HSTA-260505-1515

I'd like to call this meeting of the House State Affairs Committee to order. The time is 3:17 on Tuesday, May 5th, and we're here in Room 120. Members could please silence their cell phones today. Our members present include Representative St. Clair, Representative Vance, Representative Holland, Representative Himschoot, Vice Chair Story, and myself, Chair Carrick. Let the record reflect we have a quorum to conduct business.

Our record secretary is Cecilia Miller, and our moderator from the Juneau LIO is Renzo Moises. Our committee aide for today's hearing is my staff, Stuart Relay. Thank you all very much for joining us. We have 7 items on today's agenda, and so we're going to be moving some legislation today. So I'm just going to upfront ask that members, if they could, please keep keep any comments that you have brief.

A lot of these bills we've heard before, and I know we've had some thorough discussion on a few of these items. Um, if we are able to get through this whole agenda today and our agenda on Thursday, we will avoid a Saturday committee hearing, and I think that is in the interest of everybody on the committee. Um, we are starting today with Senate Bill 163 from Senator Kaufman relating to repeal of unused designated funds. This is our first hearing on this bill. It's our only first hearing today, and I'd like to welcome Senator Kaufman and his staff to please put themselves on the record and begin with your presentation of SB 163.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Carrick and members of the committee. Thanks for hearing this little bill today. SB— or, I'm Senator James Kaufman, Senate District F. So going very quickly, SB 163 is part of an ongoing effort to try and reduce unnecessary, unneeded leftover pieces and parts of our statutes. And this particular project, we started last— previous legislature creating a bill that created the cycle where ledge finance would go through all of our accounts and come up with the list of those that are no longer needed. They were happy to have that little nudge because they get tired of looking at some of this stuff too as they do their work over there.

So they gave us a big list, and then we got it, that list put into a bill, 163. Then when 163 was being worked, we ran into some single subject matter things because you can't just get rid of the account. You've got to get rid of all the different language that goes with it. Some of these things sound really compelling. They're accounts, my goodness, we need that, because we do a good job when we pass legislation of giving it an attractive name that causes, you know, it sounds good.

But then we get left over with these accounts that we don't use. For instance, we had a 2001 Special Olympics, I believe was one of them. So we have these accounts that are just left over. You can't just get rid of the account in the books. You have to get rid of the language.

So it's just cleanup effort. And that's something just as legislators I'd like to suggest we all work really hard to push things into the books. I think of it kind of like cleanup day. If we could all just take a piece of it that's no longer needed and help get rid of it. It's amazing.

It's just as much work to get rid of something as it is to push it into it. This stuff just builds up. The books get bigger and thicker. And so I think it's a good thing that we do. My staffer, Takuma, has all the details.

He worked the hair off of this thing when it was one bigger bill, and then it turned into 3 bills, and then 2 of them just got stuck, and this one made it through. And now we're over here talking to you all about it. So I'll hand off to him, and he can give you all the details if you like. All right. That sounds good.

I also, just as an opening comment, I don't think I've ever seen a bill with a title longer than the language of the bill. I think this might be the first time I've ever seen that. But, uh, nonetheless, Mr. Inouye, if you want to please tell us more about the bill. Yeah, thank you, Chair Carrick and members of the House State Affairs Committee. For the record, Takuma Inouye, staff to Senator Kaufman.

So I'll quickly go over the sectional. As you've mentioned, it Section 1 repeals the Public Access Fund and the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program Emergency Account. Section 2 repeals the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games Reserve Fund. And then Section 3 sets an effective date. Um, we also had, um, a child care bucket in SB 263 that Senator Kaufman was talking about, the other bills that kind of got stalled.

And then we also had one for, um, housing and AHFC-related items in SB 264. Um, initially when we were working on this at the start of this year, we had a much bigger list. We were trying to do a lot more things with the bill, repeal more items, but we ran into basically if you repeal this, you should repeal this program. And after running into those, when trying to repeal those programs and associated statutes and language, we basically ran into a lot of problems where we might break something if we tried repealing it. And so this SB 163 is basically the cut-down list multiple times after we've gone through and made sure that we can do a clean cut on some of these accounts.

Great. Thank you for that introduction. I'll also note we have Rob Carpenter, who's our Deputy Director of Legislative Finance, on the phone for questions. Do we have questions from the committee? Representative St. Clair.

Through the Chair, are there any funds in these funds? Is there any monies, if you will?

Senator Coffman, through the chair to Representative St. Clair. Uh, no, um, in the past there had been funds, there had been money in some of these accounts, but with the failure of the reverse sweep, some of the money that, that was in some of them, so that didn't, you know, the, the reverse sweep failed and so there was no money. So these are basically empty accounts that are just sitting on the books and with the associating statutory language that, you know, supports the line item in the ledgers that we keep. Okay, thank you. I appreciate this, Bill.

I have Rep. Himschute in the queue. I put myself in the queue as well. So I think you have mentioned this in the opening statement, but when you see something like the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program Emergency Account, it sounds like something that we should really have. Can you just talk about what some of the other accounts or funds are that cover items in that title, just to put on the record that there's other mechanisms for delivering these types of services?

Turn to Mr. Inouye, probably.

Through the chair, Takuma Inouye, staffer to Senator Kaufman. Um, when I look at the inactive state funds report that LFD, um, provided, it says that it doesn't specify any other, um, specific funds, but it does say that there are mechanisms in place for the department to utilize funds as referenced in the statute. And so that would be my answer.

Senator Kaufman. If I could, and Ledge Finance, if they're on the line, they may want to explain the process they go through. And it is a process of biannually going through and vetting the accounts and saying, okay, these are duplicate, redundant, or otherwise not needed. But the exact corollary to what the other funding mechanisms— I don't have all that at the tip of my tongue. I think I'm going to ask that question of Rob Carpenter.

And I, I just to reiterate for Mr. Carpenter, I'm just kind of looking for the types of accounts or funds that help support in temporary assistance or emergencies, because when the public sees a title like that, they might think that we're repealing something really, really important. And I just kind of want to put on the record that there's other accounts that cover the types of things that are in the title of that account that does not have funding in it. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, hi, Chair Kirk. This is Rob Carpenter, Ledge Finance. To your question, I don't know the specifics of that one at this time. I was previously occupied and had my head elsewhere. We can get back to you on that, but I know I can't speak to our process that Senator Kaufman was speaking to, in that we were able to receive a list from Ledge Legal of all outstanding, or I'm sorry, all funds and accounts that are in statute.

And we went and worked with the Office of Management and Budget and every agency to determine the activity level of these funds and whether they were obsolete, still in use, whether there was money in there, et cetera. And we came up with a list, and we basically, we provided recommendations of sorts, whether to maintain them, repeal them, consider maintain, and to consider repeal or revision were our recommendations. And then we ran those again through the agencies, and some of them were, as you mentioned, they were obsolete and there was other mechanisms in place to do what was necessary. And I don't know the specifics of this one at this time, but we can get back to you if you'd like.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I don't know that that's necessary, but I guess just want to put on the record that I— you know, there's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF funds, there's SNAP funds, there's emergency assistance funds. So I just, I just kind of wanted to put on the record that there are other fund accounts and funds and accounts that cover the types of services that are— the title of that account in particular would lead you to believe might happen through that account. So I don't need necessarily a specific history on that particular account, just wanted to put that out there. I have Representative Himshoot next.

Thank you. Through the chair, I kind of feel like I'm answering my own question by looking at the report, but I do just want to put on the record a term I learned at an NCSL conference a couple years ago. It's CRUFT, C-R-U-F-T, and CRUFT is when you keep adding statute and you never review what you're no longer using. So this feels like a first step towards addressing Alaska's cruft. And I guess the question I do have is, was time a consideration?

And looking at the report, I'm thinking— my original question was, could you have written the bill to be an account with nothing in it that hasn't been used for 20 years and not name the— to avoid that title question and all of that? Is there a way to categorize what you wanted to get rid of, or you were being more surgical by looking at the ones that were recommended for repeal? Senator Kaufman. Through the chair to Rep. Hemmschulte, what we based— we wanted to base it on diligence first and create the system of diligence, and that, that's what we did in the previous legislature with that, that bill, the biennial review process. It's a mechanism that I like using.

We We did it in the 32nd Legislature. We created that review for the administration to nominate reports that they no longer need to generate because we keep asking for stuff and we keep creating stuff and we're strongly incentivized to do that, but we're not incentivized to go in and remove it. So this bill's to— or this process is to try and turn that ship around a little bit so that we go back and do that. We designed the process where, again, there is that interaction that was described between Ledge Finance, Ledge Legal, and the different departments, the stakeholders in those, and then we vet them. And part of the problem is they all sound so good, you know, like how could you, you know, want to repeal the Homeownership Assistance Fund?

Well, but it is there and it hasn't been used, hasn't been funded. It's—. They have charismatic names, but they're not doing anything other than just taking up ink in our statute books. Quick follow-up. Follow-up.

Thank you. So through the chair, what is the harm in leaving them there? They're lines of print on a page. In quality management, there's the concept of muda, which is the Japanese term for waste. And it's— even clutter is seen as a form of inefficiency or has the potential to drive error.

So, orderliness and— we're custodians of the statutes, you know, to put things in, but also to go through and clean them up when we can. And so, it's— maybe this is a little bit of a Don Quixote moment, but I like trying to whittle— you know, we're all trying to push stuff in, but I just kind of like trying to get some of the stuff out that no longer needs to be there. And I think work process-wise, if there's a line on a sheet of paper, some of us, even the most diligent, have to pause on it and see what it says. And so if that stuff is in our books, it's a form of inefficiency. It accrues and there's not a strong incentive to get rid of it.

So you— I mean, I work— and poor Takuma, how hard he's worked on this just to get rid of some stuff. You can't brag much about it. Yay, I deleted some statute. You know, you don't get real bragging rights over that. But it's a good process that we should do.

And part of that is sharing this concept and talking with other legislators in hearings and all that. So if you see something you can get rid of, let's work on getting rid of it even as we're trying to put more stuff in the books. A quick final follow-up. Follow-up? Yeah.

In my first term, my successful bill was the one that repealed a line of statute. I was so proud of that. And yeah, is this Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma type stuff that you're talking about? Well, I'm a genetic quality manager, so I did it for 35 years. So, you know, it still strongly informs everything I do.

And sometimes, you know, these little things, you know, just having a clean workspace and all of that, You know, it's all part of keeping your focus on pursuing the thing that we're trying to do. So please don't visit my office at the current moment then. Thank you. I was thinking about my desk while I was saying that, and I need to go up and clean it up too. Yeah, I think, Senator, we can probably only support this bill if we rename the short title to Removal of Cruft.

Okay. I'm just kidding. Uh, do we have further questions from the committee?

Um, I, I think you touched on this, but I have one, one further question. I see the inactive funds report has 56 funds listed, so can you just go into a little bit more detail why this bill addresses just 3 fund sources? Well, in, in general, it was trying to work through concerns with Ledge Legal about subject matter, you know, about subject matter focus in statutes. So that's how we ended up with 3 different bills, which, you know, it was a much broader piece of legislation, but we tried to adhere to that. And then we split into the 3 bills, and they were flying in formation together, but getting through Senate Finance, only one of them was able to get out.

So that's kind of the general thing that happened.

But then part of deciding what to put into the bill is work cooperatively with Ledge Finance and, you know, other conversations that we have of how we are going to hone it into a bill.

Okay, great. Thank you, Senator. And if we do for some reason see those other bills, I would be happy to bring them up if they are able to come over. Um, okay, well, I don't see any further questions or discussion here. I am going to, unless there's any objection, set an amendment deadline for this bill after this first hearing for this coming Wednesday, May 6th, at 5 PM for Senate Bill 163.

Um, it's a quick turnaround, but it seems like a— seems like a bill we could do that on. If anybody has any questions or concerns, please feel free to get in touch. Um, thank you, Senator Kaufman. Thanks to the chair and to the committee for hearing this bill. Great.

Um, so at this time we're going to move on to the next item on today's agenda, which is House Bill 218, related to the Tanana Valley Forest. Um, this is our third hearing on this bill, and at our last hearing I set an amendment deadline for Monday, May 4th, at 5 PM. And we just received one amendment from my office. I'd also just like to note that we've been joined by Division of Forestry Director Jeremy Dowse on the phone. Double-check that.

Yes, we have. Director Dowse, do you have any opening comments you'd like to make on House Bill 218? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Oh, thanks, Chair Carrick. For the record, my name is Jeremy Dowse, Director of the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection. Section.

I would, uh, I'm just here to answer any questions if there are any, um, and I can just leave it at that. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Director Dowse. And at this time, we're going to go ahead and move to the amendment we have from my office, and I will move Amendment Number 1 and also object for discussion so that I can describe the amendment. Amendment Number 1 is simply an effective date change amendment changing the effective date from July 1st, 2025 to 2026.

So this bill is not retroactive. And, um, is there any discussion on the amendment? Okay, hearing and seeing none, I'm going to remove my objection. And seeing and hearing no further objection, Amendment Number 1 to House Bill 218 is adopted. And that likely concludes our work on House Bill 218.

Is there any Additional discussion on the bill? Representative Holland. Great. Thank you, Chair Carrick. I just wanted to follow up to find out if there had been anything new submitted on the bill from the borough or any of the other communities.

There's just a significant amount of additional land being brought into this forest designation and land, as I understand it, that's already available for forest use, and I continue to just be uncertain about how this affects all the people in the area. I know that we did hear from the Tanana Valley Forest— there was some sort of citizens group or a group that was involved in that. And I remember hearing from them as kind of an advocate for the forest, and I think supporting this designation. But do we have anything more from any of the other regional or local entities or community groups that might have any support for this or concerns about it? Thank you, Representative Holland.

Our office did not receive any additional letters of support. I just would note that in addition to the Citizens Advisory Commission that you mentioned, We also have that support letter from the Garrison Command at Fort Wainwright. Sorry, I was trying to find the letter. But we haven't received any additional backup or support letters since our last hearing. Follow-up.

Follow-up. And thank you for that clarification. That there hasn't been any more support. Has there been any opposition that has surfaced in terms of concerns that we should be aware of? To Representative Holland, I have not.

We also, as in State Affairs Committee, have not received any opposition. Nor as a Fairbanks member, perhaps Representative McCabe has, but I haven't as an Interior member. And it sounds like Representative McCabe also hasn't. In terms of local opposition or support, it's been relatively limited in both directions.

And we do have Director Dowse if you have any further questions about their stakeholder engagement. I'm fine, thank you. Okay.

So—. I have a question, Ashley. Representative McCabe. Thanks. And so I think this is for—.

Thanks, Chair Carrick. This is for Mr. Dowse. I am curious what he envisions for increased timber sales as part of his forest management program for these increases in the size of the forest. And I'm specifically talking about, you know, long-term timber sales for sawlogs and wood harvesting to keep the forest managed properly.

Director Dowse, if you heard that question from Representative McCabe.

Through the chair, I did, Representative McCabe. So currently we have, uh, we just signed a new contract in the parcel at P38 on the map. It's down near Anderson. And that's for a 10-year contract to do management there. We additionally do have active sales in D21.

Again, if you're looking at the map, and we intend on doing some additional sales down near Tok with an existing operator that currently has a 10-year sale. Kind of the intent of these areas is to put them into management, and there is more interest in long-term sales. This would open up abilities to be able to put in multiple units to meet that demand for long-term sales. Okay, thanks. And I just got a note from my staff too.

We— sorry, I guess our office did receive two additional letters of support from the Alaska Forest Association, which I believe represents timber interests, timber harvesting interests, and Our office also requested feedback from constituents, many of whom would be directly impacted, and we didn't receive any additional commentary. So, okay, seeing no further questions or discussion here, and considering that we have heard this bill several times and taken amendments, I would look to Representative Himschute for a motion on House Bill 218. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the House State Affairs Committee move HB 218, also known as 34-GH1494/A, as amended from committee with attached fiscal notes, individual recommendations, and authorizing legal services to make any necessary technical and conforming changes. And hearing and seeing no objection, uh, House Bill 218 has moved from committee, and we're going to take an addies to sign the paperwork.

Addies.

House State Affairs is back on the record, and the next item on our agenda today is SB 239 from Senator Tilton's office. This is the first hearing on this specific bill, but I do want to note that we have had 3 hearings on the companion bill, House Bill 303, from Representative St. Clair. Um, so the committee has taken, uh, quite a bit of time and discussion on this legislation. Um, the bills are still identical to each other, and at our hearing on April 11th, I had set an amendment deadline for HB 303 for April 15th. We received no amendments, so my goal today, with hopefully no objection, is to bring SB 239 before us, have a brief introduction of this bill from Heath Hilliard from Senator Tilton's office, and then look to the will of committee after we take public testimony.

And at this time, I'll go to Mr. Hilliard for an introduction of SB 239. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the House State Affairs Committee. My name is Heath Hilliard, staff to Senator Tilton. Senator Tilton is attempting to join us from Senate State Affairs, so she might be here shortly. Uh, as you know from the hearing, the companion bill— bill's very short and very straightforward.

It simply aligns Alaska regulation or Alaska statute with federal motor vehicle safety standard exemptions for imported vehicles over a certain age, in this case 25 years of age or older. The reason we're doing this, because in the regulation that was adopted, the situation was not a 25-year rolling date, it was a fixed date of 1981 or older. And as a result, there are vehicles that are legal under the federal statute that are not being titled and registered in Alaska. Now, my understanding after talking to the division was this regulation as is has not been enforced consistently until the last year or two. And so all we're doing is trying to correct the drafting error, I guess, in regulation to align it with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard exemption for imported vehicles, legally imported vehicles over 25 years of age.

That complicated. That simple, that complicated. And, uh, thanks for the reintroduction. Um, before we go to committee questions and discussion, I'd like to go ahead and open public testimony since it was noticed. So at this time, we're going to open public testimony on Senate Bill 239.

Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify? Seeing none, although we are being joined now by Senator Tilton. Welcome. Seeing no one online for public testimony, we are going to close public testimony on Senate Bill 239. I also neglected to mention, like, 25 minutes ago we were joined by Representative McCabe.

I just realized I forgot to mention Representative McCabe is also here. And that brings SB 239 back before us for potentially final discussion. Is there any questions or discussion for the bill sponsor?

Great. Okay, I will look to Vice Chair Story for a motion on a bill that you just got back. And I have heard— we have heard the bill before, so thank you. We're glad to move it today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that House State Affairs Committee pass Senate Bill 239 also known as 34-LS1371/A, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

And hearing and seeing no objection, Senate Bill 239 has been reported from committee, and we're going to take briefities to sign the paperwork on that one. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

House State Affairs is back on the record, and next on the agenda we have House Bill 379. From the House State Affairs Committee relating to road service areas. This is our third hearing on the bill in this committee. At our last hearing, I set an amendment deadline for Monday, May 4th at 5 PM. We did not receive amendments on this bill.

I'll just note for committee members, we have Lynn Keneally with the, uh, DCCEd, and we have Jill Dolan, who is our borough attorney at the Fairbanks-North Star Borough. Both available for questions, as well as my staff. So I'll open it up for final discussion or comments from the committee.

Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we've had this discussion. I have concerns that going forward— because I know this is not retroactive— going forward, both sides— I think the terms we used, parent and orphan, don't get a say in the matter to vote on it. That concerns me.

However, I understand the need for it, but would like to see the orphans have more of a say in it.

And I appreciate, uh, Representative St. Clair, you bringing those concerns, you know, up and being able to discuss them too.

I think I, I respect where that's coming from. There's definitely other members who kind of share that perspective, but at the same time, I would be concerned for boroughs similar to the Fairbanks-North Star Borough seeing a fund source for road service area creation, which is what led to our something like 150 or 160 road service areas now, and then Matsu having the same exact problem that Fairbanks currently has in particular. And this bill is trying to strike a really difficult balance between the current system that is maximal local autonomy with all the challenges it creates versus maintaining as much local autonomy as possible and resolving this issue going forward for the second-class boroughs in the state. But I really do appreciate where you're coming from. And I'll turn it back to you.

Representative Sinclair. Thank you, Madam Chair. And for the record, um, Mat-Su Borough does not have an issue with this because we don't have as many, um, RSAs as Fairbanks. So I just want to put that on the record. Thank you.

Is there additional committee questions or discussion?

Hearing and seeing none. Really quick, at ease. Yep, we can at ease.

Okay, House State Affairs is back on the record. I just had a sidebar question relating to public comment and the record. Just wanted to get that cleared up. And we are back under discussion. Um, we were also just joined— I got a text and it's on my screen— by Borough Mayor Greer Hopkins in Fairbanks, in case there's any last-minute questions for him too.

Um, but hearing and seeing no discussion, I'm going to turn to Vice Chair Story for a motion on HB 379.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the House State Affairs Committee move House Bill 379 House Bill 379, also known as 34-LS1528/A, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

And hearing and seeing no objection, House Bill 379 has been moved from the House State Affairs Committee, and we will take another addies to sign the paperwork. Next, when we come back, we will be taking up We'll be taking up HB 187 next. Addies.

House State Affairs is back on the record, and next we have House Bill 187 from Representative Costello's office. This is our second hearing on this bill, and at our last hearing I set an amendment deadline for Monday, May 4th at 5 PM. Our office received no amendments. Today I'd like to look to the bill sponsor's staff for a brief reintroduction, and then we will take public testimony and look to the will of the committee. Welcome back, Mr. Young.

Hello, thank you, Chair Carrick and members of the House State Affairs Committee. Uh, before you is HB 187. Again, this bill is relating to the membership of both the Legislative Council and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committees, and it makes a simple, simple statutory change for both of those committees, changing the word one major political party, or the phrase one major political party, or one of each major political party, to a member of the minority.

In the last committee where we heard this bill, Representative Carrick asked about research in regards to what the intention of the original makers of the statutes regarding the membership to Ledge Council and Ledge Budget and Audit was. In regards to that, I submitted a research request to Ledge Research, and what followed was a report that indicated there is not a ton of information as to the original intention. There was two substantive pieces of information that I found while reading the report. The first is a reference to a memo from Jay Hogan, a fiscal analyst, to Representative Mike Bradner. And what's really substantive about this is that it uses the words minority and political party interchangeably.

The bill at hand was augmenting the membership of Ledge Council, and they refer to, in the actual legislation, as one— at least one member of each of the two major political parties, whereas in the memo, when they refer to one of the members of each of the two major political parties, they use the word minority. So I think that just furthers the idea that many years ago, around the beginning of the state of Alaska, minority and each of the two political parties, or at least one member of so, were used somewhat interchangeably. And it's been more recently that minority may not actually consist of— or majority may consist of members of both political parties. As well as unidentified or independent registered representatives or senators. And then secondly, pursuant to Representative Holland's question as to the membership of the committee over time, it looks as though from the data that was provided in Table 2— or Table 1 and 2, that there was always a representative or senator or both representing the minority until around 2010 in Legislative Council and 2009 in Legislative Budget and Audit where it seems as though they went with the strict interpretation of a representative of each political party.

Table 3 shows at least the last 15 years as to how there was representation. And you'll notice there was only one year where there was not a member of each political party, which would have— or one session, from 2013 to 2014. But you'll note that the Senate minority was not a fully recognized minority, as is in the uniform rules, consisting of 25% of the membership of either house. So other than that, the statute has been followed as strictly defined, which is why the sponsor is of the belief that clarifying that a minority member needs to be represented in both the House and the Senate on those committees. So, that's essentially the results of the research.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Mr. Young, and thanks for asking Ledge Research for for this additional background information. Before we go to general committee discussion or questions, we had public testimony noticed on this bill, so we're going to go ahead and open public testimony on House Bill 187. And I don't see anyone online, and I don't see anyone in the room for public testimony, so we're going to close public testimony on House Bill 187.

And that brings the bill back before us for general discussion and questions. And I, I'll put myself in the queue and start. Um, so I note that Section 3 defines a minority, and I'm just curious, um, is this only defining minority for the purposes of this bill, or is this defining what a minority is beyond what I guess Uniform Rules describes as a minority. So in other words, is this definition of minority limited to the provisions in this bill, or is this definition for a minority more broadly? Thank you for the question, Chair Carrick.

For the record, Zach Young, staff to Representative Costello. While I am not an attorney, my understanding is that while this definition is currently in the Uniform Rules, I don't believe it currently exists in Alaska statute. I can't say that with 100% confidence without consulting with legal, but I believe that this would be the only time that it is technically defined in statute. I know there are two other committees that does— require a minority member, so there could be definitions within those sections, but I believe that the definition here is, as you said, in order to make it clear what a minority is and is not and whether or not it is recognized.

And just as a follow-up, thank you for that. I think my only hesitation on this section is just— Uniform Rules has a definition of minority that's important for organizational purposes, and it's also really important because— I don't know how to say it without saying his name, but the former member from Wasilla was not in a minority, nor was he in a majority.

I think this definition is really important for this particular statute because you're defining that you have to be in a recognized minority to have those seats on these committees, but I'm not sure if we want to expand that as the definition of minority in statute generally. So I don't know if others have thoughts about that, but that's just like one thought that came up here, um, and I'm comfortable moving forward with it. It seems like it's limited to this section of statute relating to these committee memberships. But is there any other question or discussion? Representative Holland.

Great. Thank you, Chair Carrick. I'm curious if either of the two bodies that are affected by this statute have been able to provide us any feedback. I think the answer is that the body that's getting affected can't talk about the bill that's affecting them, but it would also be very helpful to know if the folks that have experience on these two groups provided any direction to us on this fits and aligns nicely with how they operate and feel that they could operate more effectively, or if they're silent because they have to be, I guess I would respect that, but I would be curious if they have given us any input.

Are you asking for what the current minority in each body's perspective is on? Thanks for the clarification, Chair Carrick. I was— I think probably I could have been more specific. Has Legislative Counsel or the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee specifically aware of this bill provided any direction on this bill aligning with or not aligning with their function, and if they have to stay silent because they have to stay silent, then I would understand that. But I just was asking for the record whether or not they've offered any direction to us on what is affecting them.

I normally, as a policy person, like to know that the person that's being affected by what I'm doing has been a part of the decision of how they're going to be affected. I don't know whether that's the case here. Yeah, I'll, I'll start Representative Holland by offering just a couple of quick comments. As a member of Ledge Council, Ledge Council has not taken a formal position or even had informal discussions that I'm aware of on this subject. But also, without touching too deeply on the delicate nature of what's currently being interpreted, there's not minority representation from recognized minorities on these two councils because there's been a strict interpretation of what the current statute says as opposed to what the provisions in this bill would be.

And so that, that's a current issue in the legislature. Representative Vance, did you want to add? Yes, thank you. And, you know, just for clarification, the legis— this is the process because legislative members who sit in the committees also make up those committees. And so it would be awkward for them to officially weigh in because there's also always a new cycle of members on those committees.

But yes, the current makeup not having minority members is a choice because it is permissible for them to do so. But I have sat on LB&A and Rep. McCabe has sat on Ledge Council, and I think this is something that we have sought to change, to put it back to the intent of what we presume was the original intent behind this, to make it more fair of whoever's in whoever's in charge, that there's that full representation from the body. And I think that's something that we've had conversations about for a long time in a variety of areas, but these two specifically, um, Ledge Council is kind of our governing body, and then LB&A is, uh, what continues to govern the affairs during interim. And so, uh, I find that it's important to make sure that we allow specifically the right of the minority to be represented on them. And that's from when I sat on LB&A.

I was a majority member. But I think having that balance, both parties and caucuses, you know, really helps to have a full representation of the voice of the legislature on these two important committees. So I support this. I think that it's, uh, something that we have experience here at the table on both of those committees, that we can offer that. And also just the, the years of tenure that we've had around these discussions, that it would be great to finally get movement of that so that no matter who is in power, uh, and what the makeup is, you know, next, next session and moving forward, that Alaskans know that, that it's balanced.

Or at least has the full, full representation there. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I agree fully, Representative Vance, and I'm really grateful that this bill has been brought forward because, I mean, for both of those councils, but especially alleged council, it seems sort of ludicrous to not have a minority member on the committee. And I've thought that a few times this last year, even as a majority member. So I appreciate where this is coming from.

Do we have additional questions or discussion? Seeing and hearing none, I will turn to Vice Chair Story for a motion. A brief-a-dees. Brief-a-dees.

House State Affairs is back on the record. Vice Chair Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the House State Affairs Committee pass House Bill 187, also known as 34-LS0858/A, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. And hearing and seeing no objection, House Bill 187 has been moved from committee and will take an at ease to to sign the paperwork.

Our next bill will be SB 26. Abis.

House State Affairs is back on the record, and the next item on the agenda today is Senate Bill 26 from Senator Merrick relating to daylight savings time. This is seemingly only our second hearing on the bill, but there has been a lot of discussion on this topic and, uh, over the course of the last few weeks in the building. Um, today before us we have a committee substitute that I'd like to have us motion to adopt and then have some discussion on. And then my intention today is to set an amendment deadline such that we can take action on this bill on Thursday at our hearing then. So I'd like to first turn to Vice Chair Story.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the House State Affairs Committee adopt House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 26, also known as 34-LS0267/h, as our working document. I'm going to object for discussion and ask our committee aide to walk through the summary of changes. Mr. Relay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record, Stewart Relay, staff to Representative Carrick. Madam Chair, broadly speaking, this CS makes two changes. It— the first major change is it essentially, quote unquote, carves out Western Alaska.

And so anything east of the 155th west longitudinal line will be in Pacific Standard Time, and then anything west of that would be in a different time zone. And secondly, the CS moves the approval timeline for USDOT for the petition relating to joining Pacific Standard Time. In the original version of the bill, they— DOT had until 2035 to approve the uh, to approve the petition to join Pacific Standard Time. In this version of the bill, the petition would be repealed in January 1, 2028. So that kind of narrows up the timeline, um, uh, just to provide, um, for some more certainty and, and, um, uh, for, uh, for folks.

Um, Madam Chair, that is the summary of changes. Members will find the specific changes in their packet. I'm happy to go through those, but, um, uh, also happy to, um, respect, uh, the committee's time. Um, thank you for that initial update on the summary of changes. Um, we are under discussion of adoption of the committee substitute, and I will ask if members can try to keep any questions or comments to the committee substitute, and then, um, we will move under general discussion after that.

Questions or comments? Representative Vance. Thank you, Madam Chair. Would you explain the conditional repeal just so that people understand what that nuance is? Uh, yeah, thank you, uh, uh, Representative Vance.

Uh, for the record, Stewart Relay, staff for Representative Carrick. Uh, Madam Chair, um, uh, I'm happy to give a, a kind of broad strokes, um, uh, uh, I guess look at it, and I would also potentially turn to Representative Holland, who's the one that recommended that language. But broadly speaking, and this is in Section 3 of the bill, so if the United States Department of Transportation does not approve the petition by January 1, 2028, then the petition would be repealed. And so, we would essentially rescind the petition. And I would also note another change relating to the conditional repeal is in Section 5, which is the changes to the effective dates.

If this is repealed, If the petition is repealed, then it will— then the state of Alaska will be in Standard Time on March 11, 2028, which is the next— which is when spring forward would be that year. And so I hope that made sense. That's kind of the best I got right now. I think, uh, I think, Mr. Riley, since you're not the sponsor of the bill and, uh, that was a good summary of changes, I think let's go ahead and swap you out for the, uh, bill sponsor and her staff for additional questions, just, just to get you out of the hot seat, if you'd like. Um, welcome back, Mr. Crocker and Senator Merrick.

Thank you for joining us. And I'm going to turn to Representative Holland. If you had anything to add there. I'd be happy to provide some clarification to those comments, or if you'd like, I can wait until after the bill sponsor has offered some perspective on this. But I have a follow-up question.

Okay, follow-up. Representative Ants. Thank you. On, um, I'm struggling with, uh, dividing the time in Alaska. And across the state having one time for government services, for school travel, all of those things is why I would want to be unified.

So my question is, why would you choose to put a timeline down, you know, a portion of our state? Uh, is, is the The benefit greater than the risk here? I—. Because what I know of the documents that you've provided is that we've done that in our Alaska history, and that's why we changed to be unified. So why bring it back?

Thank you, Representative Vance. Through the chair, for the record, I'm Senator Kelly Merrick representing District L in Chugiak/Eagle River. And again, through the chair, the idea there— there were concerns brought to us that Western Alaska would be negatively affected by being on Pacific Standard Time. So that was, um, kind of a compromise to keep them so they're more aligned with the sunlight.

Okay.

Um, and Representative Vance, I guess I'll jump in here too and say I, I share the concerns about multiple time zones, but we also Tried to work as best we could with both bill sponsors, um, for the two major bills addressing this issue. And probably the primary concern that wasn't being addressed by SB 26 but was being addressed by HB 229, I believe, uh, was the idea of Western Alaska being put even farther away from solar noon. And so this bill— this committee substitute tries to strike a balance where we maybe do what is most advantageous or, um, dare I say popular, but I hate to use that word here. But we're also trying to strike a balance where we're not— where we're addressing the concerns that were brought forward relating to, um, support for HB 229, which is kind of the other variation of this topic. I don't know if that helps answer the question at all.

Well, this is just a comment, Madam Chair. I mean, the bill did move through the Senate, uh, without this, and I know that there are some pretty vocal voices for Western Alaska in the Senate who probably wouldn't have kept quiet about it. Um, I just— I'm a little surprised, uh, to see the change now, and I don't know that this is something that— I'm just going to let it simmer, but I'll hand it off to more questions while I think about the impact of this. I'm going to go to Mr. Crocker first, and then we'll go back to the committee members. For the record, Kerry Crocker, staff to Senator Merrick, through the chair.

Representative Vance, just for your information, that this carve-out was brought to us by strong proponents of our bill. And after our committee hearing, they suggested this carve-out, and I was frankly a little shocked, but some of our proponents were like, yeah, this makes sense after hearing the testimony at the previous committee meeting. So follow-up, follow-up. Have you asked if there's going to be any impact to, to our, our different departments that work across the state? How—.

I mean, this is— how are they going to work on communication dealing with what is an hour difference between the workday and and, you know, flights, things like that. I mean, this is a much bigger impact than just not changing the clock, you know, in the springtime or whatever. Like, this is— this has much larger consequences one way or the other. And have there been discussions on what that could look like for the workforce? Through the chair, Representative Vance.

We have spoke to some of our stakeholders and we're not getting a lot of concern. Most people are concerned about the health factor is what we're getting from stakeholders and, you know, with this bill. So we have spoke to some of it. We fully expect if this bill were to move from this committee, it would go to House Finance and Representative Foster and Jimmy sit on that committee. And we expect it to be fully vetted by that committee as well.

And for the record, Senator Merrick, if I may, Madam Chair, to Representative Vance, we heard no concerns from the senators that represent the western portion of Alaska. Thank you. And just to add to that, I think anecdotally speaking, it seems to me from talking with some stakeholders as well that if you're from western Alaska, you prefer this change to the bill, if you have an opinion on it, I guess. But you prefer this change because it's essentially— the idea is to hold harmless that region of the state which might otherwise be adversely impacted by the positive provisions of what's in SB 26. So it's kind of a compromise.

There are potentially concerns about adding another time zone change, but I think they were largely overridden by the concerns about public health and solar noon being in the early hours of the morning, and we heard a lot of testimony to that effect as well.

I have Representative Himschoot next. Thank you. Through the chair, can you describe the process USDOT would go through in terms of what would happen for them to What's the next step? If this— when this bill passes, then does USDOT vet our request in some way? Mr. Crocker.

Through the chair, Representative Himschoot. Yes, so what would happen if this bill were to pass? We would petition USDOT, and again, we've contacted the Secretary or had discussions about whether they would move, and they, they've said they would. And they would go around the state and have public hearings on the topic, and their deciding factor is a convenience of commerce. And so that's how they would decide whether we would go to Pacific Standard Time for the majority of the state or not.

So series of public meetings, public input.

Thank you.

All right, is there additional question or discussion on the committee substitute language?

Hearing and seeing none, I'm going to— I think I initially had objected for discussion. I'm going to remove my objection, and seeing and hearing no further objection, the committee substitute for Senate Bill 26 is adopted as our working document. Is there additional questions or discussion on Senate Bill— Senate Bill 26? I almost said House Bill.

Representative Holland. Great, thanks. I appreciate the discussion we've had so far. One point I'd like to make sure we're all clear on, because this is an important bill in terms of how many people have been motivated and interested in the efforts to stop the clock and the time change is that this is an effort to try and be responsive to how significant the impact of what time we end up on if we stop the clock. And the thing I want to be emphasizing here here is, I think, the language that's at the end in Section 5 that essentially says that, um, this Act Section 1, which puts us on Standard Time, one way or another becomes effective March 11, 2028.

The question is, which Standard Time are we on when that happens? If the DOT petition is successful in that review process, plays out and the DOT criteria that is grounded in commerce, if that DOT petition is successful and puts Alaska into Pacific Standard Time, then that is the standard time when this finally takes effect. If the petition isn't successful, isn't completed, is withdrawn, whatever happens, Then, on March 11th, we still stop the clock on Standard Time. That would be Alaska Standard Time. So in my mind, this construction— and I appreciate the bill sponsor's flexibility to work with this— addresses two things simultaneously.

One is a significant number of folks that would like to petition the DOT to put Alaska into Pacific Standard Time. It does that. There's also a great number of people that want the clock stopped and supported the approach of just simply going to Standard Time, which we can do without any federal involvement. We do it, it's done. And so this essentially does both.

On March, we are in Standard Time. But there's this intermediate stop in there. So, to me, the important part is for those that want us to just do something to stop the clock, this does that. This is the first time we would pass legislation that would give certainty to getting that job done. However, I recognize, and I want to be very transparent, that this opens up the door for those that want to stay on one time or the other.

This opens up a process where folks are going to be concerned that it could end up on one or the other. But it would be done on the merits and it would be done with the public involvement process of the Department of Transportation taking the lead on noticing, hearings, collecting comments, and giving us an open process to accomplish that. So I appreciate the discussion and the work here. The 155 line— is tied specifically to if and only if we went to Pacific Standard Time, then that 155 line is moved. If we didn't see the DOT process adopting a change to Alaska Pacific Standard Time, and if we stayed on Standard Alaska Time without change, then that line doesn't move to 155.

It stays where it currently is, way out on the far end of the Western Alutian Islands where we already have a time zone line where those far western islands are already on a different time zone. They're already on Alutian Hawaiian time. So this change, this line that's drawn there, is only associated with if we go to Pacific Standard Time with that advanced hour, then it gives some relief to the western communities to not be pulled one hour further out of alignment. In there. So I appreciate the opportunity to attempt, after many, many years and efforts, to try and address the time zone issue.

I think we have come up with a next step that has a certain degree of clarity and certitude in terms of doing something finally, but on the other hand, having a process that accomplishes that with some more involvement. Because this will affect hundreds of thousands of people and tens of thousands of businesses. This is not a trivial change. Have a major impact down the road. And personally, I'm more comfortable with having that process that this would create than simply having us try and here roll the dice and come up with one answer or the other, and half the folks have to live with what happened there.

So I appreciate where we're at. I'm looking forward, quite frankly, to moving ahead with this. So thank you.

Thank you, Representative Holland. I agree. I'm really appreciative to the bill sponsor for working with, um, both our office and Representative Holland's office. Um, there were, I would say, probably more, without any question, more, um, public testifiers and emails on this issue than any single other issue perhaps before the entire legislature this year. So it's really good to see that, uh, this committee substitute makes some compromises and, um, takes into account some of the things that have come up on both bills and, um, hopefully moves us in a direction that people will be happy with.

Is there any additional comment or discussion on Senate Bill 26? Um, I do want to offer the committee an opportunity for any further amendments or discussion. We took up a pretty big change with this committee substitute today. It is my intention that we will take action on this bill on Thursday this week, and I am setting an amendment deadline for Wednesday, May 6th, at 5 PM. So I would just ask people to please get in touch with our office if you have any questions or amendments that you're getting— having trouble getting back from Ledge Legal.

And we will take this up first at our hearing on Thursday. Call on Addie's, uh, yeah, Addie's.

All right, so again, the amendment deadline for SB 26 is Wednesday, May 6th at 5:00 PM, and we are going to set SB 26 aside till Thursday. Thank you very much, Senator Merrick and staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and we are going to take another brief at ease at this time for approximately 5-ish minutes. At ease.

State Affairs is saddled up and back on the record. We have one more item on today's agenda, which is Senate Bill 237 from Senator Kawasaki. And, um, pull up my notes here.

So this is, uh, the bill from the Senate State Affairs Committee relating to Social Security data sharing. Um, again, this is our second hearing on this bill, but I would remind our members that We heard the companion bill from Representative Jimmy several— or one time at least. So this is collectively our third, potentially fourth hearing on this bill. At our last hearing, I set an amendment deadline of Monday, May 4th at 5 PM, and we received no amendments. Today we will just have a very quick reintroduction of the bill from Jenna Calhoun in Senator Kawasaki's office and then look to the will of the committee.

DMV. For the record, Jenna Calhoun, staff to Senator Kawasaki. What SB 237 would do is to update statute to allow Alaskans to be able to apply for a lost Social Security card online by letting them— by letting the DMV share data with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. I will also state that the Social Security Administration is, uh, very for this bill. We've been working with them as a team to get this through the legislature.

And lastly, uh, Alaska is the only state in the union that currently does not have this function available to their citizens. Great. Um, thank you, Miss Calhoun. Do we have any additional questions or discussion? Uh, Vice Chair Story.

Uh, thank you. I just, um, want to thank the sponsor and the I believe we have companion legislation in the House for this bill because I think this is so important to rural Alaska, and I appreciate the efforts of bringing this forward.

Thank you. I concur. I don't see any additional questions or discussion. Oh, sorry, Representative Vance. Thank you.

I have one final question on this that, um, and I, I think it's been covered before, but We've been through a lot of bills lately. You don't say.

There was a lot of consternation around data sharing, voter information, and a lot of discussion about the protection of that data as it moves from one agency to another. Do you know what kind of encryption or protection is added when data is transferred with the Social Security Administration because in Section 2 it covers communicating information to carry out the provisions.

I know that in other areas of statute like around voter and other private information, we've added belts and suspenders on making sure that our, at least from our side, that we are making sure that that information is protected when it's being transferred. Do you know if that is taking place with this information that is, is, uh, being shared? Through the chair, uh, for the record, Jenna Calhoun's staff to Senator Kawasaki, I am not aware of the specific encryption process that's going on when this data is transferred. I do know though that when they are transferring the data to the AMVA that once they get a yes or no verification, that it's all deleted. Thank you.

Representative St. Clair. Thank you, because this question came up before for Representative Vance, the encryption. Everything's encrypted that goes out, and I believe that this is— the difference between this and the voter rolls being sent out is this is an Alaskan requesting this as an individual to saying, okay, send my stuff to Social Security. Vice, and I still think the voter thing was okay anyway, but just for clarification.

Okay, thank you, Representative St. Clair. Do we have additional questions or discussion? Seeing none, I just again want to thank the bill sponsor for bringing this forward, and to Representative Jimmy as well for bringing the companion bill forward and allowing us the opportunity to hear that one before the Senate bill came over. I will turn to Vice Chair Story for a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that the House State Affairs Committee pass Senate Bill 237, also known as 34-LS1428/AN, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. And hearing and seeing no objection, Senate Bill 237 has been reported from committee. Please stick around after we adjourn to sign the paperwork. And that is amazingly, in record NASCAR pit stop time, all of the business for today. Our next meeting is on Thursday, May 7th at 3:15 here in Room 120.

Our agenda includes A, um, final discussion on SB 26 from Senator Merrick relating to daylight savings time. Uh, also Senate Bill 163 from Senator Kaufman for a final hearing. SJR 30 from the Senate State Affairs Committee regarding support for military infrastructure. That'll be our first hearing on that. And then an overview presentation on transboundary mining.

Which was requested by Vice Chair Story, and I'm glad we've got presenters lined up for that. So we will have a, a good hearing on Thursday. If we are able to get to our business on Thursday, we will avoid a Saturday meeting, and I'm really looking forward to that potential. And with nothing else before the committee, we are adjourned at 4:47 PM.