Senate Labor & Commerce Committee

Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee to order. The time is 1:40 PM. We're in Beltz Room 105. Of the Thomas Stewart Building in the nation's most beautiful capital city of Juneau, Alaska.

Today is Friday, May 8th. Members present are Senator Gray Jackson, Senator Dunbar, and myself, Senator Bjorkman. Senators Merrick and Yunt are excused today. 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 Tupo, and our LIO moderator Jude Augustine. Our agenda for today is HJR 20, Hiring of Apprentices/Veterans; HB 243, Barbers and Hairdressers Board Licensing; Senate Bill 194, Mobile Sports Wagering Tax; Senate Bill 207, Property Possession and Property Crimes. First, we will take up House Joint Resolution 20. This is our second hearing on the resolution.

First, we heard this bill a few weeks back and took invited testimony. I would like to invite the sponsor, the Honorable Representative David Nelson and his staff, Donna Page, to the table to provide a brief recap of the resolution. Welcome back to Senate Labor and Commerce.

Thank you, Chair Bjorkman and members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. For the record, I am Representative David Nelson. House District 18, representing Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Government Hill, and East Anchorage. Thank you for hearing House Joint Resolution Number 20, encouraging the United States Congress to establish hiring goals for apprentices and veteran apprentices. This resolution aims to assist veterans who are preparing to transition from military life to civilian life.

House Joint Resolution 20 would encourage Congress to establish hiring goals for domestic DOD construction projects namely for individuals who are participating in qualified apprenticeships or post-secondary programs. I urge Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, uh, to encourage Congress to establish these hiring goals to support those who wore the uniform and for the United States. Thank you.

Are there any questions for the bill sponsor?

Hearing and seeing none, we will open public testimony on House Joint Resolution number 20. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

We have one person online, Kyle Kaiser. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please.

My name is Kyle Kaiser. I'm the president and founder of Viper Transitions, as well as membership development for IBW Local 1547. I'm calling to encourage the passing of this resolution, mostly because I have seen where things fall apart in the transition space. As a nonprofit, I've been operating in the transition space for about 8 years now, and there's just a lack of opportunities for veterans to get into the workforce across the board. And this type of resolution addresses a lot of issues, especially one that I think impact Alaska on a much broader scale.

When you look at workforce development and where we're going to obtain our workforce, there's a lot coming down the pipe. Obviously, you all have been very busy with different items and you're well aware of where Alaska is headed with different projects. The topic of manpower consistently comes up. We have more vets getting out of the military that could stay here and help us man that type of work and be involved in these things, but they choose not to because the work opportunities aren't there. I was briefed the other day of projects coming to J-Bear here locally to the tune of like $7 billion.

That's a lot of construction, that puts a lot of people to work, but right now there's no qualifications on any of that work to do anything to help veterans or apprentices be required on any of that work. So, on one hand, we have all of the projects and work that we could need to really ramp up the successful transitions of veterans into the workforce, especially here in Alaska, but that bridge hasn't been— or that gap hasn't been bridged yet. You still have no mechanism for going, "Hey, yeah, this veteran's interested in being an electrician, an ironworker, a pipefitter, a carpenter, a laborer, whatever the classification of worker is, there's no direct tie with the federal government to those projects. At most, they will require contractors to have certifications and licensing, but that's where it stops. The verification of the people doing the work and ensuring that there's apprentices being used that are in real programs, let alone that there's a target for bringing transitioning vets onto those jobs is often not there.

And this type of resolution encourages our congressional representatives to work on fixing that. If we can fix that, you're going to see a lot more vets transition successfully into the next phase of their lives. You're going to see suicide rates drop. I bet you're going to see recruitment rates into the military increase because now you might join as an infantryman like myself and be able to get out and have a good career doing something else that's not even related to what you did in the military. So rather than having folks trying to steer their kids away from it, I will see more people pushing into it because it becomes an actual pathway to a better life.

That concludes my testimony. Thank you very much, Mr. Kaiser. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

Hearing and seeing none, we will close public testimony on H.R. 20.

That brings the bill back before the committee. Is there any further committee questions or discussion? Representative Nelson, do you have any closing remarks? I just would like to say it is an honor to be here and to talk with you all today. I am encouraged by the type of response that has come from this piece of legislation and I encourage everyone to vote in support of moving it out and onto the floor.

Thank you very much, Representative Nelson. Seeing and hearing no further questions or discussion, what are the wishes of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to report House Joint Resolution 20 version 34, Lima Sierra 0978 backslash alpha from committee with individual recommendations and the attached Fiscal note. Brief it ease.

We're back on the record. It's 1:48 PM now in Senate Labor and Commerce.

May I have a motion, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to restate my motion. I move to report House Joint Resolution 20, version 34, Lima Sierra 0881-Alpha, from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing none, House Joint Resolution 20, version 34-LS 0881-A, as an ANIAC Moves from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. We'll take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for next bill. Brief at ease.

The record now, it is 1:50 PM here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Next up, we will take up House Bill 243. This is our second hearing on the bill. During our first hearing, We had a presentation of the bill and took invited testimony. I would like to invite the sponsor, the Honorable Representative Ashley Carrick, and her staff, Cadence Connor, to the table to provide a brief recap of the bill.

Welcome to the table and back to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please put yourselves on the record and begin your brief recap. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. For the record, Ashley Carrick representing West Fairbanks. And House Bill 243 simply provides statutory clarity that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers barbers and hairdressers may, if they choose, delegate licensing authority to the Division of Corporations, Businesses, and Professional Licensure.

And again, Mr. Chairman, this comes at the direct request of the current chair of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, and it is supported also by the division. Thank you very much, Representative Carrick. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor? Also here with us in the room is the director of Corporations, Businesses, and Professional Licenses. Sylvan Robb, and we also have Mr. Kevin McKinley.

Are there any questions for either of those two?

Seeing and hearing none, we will now open public testimony on House Bill 243. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

Hearing and seeing no one at this time, we will close public testimony on Senate Bill 243— House Bill 243. Representative Kerik, do you have any closing comments? Do not, Mr. Chairman. Very well. Is there any further committee discussion or final questions?

Seeing and hearing none, what are the wishes of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to report House Bill 243 version 30 for lima sierra 1197/ALPHA from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any objection?

Seeing and hearing no objection, House Bill 243 version 34-LS 1197/A, as in anchor point, is reported from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. We'll take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for our next bill. Brief at ease.

We're back on the record. It's 1:53 now in Senate Labor and— Senate Labor and Commerce. Next up, we will take up Senate Bill 194, sponsored by Senator Mike Kronk. This is our first hearing on the bill. To present the bill, we have sponsor Senator Kronk and his staff, Mr. Paul Menke.

Please place yourselves on the record and begin your presentation of the bill. Um, thank you, Chair Bjorkman, members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. Senator Mike Kronk, uh, District R. Um, thank you for the opportunity to present, uh, Senate Bill 194. Simply put, the intent of this legislation is to legalize sports betting in Alaska while ensuring that it's properly regulated. This bill aims accomplish three major goals: converting consumers from the black market to the legal market, establishing consumer protections for sports wagering activities, and providing for new ways to generate revenue for the state of Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, people are already sports gambling in Alaska. Without proper regulations and consumer protections, our citizens remain vulnerable to illegal predatory operators. These illegal sports wagering operators often guarantee payouts and offer no protections for consumers, age verification, or tools to address issues issues arising from addiction. This leaves consumers with no recourse to collect winnings or even receive basic customer service support. These unregulated operations can further victimize consumers by offering loans and lines of credit to trap individuals in a debt cycle, all while generating no benefit to the state or offering legal avenues to protect our citizens.

39 States have legalized sports wagering, either online or in person, with Missouri being the latest to do so. Senate Bill 194 would require operators applying for licenses in the state of Alaska to have and maintain a license in at least 3 other jurisdictions, which helps assure a high standard of credibility and legitimacy for sports wagering operations within our state. Legal operators offer tools such as helplines, links to articles, programs, and resources that assist with issues that arise from addiction, an option to set wagering limits, and most importantly, they maintain strict age and identity identity verification. These tools offer new support and consumer protections which does not exist in the state under current law. In 2019, a survey conducted by the American Gaming Association shows that people prefer to wager on the legal market primarily because they are confident that their bets will be paid out at the end of the day.

This same survey reported that 74% of the bettors believe it's, it's important to only wager through legal providers. Legalizing this industry in Alaska would capture revenue to the state that is currently going to the pockets of illegal operators. This would not only apply to residents, but also to any gambler that is betting in the state, including tourists and seasonal workers. This industry has generated a total tax revenue of $6.7 billion across legalized states. Senate Bill 194 offers simple solutions to capture a market that already exists within our state, diversify our state revenues, and offer protections and oversight to Alaska residents, tourists, and seasonal workers.

I believe it's time for Alaska to become the 40th state to capture the benefits of this growing market and to protect our citizens from being victimized and exploited by illegal sports wagering operations. Mr. Chairman, my staff, Paul Menke, is available to go over the sectional analysis, or we could go straight to public testimony of your choice. Thank you very much, Senator Cronk. Mr. Menke, if you would please walk us through the sectional, that would be most excellent. Thank you, Chair Bjorkman, and members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.

For the record, my name is Paul Mankey, staff to Senator Mike Cronk. Section 1 amends AS 04.11.370, which relates to the suspension and revocation of licenses and permits, to reference the new chapter created in Section 2 of this bill. Section 2 is where the bulk of the bill is, as it creates a new chapter, Chapter 18, within Title V of Alaska statute. AS 05.18.010, which starts on page 2, line 2, outlines the necessary requirements to obtain the new mobile sports wagering license, which gives the licensee the authority to conduct mobile sports wagering through any mobile application or digital platform approved by the commissioner, including the— and it also includes a requirement for an application, payment of the $100,000 per year licensee fee, licensing fee and renewal fee, background check and disclosure requirements, and a requirement that the applicant must currently maintain a mobile sports wagering license in at least 3 other states or jurisdictions. This section as written provides a cap of 10 licenses that can be issued in the state.

A.S. 05.18.020, which starts on page 4, line 22, outlines circumstances in which the Commissioner of Revenue may deny, suspend, or revoke a license and/or reprimand a licensee. ASR 05.18.030, which starts on page 5, line 7, establishes the duties of a licensee, including requiring suspicious and fraudulent activity detection and software monitoring systems that meet industry standards, adhering to federal and state reporting requirements, identity verification requirements, record and receipt maintenance requirements, requiring sufficient funds to facilitate sports betting at all times, and prohibiting the advertisement or promotion of sports wagering to individuals under the age of 21. AS 05.18.040, which starts on page 6, line 3, establishes the duties of the Commissioner of Revenue in relation to this chapter. AS 05.18.050, which starts on page 6, line 25, establishes that the Commissioner shall approve house rules before the licensee can start mobile sports wagering operations and that the licensee shall provide a statement of available resources to combat gambling addiction disorders. AS 05.18.060, which starts on page 7, line 6, outlines the permissible forms of mobile sports wagering, including single-game bets, teaser bets, parlays, over-under, moneyline, pools, exchange wagering, in-game wagering, in-play bets, proposition bets, straight bets, future, and any other forms of sports— future and any other— excuse me, futures and any other forms of sports wagering approved by the commissioner.

AS 05.18.070, which starts on page 7, line 12, authorizes online mobile sports wagering as legal in the state of Alaska and identifies the circumstances in which a wager can be accepted. This section of Chapter 18 requires that all gamblers be at least 21 years old and physically present in the state of Alaska or any other state, terrace, territory, or jurisdiction that the commissioner has entered into a mobile sports wagering agreement with. AS 05.18.080, starting on page 7, line 27, requires that wagers must be placed and funded via a sports wagering account. I haven't started yet. Oh my God.

So I'm going to be able to see—. Ma'am, your mic is not muted.

It's okay. I can see you, but no one else can, I don't think. We're glad you're here. We'll get to you in a minute. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you. Let's see here. See, AS05.18.080 requires that wagers must be placed and funded via a sports wagering account through approved mobile applications or digital platforms. Wagers in this section could be funded through debit or credit cards in that person's name, electronic bank transfers, through online or mobile payment systems that support online money transfers, through bonuses or promotions, or via any other means approved by the commissioner. AS 05.18.090, which starts on page 8, line 7, levies a 20% tax on the adjusted gross revenue received from a licensee.

Under this section, a licensee must submit a tax return that includes gross revenue statements to the Commissioner on the 15th day of each month. This section also allows the licensee to forward a negative gross tax receipt up to 3 years from the date of the negative gross receipt and exempts licensees from taxes on wagering revenue by municipalities. AS 05.18.100, starting on page 8, line 30, gives the Commissioner of Revenue responsibility— the responsibility of adopting regulations under Alaska Statute 44.62 necessary to carry out Chapter 18. AS 05.18.110, starting on page 9, line 31, establishes options for the Commissioner to penalize violations and fraudulent activity associated with the mobile sports— with mobile sports wagering, including the suspension, revocation, or restriction of a license, requiring the termination of employee— of an employee of a licensee, or fines of up to $10,000 per violation. AS 05.18.120 clarifies that, or, that operating a mobile sports wagering license is a privilege and does not confer a right on any person to conduct such activities.

And that is found on page 10, line 8.

And finally, in Section 2 of this bill, AS 05.18.190 provides definitions for adjusted gross revenue, commissioner, gross revenue, licensee, mobile sports wagering, professional athletic event, mobile sports wagering account, wager, and wagering event. Sections 3, 4, and 5 of Senate Bill 194 are conforming language to reference the new Title 5, Chapter Chapter 18 statutes. Section 6 amends the uncodified law of the state of Alaska to allow the Department of Revenue to adopt any regulations necessary to the implementation of this act. Section 7 amends the uncodified law of the state of Alaska to require that the Department of Revenue to publicly, publicly announce when licensees may begin operations 2 weeks in advance and once 3 licenses or 3 licenses have been issued. Section 8 establishes an immediate effective date for Section 6 of SB 194, and Section 9 establishes an effective date of January 1st, 2026, as the bill is currently written, with the exception of Section 6.

And that concludes the sectional analysis.

Thank you very much, Mr. Menke. Any questions for the bill sponsor? We'll go— Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and [Speaker:COMMISSIONER_KEITH] Well, this is a question for you and not for the invited testifiers, because it's a policy question that they wouldn't be able to answer.

Why cap the number of licenses at 10? Why create something that might result in a secondary market? You know, I understand why we cap liquor stores and bars to a certain degree, because there's associated negative externalities and there's a physical constraint, and, you know, people don't want it near their house. But this is just an electronic app. Why do we care how many of these apps are operating in Alaska?

Let me add one thing. If you cap it at 10, those 10 companies will be very profitable. I have no, no question. If I was FanDuel, I'd want it capped because I would want to buy one of these very expensive ones and prevent competition. But why cap it at 10?

For the record, Paul Menke, staff to Senator Cronk, through the chair to Senator Dunbar. I believe when drafting this legislation, the intent for the 10 cap was just to ensure that there was a few reputable vendors that were able to start and join this legal— this newly legal mobile sports wagering market. But I believe that is a change that can be— if there's a higher cap that the committee desires, that I think that we'd be amenable to that. Senator Del Mar. Yeah, I'll just say in general, I don't support caps of any kind.

I like free markets, unless it's something like fish where there's a finite number of them, and so you have to have something like a, you know, a quota so that people don't overfish. But, you know, we don't have a capital number have coffee shops. We don't have a cap on the number of grocery stores. And this is a little bit different because there are negative externalities associated with gambling, but I don't see why we shouldn't let them compete with each other.

Very good. We'll go now to invited testimony. Here with us is Jennifer Anderson. Ms. Anderson, thank you so much for joining us today. Welcome to Senate Labor and Commerce.

Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please.

Thank you, Chairman Bjorkman, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Anderson. I'm the Director of State Government Affairs for FanDuel, and I will now share my screen.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and thank you to Senator Cronk for sponsoring this important piece of legislation. My name is Jennifer— well, I've already said that, but my name is Jennifer Anderson. I am a former regulator, and now I am the Director of State Government Affairs at FanDuel. FanDuel was founded in 2009 and has since grown to serve millions of customers across the U.S. We currently offer daily fantasy sports in Alaska, and I'm testifying in support of SB 194, which would legalize online sports betting. We take our responsibility as a legal sports betting operator very seriously and hope we can provide this information to you all so you can make this important policy decision.

I should also mention that FanDuel is a member of the Sports Betting Alliance, which is a national advocacy group comprised of the 5, 5 of the biggest online sports betting operators in the country, all of whom are dedicated to legal, regulated online sports betting, including promoting state-of-the-art responsible gaming tools. The Sports Betting Alliance and its member companies also support this legislation.

Online sports betting is already legal in the majority of U.S. states, and the regulatory model is well established. Legalization does not create new demand but instead provides a safe environment for activity that is already occurring, creating new customer— consumer protections that are not available in the illegal market while also giving the state the opportunity to create a new tax revenue stream. Last year, the Department of Revenue estimated that the tax revenue from online sports betting could be as high as $18 million annually for Alaska. The current fiscal note for SB 194 puts this— put states— has stated that it could be as high as $17 million annually with a median of somewhere around $12 million. As such, online sports betting presents a significant opportunity to diversify the state's tax revenue base.

Since tax funds cannot be earmarked in legislation, this revenue would accrue to the general fund and would be available to fund essential services and programs for Alaskans.

40 States and territories in the U.S. have legalized some form of sports betting to date. In 2025 alone, legal sports betting drove $3.2 billion in state tax revenue in those states. In states without regulated online sports betting, illegal offshore sports betting platforms attract millions of Americans and account for hundreds of billions of dollars in annual wagering, yet they operate without consumer protections, responsible gaming tools, or regulatory oversight, and contribute no tax revenue to those states. Those operators often— these operators, the illegal operators, often target vulnerable populations and create the appearance of legitimacy through aggressive marketing, often targeting minors, and they offer little to no recourse when consumers are harmed. By contrast, regulated legal operators provide transparency, accountability, and safeguards such as identity verification, anti-money laundering controls, and responsible gaming resources.

Maintaining a clear distinction between legal and illegal markets is critical as legalization converts existing demand into safe, monitored environments, reducing illegal activity and generating meaningful tax revenue for states.

I'm going to play this short 30-second video, which is one video that we use to remind our own players and educate players on why they should be using safe regulated platforms. When you bet on regulated platforms, you are in control. You get built-in tools that help you set healthy limits, stay on track, and enjoy the game your way. You're supported, protected, and play in an environment designed for you.

So choose a platform that puts your experience first. Play safe. Play regulated.

The reality is that without a regulated online sports betting market those who want to bet on sports turn to illegal options. Illegal sites are based outside of the U.S. and are often mistaken by the average consumer as a legitimate option for sports wagering. But make no mistake, they offer zero consumer protections and these sites do not pay taxes. In fact, any one of us can find these illegal sites on our phones right now via Google or any other search engine. And many of you may already know people who bet on sports this way in Alaska.

And they may not even realize that they are betting on an illegal platform as these sites often appear legitimate.

An estimated $139 million in illegal wagers are placed in Alaska every year. If a customer wins a wager on an illegal site, there is no way of ensuring that a winning wager will be paid out. Additionally, there is nowhere to report unpaid winnings as a crime, so fraud often goes unprosecuted. These illegal sites fail to provide safeguards for consumers, do not implement responsible gaming tools, and do not provide underage users— do not prevent underage users from gaining access to their platforms.

In fact, these platforms are often targeting underage players, which is the next video that I'm going to show. It sort of demonstrates that. The legal regulated market is all about keeping gaming secure. Safe, secure, and enjoyable for consumers. But that's not true for unregulated and unauthorized sites like Chumba, Stake.us, and Bovada.

These unregulated operators claim to exploit loopholes and flout the transparency and responsible gaming rules that legal operators embrace. Many unregulated operators allow users to bet without official age verification while spending big on unregulated advertising aimed at teens.

So unlike illegal sites, responsible gaming is a core business priority among regulated operators and foundational to the long-term sustainability of the industry and the regulated market. Another protection that the regulated market offers consumers is responsible gaming tools. Our goal is to support all customers by prompting awareness empowering informed decisions, and providing tools to manage play. Responsible gaming tools allow the customer to set time limits, wager limits, and deposit limits on their wagering in order to remain in control, and they're considered a best practice. FanDuel also maintains a robust platform-wide self-exclusion program, which allows customers to exclude themselves from play for an amount of time or indefinitely.

And it connects customers with support who need support, additional support to resources like telehealth to analyze and diagnose them if they potentially need help with a problem. These efforts are supported by proactive monitoring, behavioral analytics, and trained teams that intervene when risk is identified. Responsible gaming is a core business priority with significant annual investment and a strategy focused on supporting customers fostering a culture of responsibility, and advancing industry standards. Regulated operators also offer robust know-your-customer verification, identity verification, to verify both age and identity during the sign-up process. These are the same tools that are used by the financial industry and make sure that people are who they say they are and are of the appropriate age to be on our sites gambling.

There are a lot of myths and misinformation about legal sports betting. The reality is that online sports betting already exists in Alaska. It's just an illegal, untaxed market that doesn't offer the protections that Alaskans deserve. When it comes to the regulated market, the vast majority of bettors are casual bettors wagering less on sports betting each month, month than they often spend on coffee over the course of a week at Starbucks. However, for the small percentage of people who struggle with a problem, legal operators often identify them and provide them and connect them with resources.

This bill would help connect those who are experiencing a problem with gambling to resources such as the National Hotline or telehealth services. This bill could also pave the way for the creation of a local chapter of the National Council on Problem Gambling, which does not currently exist in Alaska. FanDuel also invests in education and prevention of underage gambling by partnering with well-known ambassadors to educate parents, coaches, mentors, and others about the risks and warning signs of underage gambling. Without a legal and regulated framework, consumers who want to bet on sports will continue to engage with the unregulated, unregulated operators that provide none of the protections discussed today.

Lastly, I do want to touch on charitable gaming because I know that the charitable gaming is currently legal in Alaska and provides very important revenue to nonprofits across the state. In terms of cannibalization between— of online sports betting to the charitable gaming sector, that has not been shown to be the case in other states, and mainly that is because we have a very distinct and separate demographic of players. So, there really has not been shown to be any cannibalization between charitable gaming bringing players over or it harming charitable gaming revenue at all. And in fact, in a few states, Virginia and New Jersey, it's actually been shown that they can both— they both have had— both have thrived since the legalization of online sports betting side by side. So that's generally what we have seen in other states.

That is the end of my presentation. I am happy to stand for any questions the committee may have, and I appreciate the time that you're giving me on this Friday afternoon. Thank you very much, Ms. Anderson. Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing, hearing no further questions, is there any committee discussion? Senator Cronk, do you have any closing remarks? Thank you, Chair Bergman. Just thank you, the committee, for the time to hear this bill. We think it could be a very useful bill in Alaska to recover those taxes that we're not getting and legalizing it for the people that want to do it.

I actually personally have a lot of friends that actually reached out about this, and they have to, you know, they're going to do it legal. They fly down to Vegas or somewhere where they can do it. And there's no reason that we're not going to garner some of that tax money to be able to help our people in our own state with it. So thank you for taking the time to hear the bill. Very good.

Thank you, Senator Cronk. This time we'll take a brief at ease while we set up for the next bill. Brief at ease.

We're back on the record. It's 2:22 PM now here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Last item on our agenda today is Senate Bill 207. This is our third hearing on this bill. Members have a draft proposed committee substitute in their packet for consideration by the committee today.

May I have a motion, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move committee substitute for Senate Bill 207, version 34, lima sierra 1266 backslash Oscar as the working document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Object for purposes of explanation. Mr. Matt Churchill has joined us at the table to present the changes proposed in the new committee substitute.

Mr. Churchill. Thank you, Chair Bjorkman. For the record, Matt Churchill, and I am staff to Senator Bjorkman. Thank you again, Labor and Commerce Committee, for hearing this bill. I'm going to go through the explanation of changes.

They are all located within Section 1 of version T. So going from version T to version O, at page 1, line 14, and again at page 2, line 25, following the word unit, insert, and inform the occupant that a peace officer will immediately remove the occupant from the dwelling if the occupant does not leave. Next, at page 3, line 29, following the word owner, and this is incorporating Amendment T1 the committee discussed Wednesday.

Insert a notice of the right of the occupant to bring an action under what is now subsection K of version 0 of this section if wrongfully removed from the dwelling unit. That was the former subsection G of version T. I'm sorry, Mr. Churchill, could you tell us in the bill where we inserted that page and line number again? I apologize, it's page 3, line 29. And following the word owner of Section T— pardon me, of Version T. In Version O, that would be— apologize, Chair Bjorkman.

That would be at page 4.

And line 4.

Very good.

Thank you. Please continue.

Next change is page 3, line 29, following the word owner and continuing through page 4, line 2, incorporating Amendment T4. As conceptually amended by Amendment Number 1, Conceptual Amendment Number 1, with following sections renumbered and lettered accordingly.

Would remove the language from Version T that would allow posting of service on the front door of the dwelling unit and insert in place of that A peace officer serving notice as required under D of this section shall attempt to hand-deliver notice to the occupant at the dwelling unit. If the peace officer is able to speak with the occupant when service is attempted, the peace officer shall attempt to verify the following information before hand-delivering the notice: 1, the occupant entered the dwelling unit when the dwelling unit was not open to the public and when the occupant was not otherwise privileged to do so; 2, the occupant does not have and has not had a rental agreement entitling the occupant to occupy a dwelling unit located on the property. 3, The occupant is not an immediate family member of the property owner. And 4, no litigation related to the property is pending between the property owner and the occupant. In the next subsection, F, if hand-delivered service of the notice is accomplished, the peace officer shall attempt to verify the identity of the occupant and note the identity on the return of service.

Finally, subsection G would be if the peace officer is unable to hand-deliver Pardon me, hand-deliver notice under Section E of this— Subsection E of this section, the peace officer may serve notice by posting the notice on the front door of the entrance of the dwelling unit. The final change is located page 4, line 7 of Section T, and this would incorporate Amendments T5, 6, and 7 as conceptually amended by extending this assistance to all occupants, which would of course include children under 16, pregnant women, or anyone during the dead of winter in Alaska. And it would insert subsection I, a peace officer shall attempt to assist the occupant in finding another place to stay or provide information to the occupant on available shelters. That concludes the changes. Very good.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Mr. Churchill or the bill sponsor?

I just have a couple of comments. Um, I've had some additional conversations with other members of our body here about the, the workings of this bill and the mechanics of how it would work. And it was pointed out that there might be some, some issue and a concern about a property owner themselves having to hand-deliver notice and kind of the trickiness around what that might be. And we considered a little bit, and I think it's important to note here about kind of the narrow scope and slot that this bill fits into as it seeks to fill a gap between criminal trespass in which law enforcement would come immediately to remove someone from a property because they are engaged in criminal activity in the property. Or there's a closer question about whether or not that person has or has had a rental agreement to be there or permission to be there.

So I think, I think really an important part of the bill is that law enforcement officer is serving notice and that we're not putting probably property owners in that position to have to do that in order to effectuate law enforcement removal. So the current version of the bill needs some additional consideration, so we're going to hold it and keep working on it, I think. But I appreciate you all and your input into this and trying to understand more about the mechanics of how this would work and kind of what, what we, we would or should be able to do. So I appreciate all of your efforts and conversations about this for sure. Let's see.

If it's— oh, go ahead. Mr. Chair, then I'm trying to think where we're at. There was a motion to adopt the CS. Is your intent not to adopt the CS?

I was just about to propose what to do next. Okay. [Speaker:MR. BOLL] So, we've made progress with this committee substitute that's before us, incorporating many of the amendments that were made at our last committee hearing on the bill. We could use this committee substitute as a point to move further to settle the notice and timing question, if you desire, or we can go back to a previous version of the bill and work from there. It's up to the will of the committee about what you would like to do.

I think we've made significant improvement to the bill in clarifying what it is we would like to see happen from a law enforcement's point of view in communicating what an occupant's kind of rights and entitlements are in this CS. Also, we have incorporated the communication between the law enforcement officer and the occupant about there being additional resources and services available to them. So if it's the will of the committee, we can adopt the CS and then settle the discussion about notice and timing from the CS.

Is there any objection to that?

No. Okay, with that, I'll remove my objection. Any further objection? Hearing and seeing none, committee substitute for this item, version 34-LS1266/o, is before the committee as a working document. At this time, we will set Senate Senate Bill 207 aside for further consideration at a future meeting.

The Senate Labor and Commerce Committee will meet again on Monday, May 11th, and we will take up the following items: House Bill 25, disposable food serviceware; House Bill 211, insurance prepaid legal plans; House Bill 244, CNA training; and likely again Senate Bill 207, property possession and property crimes. As there is no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned at 2:32 PM.