that it enforces food inspection. So typically, if you're not a first-class municipality or you haven't taken on health powers, the state would make whatever visits it makes. They may be annual, they may be less often than that. And they would put, using regulations we could provide the committee, they would start with a warning.

They would increase to a $200 fine. They would increase to $400 for a second fine. It's very gradual. There was some rhetoric on the House floor about how this sounded sort of heavy-handed and, you know, that there would be these tough guys visiting food establishments. They would visit in the normal course of business, just like they would check for any spoilage in food, right, to make sure that we're not suffering from food poisoning, for example.

So that's what the bill does. We think it's an important first step. We, we think it's historic. It would send a strong message that Alaska, with its massive coastlines greater than the rest of the country, intends to clean up. And I would note that one member of the House minority made, I thought, a wonderful speech and removed an exemption for Styrofoam coolers.

And in her eloquent address, she noted that as someone who frequently is hunting and fishing and rafting, that she tired of seeing foam coolers by the side of the, the trail or stream. And of course, she joined in on the bill. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Representative Josephson.

I think we— I understand what's happening here. I want to just reiterate just for folks watching and in the room. So Essentially what we would be doing with this legislation is we would ban the use and sale of Styrofoam for food service and by businesses and the state. Is that correct? That is absolutely correct.

And one thing I neglected to mention is— and we have this data if you need it— But there are no fewer than 6 or 7 alternatives. So the bill was not written correctly in January of 2025 when this term began and inadvertently said all food serviceware for takeout items— I mean, that's what we're talking about, takeout items principally— would be banned unless it was biodegradable or compostable. We didn't intend that. That got stricken. And all other— one could say this isn't ambitious enough, but other forms of plastic would be available.

It's simple. Yes. Okay. Understood. Yes.

So the bill does not ban the sale of Styrofoam cups or Styrofoam plates at the store for people to use in their homes. Is that correct? That is correct, Mr. Chairman. And that issue came up I am trying to remember how to wrestle with that, if you are. Um, you know, one, one way is that, that there may be some self-correction at places like Costco because they're not going to be able to distribute these items to restaurants.

But, um, we, we didn't want to contend with that sort of interstate commerce in that way. And so it was a policy call. Understood. Thank you for that. Um, what I'm— my— I'm not really trying to wrestle with anything other than understanding.

Sure. Making sense of what I'm reading here. So with the, the banning of the styrofoam coolers, from my listening of the floor comments, that Styrofoam coolers would be outright banned from stores, but not Styrofoam plates and cups? To the Chair, that is correct. But, but the focus— it's in subsection E, page 2— the restriction on use of polystyrene foam disposable food serviceware does not apply to— and so the focus was on food serviceware, and there had been a list of 3 items, and including Styrofoam coolers.

That got removed. Now, if you own a Styrofoam cooler now, uh, that's absolutely fine. Um, and in fact, the bill, uh, allows— we postponed the effective date to January 1st, and you could purchase as much quantity of anything you wanted up to December 31st of this year. Uh, and if you didn't work through those items in your restaurant, for example, until whenever you could still use those items. But the stem of the bill talks about a restaurant may not provide.

And this is really about restaurants, not Costco's. I'm wondering if Mr. Alper has anything. I'll try. Mr. Chairman, for the record, Ken Alper, staff to Representative Josephson. You raise an interesting question about how the cooler component might be enforced because it really wasn't part of the bill originally as intended.

And in that exception section that Representative Josephson mentioned, it was listed as one of the things that the bill doesn't apply to. The amendment from Representative Schwanke on the House floor last month removed that section. So I don't know— therefore foam coolers are banned, but I don't know how one would go about that because really the intent of this bill is on the restaurant regulation side of the house that DEC engages with. I don't know if anyone's going to actually try to prevent anyone from selling these in the store. That's exactly what I'm driving at.

That's how I see the bill too. Okay, very good. All right, so my interest here is, as a young child, I used to enjoy throwing Styrofoam cups into the campfire, and I like, like to watch them shrivel up until I got really small and then burst into flames. And I'm glad to know that that is is protected. Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you for the presentation. Sure. If you want to give it, you can, but you don't need to give it for me. Okay. We have— I should soon get back to House Finance.

It may be that it's mostly redundant If the committee wants Mr. Alpert to flip through the slides for 90 seconds or something, that may have some value. I'm getting no on that. Mr. Alpert is used to this because I tend to speak a lot. We love a good PowerPoint.

I do think you have Ms. Miller on the line. Yes. And I, if I might say about her, she is a world-renowned expert in this subject, right, who travels all over our 6 or 7 continents, however there many are, to international treaty efforts where countries, over 100 of them, are working to combat this plastics problem we have. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

We have for invited testimony Ms. Pamela Miller, Executive Director and Senior Scientist for the Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Ms. Miller, thank you very much for being available today. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your presentation.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chair Goldman, Vice Chair Merrick, and members of the committee for holding this timely hearing today on HB 25. My name is Pamela Miller, and I serve as executive director and senior scientist with Alaska Community.

On Toxics, and we're a public interest nonprofit science-based environmental health research and advocacy organization. I'll begin with the business case in support of phasing out polystyrene food packaging. The title of an opinion editorial published in the Anchorage Daily News on Saturday, May 9th, is "How Still 25 Leaves Plastic Foam Products in the Past Where They Belong." The authors are two local small food service business owners here in Alaska, noting the benefits of replacing polystyrene with safer, more sustainable alternatives. Businesses are recognizing the economic benefits of transitioning away from polystyrene. Food establishments have been substituting polystyrene for decades now.

McDonald's, as an example, stopped using polystyrene packaging in 1990. More businesses have made and are making the transition to alternative materials in response to their customers who are concerned about the negative health and environmental consequences of polystyrene. Perhaps the best evidence to demonstrate that alternatives are affordable is the fact that 12 states and 250 municipalities referenced mentioned earlier by Rep. Josephson, that serve over 30% of all Americans, have passed similar laws. And here in Alaska, that does include Bethel, Cordova, and Seward. Businesses are afforded a competitive advantage to make the change because it enhances revenues that come from a growing customer base of people who want safe alternatives.

Consumers are increasing— increasingly demanding biodegradable safe serviceware. Some businesses in Alaska are seeing up to a 15% increase in repeat customers after making the transition, reporting higher customer satisfaction and loyalty. Safer alternatives are widely available. Degradable plant-based fiber food and beverage containers are widely available and affordable. Including those made from wood, paper, bamboo, cardboard, bagasse, and other plant-based materials.

Green Alaska Solutions, an Alaska-based business that supplies these food and beverage containers to many restaurants and food service providers throughout Alaska, and indicates that these establishments have made the switch to such packaging for business reasons. They believe in the benefits the products provide and their customers appreciate and in some cases demand them. This again reflects consumer demand for safe products and demonstrates the economic viability of these options. HB 25 has received broad statewide support from businesses, organizations, communities, and individuals throughout Alaska, as evidenced by the letters of support documented on the legislative website. The American Sustainable Business Network, representing over 200,000 businesses around the country, including Alaska, sent a letter of support noting the health, environmental, and business reasons why this bill is important and should be passed.

Only the chemical and plastics industry interests have testified against this bill. The American Chemistry Council represents some of the largest manufacturers of plastics in the world, so thus have a vested interest in trying to defeat it. Polystyrene is a hazardous material. It should not be used in food and beverage containers because exposures are linked with numerous adverse health effects in both humans and animals. It's a plastic polymer made up of the chemical monomer styrene, which is classified as a human carcinogen.

And exposure does increase the risk for several types of cancers, including leukemia and lymphoma, lymphoma, as well as genetic damage to the white blood cells or lymphocytes. Styrene and other harmful chemicals leach out of food and beverage containers into the food or liquids, and especially when the food or liquids are hot, acidic, or high in fat. Manufacturing of polystyrene also poses a serious health hazard to workers.

Plastics such as polystyrene are highly persistent and do not degrade. Polystyrene is harmful as an environmental pollutant, and once in the environment, it breaks into small particles known as micro and nanoplastics. It's very lightweight, which makes it susceptible to be transported long distances and into our streams, rivers, and oceans. In freshwater and marine environments, polystyrene microparticles are ingested by marine fish and wildlife because they mistake it for food. These animals can also absorb toxic chemicals from microplastics and may suffer harmful health effects.

Fragmented polystyrene cannot be recovered from the environment and will persist for some centuries. As noted earlier, it cannot be recycled. It's a is a polymer comprised of styrene and many other chemical additives that make it undesirable as a recycled material. We thank Representative Josephson for his leadership in sponsoring HB 25, all of the co-sponsors, and the House for its passage. We strongly support HB 25 because it is an effective measure to protect public health and reduce plastic pollution of our lands and waters.

We urge your support and passage of HB 25 because it is an important step toward addressing the plastics crisis that threatens our oceans, waterways, food sources, and health. Please pass this bill out of committee and ensure its passage during the session by the full Senate. And thank you for your consideration today. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Miller. Are there any questions from committee members?

Hearing and seeing none.

Do you have any closing comments on the bill, Mr. Alper?

Again, for the record, Ken Alper, staff to Representative Josephson. Thank you for hearing the bill. Thank you, Senator. We really appreciate it. One small feature that he did not mention within the bill is the opportunity for DEC Environmental Conservation to have regulations to allow people to bring their own clean containers with them into restaurants, sort of eliminate all the disposable packaging material outright.

I think that will make a nice addition to the system outside the primary scope of the bill. But again, thank you for your consideration. We'll come back whenever you want us. [Speaker:CHAIR] Thank you very much, Mr. Alper. Yes, I do recall seeing that in the bill and hearing discussions of that.

I think having DEC available to talk about that very specific provision would be helpful.

I know there are significant interests out there. And discussing that and seeing how people kind of store some of their reusable grocery bags or not. It's an interesting provision. It is, Senator. And the other thing I'd say, DEC gave us a zero fiscal note.

This bill doesn't have a finance referral. They're already inspecting restaurants. They come in making sure your soup's at the right temperature and all that sort of stuff. Checking whether someone's got any illicit Styrofoam would just be one more thing they did on their visitations.

Very good. All right, thank you very much. At this time, we will set House Bill 25 aside for further consideration at a future meeting. We'll take a brief at ease while we set up for our next bill.

We're back on the record. It's 2:46 now here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Next up, we'll take up House Bill 211, sponsored by the Honorable Representative Nellie Jimmy. This is our first hearing on the bill. To present the bill, we have staff to Rep Jimmy, Keenan Miller.

Welcome, Mr. Miller. We are so glad you're here. Please place yourself on the record and begin your presentation. Hello and kweyana chochnik to the members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. I apologize for Representative Jimmy's absence.

She sends her regrets. She's in House Finance right now. Um, today I am presenting on her behalf House Bill 211, which is an act relating to prepaid legal plans. I'm gonna.

Talk about what the bill does mechanically, and then the intent of the bill and the problem that we're hoping to help solve in kind of a long-term way, and hopefully keep it brief for you guys. Um, so the bill does two things mechanically. Section 1 exempts this type of prepaid legal plan from insurance regulation, um, moving the purview of this type of business from the Division of Insurance to the Consumer Protection Unit. Um, the other thing that the bill does is adds a number of consumer protection provisions ranging from guarantees that you can cancel the service after the month in which you're in, to ensuring that up front you know who your attorney would be if you subscribe to this type of plan. This plan, a prepaid legal plan, is an alternative to kind of the traditional retainer model of having a lawyer or the wonderful services that we have here in Alaska for free or low bono legal aid through the Alaska Legal Services Corporation.

You may or may not know that that corporation turns away over half of the people who come to it looking for help. They tend to focus on the most severe and the most, you know, the most severe cases that they can with their limited resources. That means that there's this gap in legal coverage in the state where there are people who, you know, might not qualify for that aid. But might be able to afford a monthly subscription to a service like a prepaid legal plan for a lot of preventative or kind of routine lawyer needs. Maybe you're in a landlord-tenant dispute and you need someone in your corner to write a letter or two.

Maybe your parents are updating their will and you need someone to help you out with that. It can be a cheaper alternative to the traditional way of having a lawyer in your corner. And that is why we took on the bill.

I am available for any questions that the committee might have about what the bill does, why it does it, as well as Julia Jensen with Legal Shield on the line, and then Heather Carpenter is here with the Division of Insurance if there are questions for her. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. Are there any questions for Mr. Miller or Ms. Carpenter?

Okay.

Mr. Miller, we've had other bills before the committee in this legislature and others that seek to be not insurance that sound a lot like insurance. So I'm interested to learn more. We'll go to invited testimony. Miss Julia Jensen. Miss Jensen, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Julia Jensen. Miss Jensen, Miss Jensen, I'm so sorry to interrupt you, ma'am, but you're coming in very garbled. If you could possibly pick up a handset and not be on a speakerphone. Any kind of hardwired phone like you would use to get in and out of the matrix, that would be great.

Okay, hopefully this is better. That sounds better.

Wonderful, thank you. Um, my name is Julia Jensen. I'm the Chief Legal and Administrative Officer of LegalShield, and I appear in strong support of HB 211. Um, I want to start where I believe we all agree Every Alaskan deserves access to sound legal advice. Legal aid services serves those who are in the greatest need, but there is a vast middle—Alaskans who earn too much to qualify for aid and yet cannot afford an attorney at $350 an hour for everyday legal matters.

That gap has persisted for decades and it still continues today. LegalShield was founded more than 50 years ago specifically to address that gap. We operate in the for-profit marketplace. No apologies for that, but we do it in a way that gives real people real access to licensed attorneys for a small fixed monthly fee. That's the mission, and that's why we still matter.

So how legal plans work. Members, and these are almost always individuals, regular family, they pay a modest monthly amount and gain access to a provider law firm with attorneys who are licensed in the State of Alaska. Those attorneys advise them, review contracts, handle traffic matters, draft wills, whatever the specific plan covers. And the firm receives a fixed fee per member, a per capita payment. There aren't any claims processes.

We don't assume any risk. We do not pay an indemnity, and LegalShield has no role in the representation. Our members have the same attorney-client relationship with their provider attorney as any other client. And this is not insurance. Insurance pays claims and transfers risk.

A prepaid legal plan does neither. It's a service contract, a membership that delivers access to attorneys in exchange for a monthly fee. Regulating it as insurance imposes burdens designed for a fundamentally different product, and those costs ultimately fall on the consumers this committee is trying to help. HB 211 fixes that. It exempts non-indemnity prepaid legal plans from insurance regulation while leaving traditional insurance entirely untouched.

Alaska would join 45 other states that already recognize this distinction and do not treat prepaid legal plans as insurance. This is the national consensus and is consistent with Alaska's own access to justice goals.

The problem that LegalShield was founded to solve has not gone away. HB 211 removes the regulatory misclassification that adds cost and friction to a solution that is working for Alaskans today. I respectfully urge the committee's favorable consideration and welcome any questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Jensen. Are there any questions from committee members?

Thank you very much. Ms. Carpenter, would you like to join us, please?

Thank you for joining us, Ms. Carpenter. My question is, do you believe that this type of prepaid legal plan should be exempted from oversight under the Division of Insurance. For the record, Heather Carpenter, Director of the Division of Insurance. Chair Bjorkman, the division is neutral on the legislation. We do believe if these plans do not want to be regulated by the division, we need legislation, and that is based on longstanding guidance by our legal attorneys at the Department of Law, but we are neutral on the legislation.

Very good.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Any further remarks from the bill sponsor staff? I have a really quick question.

Yeah. Because I'm curious. Yep. Senator Greyjack. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. And it's to the woman who just testified. I'm sorry, I don't remember her name. Ms. Jensen, thank you. Ms.

Jensen, thank you for your testimony, but, um, what's the cost of a monthly subscription for, um, a prepaid legal plan? I'm just curious. Yeah, so there are different, uh, levels of plans. So they start, uh, at $30 a month, and, um, you can imagine that somebody gets a will, it's going to be many times more expensive. And so this is just a different way for folks to get access affordably to legal assistance.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Any closing remarks, Mr. Miller? No, thank you. Thank you. All right, this time we will set aside House Bill 211 for further consideration at a future meeting. Take a brief at ease while we set up for the next bill.

Brief at ease.

We're back on the record. It's 2:58 here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Next up is House Bill 244, sponsored by Representative Jubilee Underwood, who has been here the entire time. Thank you for joining us. Please join us at the table, Ms. Underwood.

Her staff, Buddy Witt, is on Teams. Could you please place yourself on the record and begin your presentation of the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the record, I am Representative Jubilee Underwood representing District 27 and the sponsor of House Bill 244. I know that you're seeing a lot of bills today, so this one will be nice and short, hopefully.

What if I told you that the members of the 34th Alaska Legislature can improve the lives of thousands of Alaskans and it won't cost a dime? House Bill 244 is an effort to do just that. House Bill 244 is focused bill to strengthen Alaska certified nursing aides, or CNAs, training standards by ensuring that essential caregiving competencies are clearly defined in statute. CNAs are frontline caregivers who work directly with seniors and individuals with complex medical and cognitive needs. While Alaska already requires CNA training and certification, current law does not specify the full range of skills that must be included in regulation.

House Bill 244 addresses that gap by requiring that CNA training programs include core competencies such as effective communication, recognizing and responding to behavioral and mental health needs, and supporting patient dignity and independence, also providing appropriate care for individuals with Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and other cognitive impairments. This bill does not create new licensing requirements or expand regulatory authority. It simply just ensures that training standards consistently reflect the real-world demands placed on CNAs across Alaska. Ultimately, HB 244 is about improving the quality and consistency of care by making sure caregivers are fully prepared to serve some of our most vulnerable residents. And we have requested a few subject matter, matter experts assist in answering any questions.

Also, my staff buddy Whit is prepared to take you through a section of the bill if you would like that. Thank you very much, Representative Underwood. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor or her staff?

We'll go now to invited testimony. First up, we have Ms. Lisa Sauter, Executive Director of the Alzheimer's Resource Association of Alaska. Ms. Sauter, thank you very much for being here. Could you please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please? Certainly.

Lisa Sauter. I'm the CEO for Alzheimer's Resource Alaska. Excellent, please continue. Thank you. Uh, again, appreciate the opportunity to, uh, discuss this bill.

It is very important, um, as we have one of the fastest aging populations in the entire United States. Um, as of 2024, we had over 160,000 Alaskans who are over age 60, and that number continues to grow every year. We also know that there were over 1,700 nursing assistants employed in Alaska in 2023. So when you look at the people that are doing that work and the type of clients they're primarily working with, they're many times working in home health care, skilled nursing, assisted living, all those different types of places where they're more likely to encounter people with cognitive impairment. In fact, it's estimated about 55% of people in these settings do have cognitive impairment, but yet our current training doesn't really adequately prepare a CNA or other frontline worker for the realities of dealing with someone with dementia.

And we are really thrilled that we've been able to put together, in conjunction with the University of Alaska Anchorage Center for Human Development, a no-cost statewide training clearinghouse and learning management system. So it's really designed that people can do it on their phone in even as short as 15-minute increments. The core curriculum was developed in conjunction with many experts around the state. We've been working closely with the Dementia Action Collaborative and others to ensure that it's in alignment with what we need culturally and what the reality of training looks like. So we have been test piloting it right now, and it will be set to go live to the general public and to caregivers on July 1st.

Thank you very much, Ms. Sautter. Any questions from committee members?

Next up for invited testimony, we have Michelle Geralt Giroux, probably. Sorry about that. Michelle Giroux, Executive Director with Hope Community Resources. Welcome to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please.

Thank you very much. My name is Michelle Giroux. I am the Executive Director of Hope Community Resources and also a member of the Alaska Dimension Action Collaborative that's been working on workforce development. And I'm here for a variety of reasons. I've worked in the disability space for 42 years in Alaska.

Of people with cognitive deficits, and we regularly train our staff to give them the tools that they need to learn how to teach and support people with disabilities. And individuals with dementia have similar needs. I have a very personal story that I thought of when we were talking about testimony. As a young direct worker in an institution, I was told to go bathe a woman with dementia with no training. And it was terrifying as a young person.

And I had been given the training to know how to position myself, to know how to work with her. I would not have left those moments of trying to bathe her with scratches. She would become very antagonistic and very violent. And I think no staff should ever face that moment of terror when they're working to support somebody to bathe or to brush their teeth or to get into bed. And individuals with dementia need some extra support.

So I fully support this bill coming from this— the lens of a trained workforce is a workforce that is able to support people well. My mother-in-law also had dementia, and we had very well-trained caregivers that knew exactly how to work alongside her. So I've seen it work well, have experienced it not so well as an individual, and fully support this bill to allow our workforce to have the training that they need to support Alaskans' wealth. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Ms. Giroux.

Are there any questions from committee members?

Hearing and seeing none, I think, I think the bill is pretty clear. And, uh, Mr. Witt, we probably don't need to go through sectional, but thank you for being available. We appreciate you.

If there's nothing further on the bill, Representative Underwood, do you have any closing comments? Yes, thank you for hearing this today. I did want to give a quick shout out to Senator Gray Jackson. We talked over the interim about this. She had brought this up originally, and I do have a family close story relating to this, which is why it was near and dear to my heart that I was able to carry it.

And she has allowed me to champion it. So I just want to shout out and thank her for the work that she originally did on this and the bipartisan work. It's good for Alaskans. Very good. Thank you very much.

Rep Underwood. At this time, we will set Senate Bill 2— I'm sorry, House Bill 244 aside for further consideration at a future meeting. We'll take a brief at ease while we set up for our next item. Brief at ease.

Record. It's 3:08 here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Our last item today is Senate Bill 207. This is our 4th hearing on the bill. During previous hearings, we had presentation of the bill, took invited testimony, and considered committee substitutes and amendments, and had lots of really good committee discussion.

Today members have a draft proposed committee substitute in their packet which brings the bill essentially back to the bill that came before the committee from judiciary with one change to incorporate a concept brought forward by Senator Dunbar about law enforcement officers providing notice to occupants about additional places to stay. I suppose I could have said all of that after we take a motion, but I will later. May I have a motion, please? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move Committee substitute for Senate Bill 207, version 34, Larry Sugar 1266/willy as a working document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Object for purposes of explanation. My staff, Mr. Matt Churchill, Esquire, will now join us at the table to talk about the changes proposed in the committee substitute.

Thank you, Chair Bjorkman. For the record, Matt Churchill, staff to Senator Bjorkman. As the chair just noted, what this bill has done after our discussions and several amendments and CSs here in Labor and Commerce has gone back to the version that first came to Labor and Commerce from Senate Judiciary with one notable change. What actually only one change, and that would be Senator Bjorkman mentioned— Chair Bjorkman, in Section 1, going from version H, the Senate Judiciary version, on page 4, line 9, with following sections renumbered and lettered accordingly, it would insert subsection G: A peace officer shall attempt to assist an occupant in finding another place to stay or provide information to the occupant on available shelters. And that would be the only change from version H to the current version W before the committee.

Very good.

Is there any discussion about the proposed committee substitute?

Chair Bergman, I apologize. The notable thing about H that the other CSs and amendments that we had looked at in Labor and Commerce is H and W would have the 48-hour notice. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Yep. Thank you very much, Mr. Churchill.

Yes, that's correct. We put in place— we reinstalled the 48-hour notice requirements that we had removed after talking with other legislators and stakeholders and their understanding of this item from their law background as well. So I think having that notice in the bill is okay at this time and certainly can undergo some additional conversations if warranted. I think as we think about the problem that the legislation is trying to solve is indeed, as we have discussed previously, a narrow— a narrow gap in the law where people can come return to their property or see on cameras, um, that someone else is in their property, and then when contacted by law enforcement, they make a claim that they have permission to be there, or somehow they have had permission to be there. But under the law currently, even if they are unable to provide proof that they had permission.

They still then are protected under the law by the landlord-tenant laws. And it can take some time for the process through the courts to work out— weeks, sometimes even months. And so this provides for an additional process and time to help resolve that situation. So the, the This committee substitute version W maintains the waiting period essentially that the bill had as it left judiciary and also provides for additional notice to be given for resources available to folks if they are removed as an occupant. Senator Gray Jackson.

[Speaker:GRAY JACKSON] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this new committee substitute takes in consideration— I think there were 4 amendments offered by Senator Dunbar that were approved in this one sentence on page 4, line 9— takes in consideration all of those amendments that we approved? Because the words were "shall attempt," but it was in several different areas.

Yes, thank you for the question, Senator Gray Jackson. Yes, so essentially what those 2 lines do is they make sure that the police officer shall attempt to assist an occupant, any occupant, in finding another place to stay or provide information to the occupant on available shelters. So instead of— we talked about dealing with people with kids, pregnant people, other folks— instead of making all of those exceptions, we just say that that will apply to everyone. That's correct, yes. Okay.

And if I could follow up, and the 48-hour period is— I think you just said that that is in this document, because we had a lot of discussion on that. Yes. So I'm just—. Yes. No, it is.

Okay. Thank you. Yes, it is. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes. Very good.

Is there any further objection or questions about the committee substitute? Briefings. Briefings.

We're back on the record. It's 3:15 p.m. here in Senate Labor and Commerce.

Senator Yunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got a couple of questions just in regards to the fiscal note. I was wondering if Mr. Bartlett was on and if so, if I could ask him a couple of questions.

Indeed.

Mr. Bartlett, Senator Yount there. Can you hear me, sir?

I can. Awesome. Thank you. So just a couple of questions. So if this, if this legislation were to become law, could you please let us know what do you think the big difference would be for you guys if one of your troopers is going to a call like this Are there different questions that you would have to ask now that you wouldn't have had to ask?

Or would there be different questions you'd have to ask if this passed and you would have to now? Do you think that these calls would take more time?

Those sort of things.

Through the chair, this is Captain Bartlett. Thank you for the question. As far as what this bill would change, I would have to look back and refresh my mind on what H looked like. Um, uh, I think going back to the 48 hours, that will definitely cut back some of the time for us, especially the immediacy. And now we're able to like plan ahead, um, and not have an immediate response.

But as far as the questioning, we would— we're gonna do, um, we're gonna ask similar type questions. We would just have to basically train our folks to know a lot more about landlord-tenant, uh, specific to the process outlined in whatever the final version of SB 207 is gonna look like, um, to ensure that we do a very good job vetting, uh, ownership, uh, whether that's through deeds or Metroboro Property Assessment website or however we determine that to be. Um, we just need to ensure that the training is aligned and our guys know what they need to do, um, the questions they need to ask,.

And the same thing for verifying tenancy rights. That's not a thing that we train very heavily right now. They get a little block of it down at the academy, but essentially, you know, when you're down at the academy, you're getting a bunch of information. You're basically getting fed through a fire hose. And you don't, what I recall from taking away from the academy as far as landlord-tenant goes is I was handed a landlord-tenant book.

And every time I had that issue come up, I just referred to that booklet and just had to refamiliarize myself. I think this process is going to be completely, it's going to be a huge departure from the process that we have right now. Right now the courts, you know, they have hearings, the judges spend up to 3 hours according to the court website on these determinations of tenancy. So, you know, I think we just need to do a better job. We're going to definitely need to put on some extra training on this specific topic.

And the time that we spend on scene is gonna definitely increase, 'cause currently right now, you know, the court gives us an order, we go and effect that eviction. And what that looks like is, you know, we verify information, we go out to the scene, and on scene we're probably there an hour to an hour and a half, which is my understanding from talking to the folks in the Judicial Services Bureau. And that really, is us making contact with occupants, uh, having them removed, and then staying long enough for them to take their essential belongings and long enough for locks to be changed. Um, this bill, um, basically said that we need to be there while the owner or agent removes the personal property. It doesn't say essential personal property.

It says personal property, and I read that to say all of it. And if you have a squatter that has family members and there's 4 or 5 people in this residence or dwelling, that could be a substantial amount of time. So I do think we're going to have instances where we're on scene for a protracted period of time. Follow-up. Senator Young.

Okay, I'm, I want to clarify some things then, sir. So if right now If there's an eviction awarded by the courts, that's not necessarily what we're talking about here. We're talking about long before that, when you guys are called in regards to a squatter who's entered a home without permission, you know, for whatever reason, the homeowner's on vacation or maybe they're out of state and they're trying to sell their house. It doesn't matter. But I don't, I don't think we should be talking about after the eviction's already awarded because nothing's going to change after that.

From what I can tell. But, um, moving on from that, approximately how many of these calls per year do the troopers take on, do you think? And, and what I mean, how many of these— I don't mean after the courts have awarded an eviction, I mean before that. How many, how many times per year do you think that somebody calls in and says, I have somebody staying in my home illegally, I just got home from vacation or from fishing season or hunting season And here they are.

Through the chair, Captain Bartlett again. Um, I— that's— we don't have a quick and easy way to pull that data. I tried to look at our trespass and our eviction data. Um, I would literally have to do a deep dive into each case and read each synopsis to see how many of those trespasses included dwellings versus just on the property or in an outbuilding, which just You know, this bill wouldn't address like an outbuilding, like a shed or a barn or anything like that. Um, so it's, it's really hard for me to say without having to deep dive into this.

It's, um, for your— that specific scenario, a clear squatter in a residence where they have no, uh, no, uh, legal reason to be there or a right to be there, I, I don't see that as being, uh fairly substantial, but I don't know. Um, I honestly just can't give you a good answer right now, and it would take some significant time reading reports to give you a good number. Follow-up, Senator Yunt. Um, through the chair to the sponsor, which is the chair of this committee, Senator Bjorkman, I just want to make sure I'm not confused. This legislation is not pertaining to after evictions.

Are already— like the judge orders an eviction and awards that. This is pertaining to before that, correct? Just—. Yeah, that's correct. Thank you for the question, Senator Yunt.

This legislation would fill a gap and apply, in my view, when a law enforcement officer makes contact at a home due to a situation that could potentially be criminal trespass. Or burglary, but a person in that property makes a claim that they have permission to be there without any proof. And so, as we saw in a situation that was detailed in an article that was included in the packet out of Anchor Point, you know, if you have a person in a dwelling that claims they have permission, but that permission cannot be verified by the person making that claim, then this process would apply, um, and the landowner would be able to fill out an affidavit and then request that that person be removed in 48 hours. I would note, um, for the committee, you might remember if you read the article from the situation that happened in Anchor Point, The law enforcement officer in that situation did conduct an investigation to investigate the claim made by the occupant, who was found after more than 20 minutes hiding under a pile of stuff. Um, but she claimed that she had permission to be there because she was, you know, cleaning.

The law enforcement officer investigated that and made a determination that no, she did not have a legitimate claim to be there. And that she in fact had burgled and was arrested for that. So I think, I think the point of this legislation is to kind of offer an off-ramp for people who are kind of essentially caught in a situation where they may— they're making a claim that they have permission to be in a property, but they have no proof at all to support that. And we've talked about that in other meetings.

Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that was my understanding as well. So thank you for your great explanation.

You know, I'm not a trained Alaska State Trooper. I very much admire the work that you guys do. We would be in a lot of trouble in Alaska without you. But when I look at this, I look at this as a way to make it actually easier for our troopers so that in the field they could take some of the emotion out of this and maybe the folks who are probably being dishonest, and then they say, well, here, we're going to have the owner sign or the owner's agent sign an affidavit, and if you think that what they're doing is incorrect and you really do have a lease and you just can't prove it today, and you're really not breaking and entering and you can prove that, then you still have the ability to go to court and you can you can sue the owner of the property. So to me, I see this legislation as a huge tool and asset to the Alaska State Troopers, as well as all of the honest people in Alaska that own homes and wind up in the situation from time to time.

And which brings me back to this fiscal note. And so I have some grave concerns with this fiscal note. Mr. Bartlett, do you know who created this fiscal note, sir?

Through the chair, it's Captain Bartlett. I do. It was myself and some other folks on our team. Okay. And perhaps maybe there is a little misunderstanding as to what this legislation would do.

Again, it has nothing to do with after a judge has awarded eviction or anything. That process already exists. This is just before that.

That. But when we on the committee and then eventually the finance table gets a hold of this legislation, and I would tell you I think most if not every single one of the people that live in my district and probably the rest in Alaska would look at this and say this is fantastic legislation. And then they see a $3,183,000 $700,000 fiscal note in year 1 and over $3 million a year, I'm having a really hard time figuring out how that could even be possible. And I hate to say this, but I think this effectively kills the legislation. So is that something that you guys can go back and take a look at?

Through the Chair, Captain Barlett again. [Speaker:ANDREW] So, the changes to going back to Version H will definitely alleviate some of the need for extra resources. What that number exactly is going to turn out to, I'm not going to— I can't say right now. I'd have to deep dive and refresh myself on the Version H of this bill. But the changes from us.

Serving notice and immediately affecting the eviction, moving away from that will definitely lighten some of the load. I'm sure that the fiscal note will be different. We'll just need to take an assessment on Virgin H again, but the evictions that we have now, many of those we look at first. We get those calls from the public and we tell them they need to go the, the route of the court. Once the citizens know that there's this new process in place, and especially agents, once they find out, because a lot of the agents don't even call us because they know landlord-tenant better than we do, and they just know that, you know, our hands are tied for certain situations for the EFE-1s, and they don't even come to us.

I think the number of these calls. I, I think it's gonna— it's going to increase, um, I think rather substantially, but I won't know until it actually goes into effect. Um, I know that other states have gone to a similar, uh, affidavit route, and they have seen increases. Just on limited research, most of these, uh, laws have changed within the last couple of years, um, so there isn't a ton of data out there right now on this, but We will definitely be updating our fiscal note once we take a look at the changes to this bill. Thank you.

Follow-up, Mr. Chairman? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. And, you know, again, I'm not trying to go too hard on this, but I will say on the backside, it's going to save you guys time and money and resources.

So if we're able to handle this up front, we, the partnership between the owners of the homes or apartments and your department, and it doesn't have to go, you know, the affidavit gets signed and it doesn't have to go to the courts and come back later, you know, and then get put onto a long list of folks that are waiting because you guys are very busy. You know, it's going to be a lot easier to remove somebody after they've been there for an hour or a day or 2 days than it is after they've been there for a month or 2 months. Probably going to actually save you guys a lot of man-hours in the long run. So if you could please go back and take a look at that and yeah, looking at the new version and go from there. But I'll definitely be tracking in the future and I'm looking forward to seeing the new fiscal note and we'll do a deep dive on that on our end.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Yunt. Thank you, Captain Bartlett for being with us today, and I'm sorry that I called you Barnett in the last hearing. I learned your name. So thank you very much, Captain Bartlett.

All right. Is there any further objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing no further objection, may I have a motion, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. Hearing no further objection, version 34-LS1266/w is before us as a working document. Seeing no further discussion, what are the wishes of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to report committee substitute for Senate Bill 207 version 34, Larry Sugar 1266/willy, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing none, committee substitute for Senate Bill 207 version 34-LS1266/w as in wrangle is reported from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Please stay after we adjourn to sign the paperwork. The Senate Labor and Commerce Committee will meet again on Wednesday, May 13th, when we will hear Senate Bill 250, data centers, utilities; House Bill 363, alcohol, patriotic organizations, club licenses; Senate Bill 155, failure to report— I think that should be House Bill 155, failure to report violent crimes.

That might not be the right number. Well, the schedule is posted on BASIS. Sorry about that. We will also hear House Bill 244, CNA training. As there is no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned at 3:32 PM.

Thank you.