Alaska Legislature: Senate State Affairs, 4/28/26, 3:30pm

I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting to order. It is Tuesday, April 28th. The time now is 3:32 PM. We're in the Belts Committee Room in Juneau, Alaska. Uh, we have with us present today Vice Chair Senator Bjorkman, Senator Tilton.

I expect to see Senator Wilkowski and Senator Gray Jackson a little bit after their meeting. Myself, Chair Kawasaki. We do have a quorum to conduct business. I'd like to thank Carrie Tapoe with Senate Records and Jude Augustine, moderator with Legislative Information Office. Today we have a couple items.

We have first on the agenda, first hearing for House Bill 278, Economic Development Alaska-Ireland Trade Commission. It's sponsored by Representative Costello. We have a first hearing on House Bill 25, Disposable Food Service Ware, by Representative Josephson. Finally, we have a first hearing on House Bill 13, Municipal Property Tax Exemptions, by Representative Gray. Uh, before we go forward, I did want to let folks know that we do have a committee substitute for Senate Bill 243.

Um, Senate Bill 243 was a bill that was introduced and we heard about one month ago regarding prohibited weapons and a repealer for suppressors. There's a State Affairs Committee version of the bill. It's the end version of the bill, and we will hear this bill on Saturday is when it's been next scheduled. But this will be uploaded to the, uh, to the Drive, so you will be able to find it online at the close of business today. With that said, we will go ahead first to House Bill 278.

Its short title: Economic Development Alaska-Ireland Trade Commission. We have Representative.

Mia Costello and her staff, Jack Thompson, here to present the resolution. We also have folks, friendly folks from the Senate of Ireland, Mark Daly, who will be speaking with us shortly. Representative. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm Representative Mia Costello, District 15 in Anchorage, and I'm here to present House Bill 278. A lot of the impetus for this bill had to do with our relationship with Ireland, and specifically with Senator Mark Daly, who encouraged the legislature to create a Friends of Ireland Caucus, which we've had for a while. And then we recently had him visit Juneau, and he encouraged me to introduce legislation that would create and put in statute the Alaska-Ireland Trade Commission. It would advance bilateral trade and investment between the state of Alaska and Ireland, and we believe that Ireland is a natural partner for Alaska. We have friendly people who live here and in the country of Ireland.

We have a lot of innovation that's here in Alaska and in Ireland, and really there's so many ties between Ireland and Alaska that we believe that Having this commission will foster those types of relationships and just result in a lot of good partnership between the two— our two— our country and Alaska. So we have seen 25 states across the country create trade commissions within their states, and Alaska is hoping to become another one of those. There are 20 other states that have bills that they are considering in their legislatures. And with that, I have my aide Jack Thompson here. If you would like him to go through the section, I'll—.

That would be wonderful. Mr. Thompson, thanks for being here. Thank you. For the record, Jack Thompson, staff to Representative Costello. Section 1 establishes the Alaska Island Trade Commission within the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development as a state commission.

States the overall purpose to promote, develop, and expand economic, educational, and cultural relations between Alaska and Ireland. Specifies that the commission consists of 5 members appointed by the governor, with members serving at the pleasure of the governor for staggered 3-year terms. Requires the commission to elect a chair from among its members and allows it to meet as necessary, subject to public notice and Alaska's open meetings requirements. Authorizes the department to accept and spend gifts, donations, and grants from public and private sources on behalf of the Commission to carry out its work, thereby limiting reliance on general fund appropriations, requires the Commission to submit a written report of its activities, findings, and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature by the 30th day of each legislative session. Section 2 specifies how the first appointed Commission members' terms will be staggered with one member serving a 1-year term.

2 Members serving 2-year terms and 2 members serving full 3-year terms. And Section 3 sets an immediate effective date. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Are there questions? I'd like to note that Senator Chris Jackson has just joined us.

I guess I'll start with a question, if you know the answer. Are there any other— are there any other trade commissions in— with other countries?

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [Speaker:MS. SCHMIDT] Mr. Chair, I am not aware of any. However, perhaps the Department of Commerce can answer that question. I think this is a unique opportunity, and it's the first that I'm aware of. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER MILLER] Thank you.

Because I know that we do have trade representatives, or we used to have trade representatives in Taiwan, Japan, and China. I don't know if we still do or not. Um, but I agree, I don't think there are commissions in any other— of any other country. Okay. Uh, we will now open it up to invited testimony.

We have one person to testify today, and that's Senator Daly. Senator Mark Daly has served in the Senate of Ireland since 2007 and is currently the chair of the Senate, having been reelected unopposed as the 26th chair. In 2025. A member of the Fianna Fáil party and the first senator from the county Kerry to hold this office, he has led work on Ireland's constitutional future and has collaborated extensively with the American elected officials as chair of the American Irish State Legislators Caucus. And I have a certificate too, uh, to advance the stronger economic and cultural links between Ireland and the United States.

We welcome you, Senator, to the Senate State Affairs Committee, and thank you. We loved having you earlier this year.

Chairman, I'm only regretting that I'm not able to do this in person because after we finish, I could go down to the Lucky Lady Irish Pub and maybe have a pint of Guinness or two after the testimony. But I just want to thank you and all the members of the committee. For hearing this bill. And I suppose this really is about the idea that was developed by the New Jersey American Irish State Legislators Caucus, who drafted the Trade Commission legislation for New Jersey when they went to Northern Ireland. And we still have challenges in Northern Ireland when it comes to the peace process, but the idea around this is that Ireland is the gateway to the European Union a market of 450 million people in 27 countries.

And since Britain has left the European Union, we are now the largest English-speaking country in the European Union, and we can be the voice for Alaska when it comes to issues that are going to be brought forward, or policy or legislation coming out of the European Union that would affect Alaska. And as you know, it's as important to kill a bad bill as pass a good one, and With that, we have established in our Senate, and we are the only country in the European Union that has done this, where we have established a committee, and its role is to look at that legislation coming out of Europe and work with states like yourself and through the, the Trade Commission to make sure that Alaska's voice is at that table when decisions are being made. So Ireland will be at the cabinet table with cabinet members from all around the European Union on issues down the road that could affect Alaska, and we'll be the ones who'll be highlighting those issues and making sure we work with you on those issues. In fact, Mia Caslow, she put me in touch as a result of the work that we're doing around establishing those links and hopefully furthering them with the Commission about a company looking to build and create a fiber optic broadband all the way from Japan to Alaska to Galway in Ireland. And we think that is very symbolic of the links that we can create and create further links.

Through the establishment of this Commission. And Mia was correct when we testified a number of weeks ago before the House Committee, we had 25 states, we now have 28 states, and we have more, as Mia pointed out, in the pipeline. Recently we have Nebraska, Iowa, and Mississippi, and Florida following shortly because they all see that opportunity of Ireland being a voice for Alaska and other states within a market of 450 million people. And this is not just, you know, a trade commission with Ireland, it's essentially a trade commission with the European Union, but Ireland as your, your, your voice in that, and a friendly voice. But also, this is an all-Ireland commission, so it includes Northern Ireland, which currently is in the United Kingdom.

And because of Brexit, Northern Ireland has this unique status within the European Union where you can access the European market and the UK market from Northern Ireland. So with this commission, companies who want to access from Alaska, who want to access that market, can do it through the island of Ireland, which is not possible in any other European country. We still have challenges in Northern Ireland. Um, in last Sunday, there was an attempt by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland to kill police officers by setting off a bomb. Two weeks previously, they kidnapped a delivery driver.

And made them drive into a police station. Fortunately, the bomb didn't go off. So even though Northern Ireland is no longer in the news, there are still challenges. But there is about 10,000 to 15,000 paramilitaries still there. So that's why we still need the assistance of U.S. states in ensuring the ongoing success of the peace process.

And I say success despite those two incidences in terms of creating these education and economic links. We're able to make sure that those people and the children of Northern Ireland are brought into those paramilitaries. I say this with all seriousness and, and thank— and thanks and gratitude. There are people alive in the United States, in Ireland today, and particularly in Northern Ireland, because the United States got involved in our peace process 28 years ago, but more importantly stayed involved in the peace process, and this is part of that involvement. And what we do as well is we invite the Trade Commissioners appointed from all the states to come to Ireland every August.

So if only one or two trade commissioners can come, we have a whole program of events. We bring them to Northern Ireland, but we also importantly meet, uh, the.

Will meet with Irish companies looking to create opportunities and create jobs across the US. Ireland, despite our size of little over 6 million people, and 7 million if you include the whole island, is the 5th largest investor in the United States of America, employing nearly 300,000 people, which for a country of our size is quite remarkable, and many people wouldn't be aware of it, but we have 748 Irish companies looking looking for opportunities, and we believe that there are more opportunities outside of the bigger states where places like Alaska, as I saw for myself, you can get things done a lot quicker and get access to the decision makers like yourselves a lot easier. But what we have also done unique to any country is the chairs of our joint House and Senate committees have gone to the State of the State addresses across the US, and this year was the first time we did that, and they went to the 16 states where we had trade commissions established. At the beginning of this year, and as Mia pointed out, we now have 25, and that allows us to bring state agencies. So I'm hoping that, please God, if there's a trade commission established with Alaska, that the chair of our joint House and Senate Committee on Marine would meet with yourselves and meet with what is a huge sector in your economy, the seafood sector, and look at Ireland as a gateway for that valuable commodity.

And such a huge market. But I hear from talking to your, your committee members and talking to people in the industry that there's blockages being caused in your access to the European market. And Ireland can be your voice to make sure that those blockages that currently exist in Alaska fishermen and fisherwomen and those in the seafood sector accessing that market. But what I think it is, is about creating relationships And this structure creates that relationship into the future, and hopefully we'll build on that for many years to come, especially as we mark the 250th anniversary— and I'll finish on this— of American independence, where 7 of the signatories had Irish heritage of the Declaration of Independence. And so while we're glancing back, we're looking forward for the next 250 years of relationships between Ireland and the United States of America, and of course Alaska.

That's fantastic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a question from Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your testimony. So are there any U.S. trade offices currently in Ireland?

I— there are a number of states have trade representatives here. But not trade offices to the same extent as they would have in other locations. But we have visiting delegations coming, including the governor of South Carolina is coming as a result of the trade commission there. We had Massachusetts trade commissioners in this week, along with the New Jersey trade commissioners, and we have Utah coming in the near future. That's really great.

If I can follow up, Mr. Chairman? Follow up? Yeah. I think this is really great to establish a commission. Trade offices would be really great also because Taipei has, I think it's 25 U.S. trade offices there and we are currently— we passed a resolution last year to get Alaska trade office back.

It used to be one in Taipei like many, many years ago. So it's just a thought. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gray Jackson. Are there any further questions?

I would just like to say, Chairman Daley, thank you so much. And I can just say that the 20 other, 25 other states, potentially 28 other states, are really because of you and because we see you a lot. And we just, and because of your sort of lively attitude in meeting folks from all over the states. Of course, we've been to and many NCSLs together, and I just have appreciated your friendship.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to you all coming to Ireland at some stage, if not this August. We have that Ireland summit with all the trade commissioners from all across the U.S., and there's 301 trade commissioners appointed. The 3 states that passed the legislation obviously don't have commissioners appointed, but they include the likes of Dan Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Secretary of Commerce in South Carolina appointed himself as a trade commissioner. The former Congressman Bradley from Alabama was appointed by the governor, and he is the head of Mobile Chamber of Commerce.

And we have the majority leader in Louisiana as a trade commissioner. So there's a whole range of people, and it's— and exchanging great ideas, things like workforce training. So there's an Irish company that graduates 8,500 people per day for free around the world, training on everything from the tech sector to accounting to computers. And that's available to Alaska. And just by this establishing this commission, we'd be able to work with GE on how we can improve the lives of all the people in our own jurisdictions and in our own communities.

And I think that's what it's about, the exchange of ideas and better outcomes for everybody.

Thank you. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. That was Senator Mark Daly. We will return back here to Alaska to see if Representative Costello, did you have any final words before we set House Bill 278 aside? No, just that I'm appreciative of the committee for, for hearing the bill today and appreciative of Senator Mark Daly for making an appearance before us.

Yeah, we heard it's rather late there in Ireland, but the pubs are still open. They are, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you allowing the time for this to be taken a bit early. I thought I was going to have to stay up till half 2 in the morning in Irish time, but if that's what it takes, that'll be no problem. I have enough coffee here to keep me going till next week. Okay, thank you, and it's good to see you again.

We'll go ahead and take a brief at ease to queue up the next meeting. Oh, well, actually, first we'll set House Bill 278 aside, and then we will take a brief at ease.

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting back to order. We are now going to take up a first hearing on House Bill 25. Entitled Disposable Food Serviceware. It's sponsored by Representative Andy Josephson. His staff, Ken Alper, is here also to present the legislation.

Welcome to the Senate State Affairs Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calendaring this so swiftly. I'm Andy Josephson, House District 13. It's the southern half of Senator Gray Jackson's district in Midtown Anchorage.

I am pleased to be before you today I must say that I am being called to the Tri-Chairs at 4:15 for a meeting there, but I will stay with you as long as I can. Mr. Chairman, this bill concept was brought to me— of course, I've independently been aware of our significant worldwide plastics problem that I think is well documented and have been involved in that debate for sure. But this specific idea was brought to me by the Alaska Community Action on Toxins. Its director is Pam Miller. She's just returned from a conference in the Philippines.

She travels all over the world. She's a leader in this field. You may know that there are efforts by scores of countries on every continent to work on mitigating our plastics problem. We have a great affection for the material, and we need to wean ourselves from it. This is just a small sliver.

It's the, the very thin wedge of that. And what it would do is it would prohibit, not immediately, the use of polystyrene in restaurants and restaurant-related businesses in the state of Alaska. The reason polystyrene is the subject is because It is— there are two principal reasons that, that set it aside from other plastics. One is that it can't be recycled. It just cannot be recycled.

Um, at the most, 1% can be recycled. And, and the only, uh, enterprise in the country that allowed that in April of 2024.

Shut its doors. So effectively, it's non-recyclable. The second reason is that it's a known carcinogen. It's been linked to increases in leukemia, lymphoma, damage to white blood cells and lymphocytes. It can harm, according to a Juno oncologist who wrote in support of this bill, reproductive health, disrupt the endocrine function, trigger inflammation and cellular toxicity.

And then there are many reports, and this is on BASIS, I can make sure you have a copy of it, that it is linked to increases in cancer for pancreas, of the pancreas and esophagus, damage to the liver and nervous system. The other thing is, and the focus is on restaurants because it can be, because it doesn't chemically bind its products, its toxins can leach into food products, especially when those products are in a container that has been heated, or interestingly, that contains a milk product as well. I could give you, Mr. Chairman, lots of superlatives about this sort of problem. Statistics like that— the fact that 80% of American consumers reported receiving plastic food foamware in their takeout containers. It's believed that 22% of all U.S. takeout and food delivery orders include plastic foam.

Just today, this very day, a letter of support came from Oceana. They have an office here, and they note in that letter that scientists estimate that 33 billion pounds of plastics enter the world's oceans every year, and polystyrene foam contributes to the 170 million— or rather, 170 trillion microplastic particles floating in our oceans. So that's why we focused on this. I mentioned that it's not recyclable, it's not microwavable, It's also a friable product that breaks down and cannot be collected off beaches and other places because you just can't pick it up. Um, I've just a few other, uh, sources of concern, if you're not alarmed yet.

Um, uh, the, um, well, well, I've talked about the sources of concern. One question members may have is, does it work? And the it is reducing its use? And the answer is yes. So again, from an Oceans magazine, Charleston, South Carolina saw a 20% reduction in its beaches when polystyrene was banned at restaurants.

In the Baltimore Inner Harbor, Chesapeake Bay, they saw an 80% reduction in foam pollution collected by trash interceptors. There were similar very positive reductions in the Anacostia River in D.C. 50% in year 1, and by year 5, 88% reduction. There are similar statistics like that around the country.

The— I wanted to comment on some of the criticisms as well, just to be sort of preemptive about that. In the original draft that went to Labor and Commerce last year, the bill was written in such a way, frankly, truly inadvertent way, to require that all food containers statewide be compostable or biodegradable. Well, that's a step more, more ambitious than I intended to be. So this was brought to our attention by the American Chemistry Council. We rolled that back.

That's no longer a requirement. And in fact, the bill was written in such a way that, frankly, you couldn't use any plastic containers if you eat half your hamburger you better just leave the other half there. No, that is not what we intended. You can still use myriad other plastic alternatives, and there are many. There are many, like a product called bagasse, if I'm saying it right, a bamboo and bamboo leaf, foil, paper, polypropylene, starch.

So there are many products, and there was a lot of testimony on the House floor about their affordability, and I provided a couple documents that suggest they are affordable. That depending on whether you've got a bowl or a plate, etc., that they can be as little as 3 cents more per unit. So we, you know, this was a hot debate on the House floor. There were 11 amendments. 2 Were adopted, 3 really, including the effective date, were adopted.

The bill enjoyed bipartisan support. And one of the reasons I think it enjoyed bipartisan support from some of the Matsu Valley Coalition was that I noted that the Mid-Valley Recycling Group and the Big Lake Recycling Center supported this. Admittedly, that should come as no surprise. A Valley Community for Recycling Solutions supported it, as did the Matsu Zero Waste Coalition. And we've seen also that communities like Whittier, Gustavus, Bethel, Seward, and Cordova have stepped up and supported this.

So those are the main things I wanted to highlight. You know, another issue that arose in, um, second reading, uh, during the debate phase was how this would be enforced. And fundamentally, it would be enforced through the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, like everything else is enforced through DEC. So if you're a municipality, you probably are subject to municipal laws on the cleanliness of your restaurant or your food truck. Similarly, if you're not in a municipality and you don't— or you don't have health powers, the state might come around once a year in the same way that it would inspect to make sure you're not selling products that have expired.

They would look in the cabinets quickly and say, yep, no Styrofoam, you're good to go. If there was Styrofoam in the first pass, there would be a warning. In the second pass, there would be a $200 fine. So there's, there's a table in the regulations, and it would mirror that in the same fashion that any other food penalty would be, would be met. So we were happy that we enjoyed some bipartisan support.

We think this is a sort of historic bill. There's not a lot of directly environmental legislation that's passed in this building. We'd ask for your support, and I'm here to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Representative Josephson.

Senator Gray Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Josephson, for bringing this forward and also your efforts when it comes to issues dealing with the environment. Yes, I am alarmed. And I— but my question is, you mentioned that you can't pick it up on beaches.

I'm trying to understand that. Through the chair, Senator Grey Jackson, you certainly can pick it up unless it's just broken down into microplastics. You know, and the term microplastics, there's also a term called nanoplastics. Some of them are sort of not— can't be seen by the naked eye. Others are clearly the size of a marble or smaller.

But that's really what I'm talking about is that the material is friable. Breaks down and it's not like picking up. Once it's out there for a while, it's going to break down. That's the problem. I get it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks. Are there further questions? I do have a question about this transition language regarding the— I think it looks like Section 2 of the bill under transition is so that restaurants who have a large volume of polystyrene foam products would be able to utilize them until essentially the effective date.

Or I guess they can use the entire supply. Is that correct? To the Chair, that is correct. So they could purchase polystyrene on December 31st of this year. And I guess they could— I don't mean to sound cynical, but they could, quote, play the bill a little bit, close quote, and buy years of supply.

But basically, they would be allowed to move through their stocks Correct. As long as they purchase them by December 31st.

Great. And that— okay, great. Thank you. Are there any other questions of the sponsor of the bill before we go on to the sectional presentation?

Yep. Senator Tilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Justesen, I know this isn't the Finance Committee, but you just had mentioned that the enforcement would be through DEC. And I noticed there's a zero fiscal note on that. And so, and it says that they would be able to pick this up in their regular day-to-day duties.

This is something they already are looking for, right? And so they're already going to restaurants and seeing what kind of containers and things they're using, or I'm just thinking that you're not thinking they're, they're not thinking, and you're not saying there would be any, um, any it wouldn't cause any more work. Through the chair, Senator Tilton, I think that's correct. I think that this is, you know, for example, if this room were a restaurant, we could look around quickly and we'd go to that spot behind you and see that there's no Styrofoam in a matter of seconds, and we would move on. So I think that, that, that they just don't view this as being terribly burdensome.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? I guess one last question has to do with just the supply chain generally. So there's restaurant supply stores, things like that.

I mean, even Costco, I think, probably maybe carries styrofoam or polystyrene products. I don't know.

For sure, I don't buy them. But, um, would, uh, I guess knowing that this bill isn't in effect until 2027, it would allow for businesses that do sell products to sort of change over their own inventory and stock? To the chair, that would be correct. And, and, um, nothing in this bill would prohibit Costco from selling to you and me for our, uh, big semi-quincentennial barbecues, for example. Um, we could still do that.

The bill changes on the floor. There was a change from Representative Schwanke of that vast, vast interior district. She noted that as a hunter and fisherwoman who's outdoors a lot, she's tired of seeing Styrofoam coolers. Now, they had been exempted, but that exemption was removed. So under this bill, you'd need to get your Styrofoam cooler by December 31st, as I understand it.

And then there was also an expansion of the definition of restaurant, page 2, line 25, by new Representative Garrett Nelson, who expanded that definition rather considerably but didn't include, by my reading, things like Costco.

Okay. Any further questions for sponsor of the bill before he goes off to his meeting?

Okay. I'm going to hang around for a few minutes. Thank you, Senator— Representative Josephson. If you'd like to present, you have a presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, my name is Ken Alper, staff to Representative Josephson. I'm happy to be here. Representative Josephson did an excellent job explaining everything that the bill does. The slides before us, if I can make this to work— there we go. A little bit more information of some fun pictures.

What is the bill before you? Do House Bill 25— we're banning disposable polystyrene packaging by restaurants and food service operations. And as Representative Josephson said, the definition has been expanded a little as to what a food service operation means. The state would also be banned. Foam packaging is used in the corrections system, I think, to a degree, as well as in the Marine Highway and probably a few other places.

So the state would be expected to comply with this law as well in state food corporations. The exceptions in the bill does not apply to packaged food coming in from out of state that's hard to control, nor to reusable products. If you can show a hardship— and the definition of hardship was tweaked a bit in the House Labor and Commerce— you can apply to the Department of Environmental Conservation for, for an exception of some sort. And the bill would not take effect until next January. The bill, when it was introduced last session, it had a 2026 effective date, but that got moved forward before it passed the House.

So polystyrene is a, is a chemical term. It's a plastic, a synthetic hydrocarbon polymer.

The word Styrofoam, as we generally understand it, really isn't what we're talking about. Styrofoam is a, is an extruded product. It's more rigid product that you see in construction materials, floats, surfboards, that sort of thing. It tends to be more longer lasting and it's not used in disposable operations. That is not impacted by House Bill 25.

We're not looking to to expand or change that. It's the so-called expanded polystyrene foam. That's a lighter weight product, very strong insulation value, not quite as water resistant, but— and it's used in these cheap packaging materials, Kraft Coolers and so on. That is what the target of this legislation is. You've all seen these kind of packages all through our lives.

That's the kind of stuff we're hoping to remove from the system here in Alaska, food packaging. Styrofoam cups, that sort of thing, polystyrene cups. The problems, as the sponsor said, we have the simple health hazard. It's not good for you. There's exposure to this chemical is just not healthy.

It's got carcinogens in it, benzene styrene. Environmentally, once it's out in the environment, it's shiny and white. Animals will eat it. That's not good for their digestion. It's also used in nests, which and maybe that helps them as insulation, I don't know, but it doesn't seem like a good idea.

It does not break down, and as you could see the pictures in that, there in the upper right, it gets into smaller pieces and smaller pieces, and the smaller it gets, the harder it is to pick it up, and it sticks around forever. Plastics, you'll notice, have numbers on the bottom for the recycling system. Polystyrene is type 6, and it is very rarely, if ever, recyclable. So the, the foodware waste— now we're dealing with national numbers, uh, groups that are advocating to try to get this out of the system. But the Ocean Conservancy tells us that there are 5.6 billion pieces of plastic foam used in this country every year.

The Coastal Cleanup Volunteers, uh, beach cleanup people, picked up 8.7 million pieces. This— when they keep score, this is item number 7. And, uh, because we were asked in an earlier committee and I looked it up, 1 and 2 are cigarette butts and plastic beverage bottles. Phone containers are 7. Uh, 22%— these were statistics cited by Representative Josephson— of U.S. delivery orders currently use that, hoping to make that smaller by some small amount here in Alaska.

And 80% of Americans have received plastic foam in their own orders just in the last 2 weeks. A 2-point— and this last one, Mr. Chairman, is actually more important than it looks at the face of it. All this foam gets put into the recycling system because people either think it's recyclable or they wish it were recyclable. And, you know, I've the term in the industry, aspirational recycling. If you put it into your recycling bin, it's not just that it's not recyclable, you can contaminate the whole bin and all of a sudden cause problems at the recycling center where it might sort of disqualify a whole pile of plastic that might otherwise be recyclable because it's mixed in with this broken piece of polystyrene.

So not having it around so people don't even try to recycle it is actually good for the for the system. So global trends away from this, these are all McDonald's containers. Mr. Huntsman apparently invented that back in 1974, sold his design and became a very wealthy man from the plastics business. I enjoy drawing members' attention to the package in the middle. If you remember the McD.L.T., that was a sandwich that was sold in the 1980s and the idea here was you would keep the warm burger and melted cheese on the one side and the cool lettuce and tomato on the other side.

Side so it wouldn't get soggy. And so for that convenience, you would get twice as much polystyrene in your meal. Uh, McDonald's phased that one out after a few years and then soon phased out all of their styrene containers, with their last one out of service in 2018. Uh, 69 countries as of when I made this slide, which to be honest was last year, there might be a couple more, have banned polystyrene. But Mr. Chairman and With deference to Representative Costello and the last speaker, you'll notice that Ireland is on this map in, of course, green, showing that they have banned polystyrene food service in that country as well.

And then closer to home in the United States, we have 10 states plus the District of Columbia and Samoa that have banned polystyrene. And another 12 states have what we call a partial or a local ban. You'll notice that Alaska is one of those because of municipal bans on this, material in several communities including Bethel, Cordova, and Seward around Alaska.

Public sentiment: many Americans are concerned about this. Three-quarters of Americans concerned about litter. 70% Would support a national ban. I don't have the poll in front of me, but I saw it, I read it a couple different places, so I believe it. The Maryland statistic was fascinating to me.

Once they banned these materials, the beach cleanup people found a dramatic reduction of what they were picking up off the beach. So it does have an immediate visible change in the ecosystem once you start taking these things out of restaurants. There has been congressional action. I don't believe in the current Congress, but a couple of years ago there was a bill that made it partway, and I imagine there will be future national efforts to ban polystyrene in food, obviously. And that's all we got, Mr. Chairman.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for the presentation, Mr. Alper. Are there questions?

Senator Vice Chair Bjorkman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Alpert, do you know when the last time McDonald's served their big breakfast? Through the Chair to Senator Bjorkman, I honestly do not, and I hope you're not about to tell me that they're still using foam containers for them. Oh, no.

It's just really— that was really good. Oh. I liked it. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I believe, 20 years working here, I have never been in the Senate State Affairs Committee and I'm really happy to be here today.

That's— wow, very cool. Well, we'll give you a rough time then. I actually, I don't really have any other questions. I did want to say that there are a lot of materials that are in the packet, so folks who are online or listening or would like to read these, a lot of the scientific data is here. We appreciate the information that was provided by the sponsor of the bill.

Any other questions before we move on to some testimony? We do have several folks who are online, uh, to provide some professional testimony. Okay, hearing and seeing none, thank you, Mr. Alper. Let's see, we're going to go to TEAMS first, where we have Pam Miller. Pam is the executive director for the Alaska Community.

Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Hi, Pam.

Hello, good afternoon, and thank you, Chair Kawasaki, Vice Chair Borkman, and members of the committee for holding this hearing today on House Bill 25. My name is Pamela Miller, and I serve as executive director and senior scientist with Alaska Community Action on Toxics. We're a public interest, science-based environmental health research and advocacy organization, and we offer our sincere thanks to Representative Josephson for his leadership in sponsoring House Bill 25, the co-sponsors, and also the House for its passage last week. We strongly support HB 25 because it is an effective measure to protect public health and reduce plastic pollution of our lands and waters. We offer several lines of reasoning and scientific evidence to substantiate our support.

First, adverse health effects. The strongest evidence from our perspective is that polystyrene is a hazardous material. It should not be used in food and beverage containers because exposures are linked with adverse health effects in humans as well as in animals. Polystyrene is a plastic polymer made up of the chemical monomer styrene Styrene is classified as a human carcinogen. Exposure increases the risks for several types of cancers, including leukemia and lymphoma, as well as genetic damage to the white blood cells, or lymphocytes.

There is also evidence for increased risk of cancer of the pancreas and esophagus. Studies found that styrene exposure is associated with development of lung tumors, damage to the liver, and harm to the nervous system. Including impairment of vision and hearing, problems with memory, concentration, balance, and slowed reaction time. Secondly, people are exposed to harmful chemicals through the use of polystyrene food and beverage containers. Styrene and other harmful chemicals can leach out of the food and beverage containers into the food or liquids, especially when the food or liquids are hot, acidic, or high in fat.

As recounted earlier, plastics such as polystyrene are highly persistent in the environment and do not degrade. Polystyrene is harmful as an environmental pollutant. Once in the environment, polystyrene breaks into small particles known as micro or nano plastics. It is lightweight, which makes it susceptible to be transported long distances and into our streams, rivers, and oceans. In landfills, the polystyrene continues to release toxic styrene and other chemicals that can contaminate drinking water.

This is especially problematic in rural Alaska, where landfills cannot contain these plastics, and they are often burned without any controls on toxic emissions. In freshwater and marine environments, polystyrene microplastics are ingested by marine fish and wildlife because they mistake it for food. These animals can then absorb toxic chemicals also from these microplastics and may suffer harmful effects. Fragmented polystyrene cannot be recovered from the environment and will persist for centuries. And also, as was discussed earlier, polystyrene cannot be recycled.

It is a polymer comprised of styrene and many other chemical additives that make it undesirable as a recycled material. The chemical and plastics industry has attempted to promote chemical recycling as a technology to convert plastics to fuel. This process is highly polluting, inefficient, and requires massive energy and use of solvents.

The business case for phasing out of polystyrene, I think, is very strong, and perhaps the best evidence to demonstrate that alternatives are affordable is the fact that 12 states and 250 municipalities in the U.S. that serve over 30% of all Americans have passed similar laws. As noted, Bethel, Cordova, and Seward in Alaska— businesses are recognizing the economic benefits of transitioning away from polystyrene. Food establishments have been substituting polystyrene polyethylene for decades now. McDonald's stopped using polystyrene food packaging in about 1990. More businesses have, have made and are making the transition to alternative materials in response to their customers who are concerned about the negative health and environmental consequences of polystyrene.

Businesses are afforded a competitive advantage to make the change because it enhances revenues that come from a growing customer base of people who want safer alternatives. Consumers are increasingly demanding biodegradable and/or compostable serviceware. Some businesses in Alaska are seeing up to a 15% increase in repeat customers after making the transition, reporting higher customer satisfaction and loyalty. And this is data based on a letter of support from Green Alaska Solutions. Costs of compostable serviceware are cost-neutral or cost-positive because of the wide and growing availability of alternatives to polystyrene, bulk purchasing discounts, and higher sales volumes from customers who prefer safer alternatives.

And finally, safer alternatives are widely available. Degradable plant-based fiber food and beverage containers are widely available and affordable, including those made from wood, paper, cardboard, bamboo, bagasse, Makanthus mushrooms, and seaweed. Green Alaska Solutions is a business that supplies plant-based food and beverage containers to many food service providers throughout Alaska and indicate that these establishments have made the switch to such packaging for business reasons. They believe in the benefits the products provide and their customers appreciate it and in some cases demand them. This reflects customer demand for safe products and demonstrates the economic viability of these options.

Reusable options are best when possible, and we appreciate the provision for DEC to adopt regulations that allow a restaurant to provide food in a container brought in by a customer. HB 25 has broad statewide support from businesses, organizations, communities, and individuals throughout Alaska, as evidenced by by the letters of support documented on the legislative website. We urge your support for HB 25 because it is an important step toward addressing the plastics crisis that threatens our oceans and waterways, food sources, and health. Please pass the bill out of committee and ensure its passage during this session by the full Senate. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Great, thank you very much, uh, Ms. Miller. Other questions? I guess I have a question. I know online we were supposed to have Lori Strickler from the City of Bethel, but I'm curious if you know the history about the communities Cordova, Bethel, and Seward and how those came to be in those first-class cities.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I know more about the City of Bethel because we provided some support there, and that That ordinance was passed by the city council unanimously in late 2025 with broad support from the community and engagement with the community. And so there was a lot of, I think, just interest in this because of people seeing a lot of polystyrene trash around the tundra in and around Bethel. And it was something that had a lot of just a lot of community support, and I think that was reflected in the unanimous, uh, resolution and ordinance passed by the city of Bethel, and then the letter of support for this bill. Great, thank you, Ms. Miller.

There are questions.

Uh, thank you very much for your presentation today, and we will be getting back to you later. I did have a question though. We have Let's see, there's nobody else here to testify online at this point, but we do have, uh, Shawndi Perry, the Director of the Division of Environmental Health for DEC, for questions only. And if nobody has a question, I have a question for Ms. Perry.

My question is, um, in relation to Section 1 of the bill, subsection D, regarding the department and adoption of regulations to allow restaurants to prepare food in a clean container provided by the customer? Because I guess I've just been in positions where I've said, can you throw it in this container, and they've refused. And I'm just curious what those regulations might look like. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, this is Sandy Perry, Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Health Director. Mr. Chairman, we would likely bring in some guidance. We wouldn't necessarily develop regulations. We would defer to the statute. We would likely look at other states who have implemented bring your own container options.

And so, yeah, so we wouldn't really.

Adopt regulations, we would just go ahead and do that as guidance. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the Director of DEC or anybody else?

I have no other people online to testify at this point. So I'll bring it back to the sponsor of the bill. If Mr. Alper would like to make a final Closing statement before we set Senate Bill— I'm sorry, House Bill 25 aside. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate you hearing the bill, and I'm glad DEC was paying attention.

And there was an earlier question from committee member— I used to own a restaurant. They come in, they're checking, is your refrigerator cool enough? Is your soup pot hot enough? Is there animal— do you have vermin around? You know, that's what they're looking for.

But while they're there, they're they would also be looking for these products. And that's why I think that implementation costs are relatively limited. We're not adding new visits to them. It's just one more thing to look at when they're already coming to your restaurant.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Alper. Are there any other questions? Okay.

Hearing and seeing none, we will set House Bill 25 aside and we'll go without skipping a beat to House Bill 13. House Bill 13 is sponsored by Representative Andrew Gray. It is titled— short title— Municipal Property Tax Exemptions. He and his staff, Kyle Johansen, are here to present the legislation. Thank you, Chair Kawasaki, and members of the Senate State Affairs Committee.

My name is Andrew Gray, and I represent House District 20, the UMAT District in Anchorage. House Bill 13 offers 5 different optional property tax exemptions. If a municipality were to implement all of them, it would incentivize more rental properties at lower cost, higher quality of living in our mobile home parks, more first-time homebuyers, and property tax relief for all owner-occupied residential properties. House Bill 13 does this by offering 5 new optional property tax exemptions. Alaska municipalities decide which, if any, of the following options are right for them.

Here are the possibilities. Number 1, an optional property tax exemption can be offered to landlords who transition a short-term rental property to a long-term rental property. This would incentivize Alaskan properties being used by Alaskans instead of tourists. Number 2, an optional property tax exemption can be offered to mobile home park owners who make major infrastructure investment in their mobile home parks. Alaska's mobile home parks are often the most affordable housing option for our lowest-income families, but we know that our mobile home parks are absolutely not what they used to be.

This would allow municipalities to encourage major repairs inside these mobile home parks. Number 3, an optional property tax exemption can be offered to landlords who rent to low-income families. This is self-explanatory. We want landlords who are willing to rent to low-income families without overcharging them. House Bill 13 would allow municipalities to reward landlords who are doing the right thing and encourage them to keep doing it.

Number 4, an optional property tax exemption could be offered to first-time homebuyers. In my home city of Anchorage, the average price of a single-family home jumped to $524,000 in 2024. That was a 23% increase in just 4 years. Add to this the increase in mortgage rates, and monthly payments for an average Alaska home have doubled in the past 5 years. Statewide, the average price of a new home is $423,000, which about 70% of Alaskans cannot afford.

The cost of a newly constructed home in Anchorage is now $683,000, which 86% of Anchorage households cannot afford. We must help folks to take that difficult step of becoming homeowners, and this property tax exemption would help. Finally, this bill allows property tax exemptions to be offered for owner-occupied residential properties only. This aspect of the bill grew out of a proposal by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, which had proposed that Anchorage sales tax that would be used in part for property tax relief. Passing House Bill 13 would allow that relief to go to owner-occupied residential homeowners rather than to commercial property owners, many of whom are not located in Alaska.

Although this part of the bill started as Anchorage-specific, it has received support from other municipalities. What this bill seeks to do is provide tools to municipalities for tackling a huge problem lack of adequate housing that Alaskans can afford. In 2024, state economists reported that our housing was the least affordable it had been in two decades. Um, these are all optional. These offer municipalities the freedom to craft the solutions in a way that works for them.

And with that, Chair Kawasaki, our sectional analysis is basically a restatement of our sponsor statement. This bill is very straightforward. However, in Senate Committee on Regional Affairs. They did amend the bill regarding overpayment of property taxes, and if it be your will, I will have my staff, Kyle Johansen, explain that change to you. That would be great.

Mr. Johansen, welcome to the Senate State Affairs Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Kyle Johansen, staff. To the sponsor, Representative Gray, in the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee Chair Senator Merrick introduced the committee substitute supported by Senator Gray Jackson was on the committee also, so she has seen this. Sets the overpayment refund rate of interest charged by municipality from a flat 8% to 3 percentage points above the 12th Federal Reserve District discount rate in effect on January 2nd of that year of the payment which— of course, would mirror kind of how things are going. It is adjustable, pretty straightforward.

Section 3 eliminates the 8% interest payments municipalities are required to pay due to a taxpayer error in filing.

Some enterprising staff had surmised they would have invested their retirement if they knew they could get 8% back from the municipality. They would have overpaid by $100,000. Um, something that the chair found and thought it would be good to fix. I think the Alaska Municipal League brought it to their attention, and of course the chair expressed his support for those changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johansen. Are there questions for either the sponsor of the bill or Mr. Johansen?

Okay, I don't have any questions right now, but we do have a couple folks who are on line to testify. First, we have James Devens. He is a councilman from the Valdez City Council. If you would state your name and your affiliation for the record, we welcome your testimony.

Can you hear me all right? Yep, we can hear you. Chair and members of the committee, my name is James Devens. I'm entering into my third term on the Valdez City Council and I'm a founding member of the Valdez Housing Committee, now in its 6th year. I'm here to speak strongly in support of House Bill 13.

We all recognize that housing is in short supply across Alaska. The question before us is not whether there is a problem, but what kind of tools we should use to address it. This bill makes a clear and practical approach. It relies on incentives rather than restrictions and local choice rather than statewide mandates. That distinction matters.

First, the provision allowing tax exemption for converting short-term rentals into long-term rentals addresses a real tension many communities are grappling with. In the absence of options like those provided in House Bill 13, some jurisdictions have responded by restricting or banning short-term rentals outright. That approach can create conflict, reduce economic activity, and be difficult to enforce. This bill takes a different path. It encourages property owners to shift toward long-term rentals voluntarily by aligning financial incentives with community needs.

That's a more durable and cooperative solution. Second, the support for mobile home parks reflects the same philosophy. Rather than requiring development or imposing costly standards that could discourage investment, the bill reduces barriers. In a place like Valdez, where a quarter of our housing stock is manufactured homes and much of it is aging, the challenge has nothing to do with regulations. It's about feasibility.

The high cost of development and the short building season mean that temporary tax relief can be the difference between projects moving forward or not. Third, the provision supporting housing for low-income families avoids mandates and instead creates a clear incentive. If you can keep rents affordable, you receive tax relief. This respects the realities that property owners face while still advancing a public goal. Incentive-based programs like this tend to produce more participation and better long-term outcomes than rigid requirements.

Fourth, allowing exemptions for owner-occupied primary residences gives municipalities a tool to support stability without imposing uniform policy. Each community can decide how best to retain residents and maintain its tax base, its school district, and its essential services rather than being bound by a one-size-fits-all solution. Fifth, the support for first-time homebuyers again lowers barriers rather than adding rules. When we make it easier for people to enter the housing market, we improve movement across the entire system, freeing up rentals and creating opportunities without forcing outcomes. Some people call this the hermit crab effect.

Taken together, this bill reflects a consistent principle: if we want more housing, we should make it easier, not harder, for people to provide it. By using targeted, optional incentives, this legislation encourages the outcomes we want while respecting property owners, local governments, and the diversity of Alaska's communities. There is no demand on the legislature or state employees for a management apparatus, future adjustments, or even a fiscal note because this bill would empower municipalities to to manage their own needs, risks, and benefits relevant to incentivizing housing through tax relief. This bill provides optional, flexible, locally controlled tools to address Alaska's housing shortage with minimal burden and maximum impact. For those reasons, I urge your support.

Thank you. Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Councilman. Are there questions from the city of Valdez?

Thank you very much for your presentation today, and we look forward to your— I think it's 100th year or 90th year, something like that— anyways, of the city, and we'll be there in middle of June. Senator Rauscher and I will be. Uh, okay, 25th year. 25Th year. Okay, it was way off.

I figured it had been I thought it was a city longer than that, but okay. Oh, really? 125. 125? Yes.

Okay. Then that would make sense. Okay. Well, we will be there celebrating. Let's see.

I don't see any other questions. We do, for the record, have Director Sandra Mahler from the Division of Community and Regional Affairs in the Department of Commerce, if anybody has any questions for her.

I see no questions. I do have a question for the sponsor of the bill. And if he doesn't know, we can find the answer somewhere else. But I know there's a bunch of these different municipal tax exemptions. I'm just curious, like, how does, how does a, how does the department or the division, how does the Anchorage municipality decide whether a person gets this tax exemption?

And then How often can they change? Like, this is talking about changing a long-term to a short-term to a long-term. I mean, is it like an annual election? I know, like, for perhaps like senior property tax exemption, pretty simple, straightforward. I'm a senior, I own a property, this is my property, I want my exemption.

They sign something every year or two, I think. How would it work? The practical application, would this work? Thank you for the question, Chair Kawasaki. The intention of the bill is that the Municipality of Anchorage would decide how that worked, not the State of Alaska.

So, um, the— that is my answer. And it could be a different answer for Fairbanks, so that there, you know, we wanted flexibility in terms of how the, uh, the different optional property tax exemptions were implemented. Yeah, thank you. Senator Wilkowski has a question. Yeah, thank you.

Just only question is on page 1, lines 13, 14, the short-term rental unit. And I, I think you're getting it like Airbnbs or VRBOs. Um, how would that work? How—. I'm just curious if that's something that's done in other communities.

I, I understand that the they're absorbing a huge amount of the potential long-term rental space. I'm just curious your thoughts on how that might work. Through the chair to Senator Wielechowski, the vast majority of our questions about the bill are about this incentivizing short-term to long-term rentals. Again, the Anchorage Assembly is very happy with this section of the bill. They have been working on short-term rentals for a long time.

I wish— we have had Anchorage assembly members testify on this bill in the past, and if they were here, they could talk about that. But they are comfortable with this language and they feel that they can craft the policy in such a way. I mean, I think the fear would be is that somebody would have a long-term rental, but they would make it a short-term rental for a short period of time so that they could qualify for the property tax exemption and then go back. I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that Assemblymember Erin Baldwin Day thinks that they have a solution for that, that they have a way of crafting the exemption in such a way that that would not be the case. You wouldn't be able to just switch from a long-term to a short-term for a short period of time in order to qualify for the exemption.

Follow-up? Any other questions of the sponsor of the legislation?

Okay. Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and set House Bill 13 aside for a later time and hearing. We will conclude our meeting today. Once again, I wanted to say that we do have a work draft that has not been adopted but has been received, and you can look at the You can view it on BASIS.

It's for Senate Bill 243. It's version N of the bill for folks who might be interested in that one, which we will also try to hear on Saturday of this week at 10:00 a.m. And if Senator Bjorkman is there, then I'm going to try and get him a McDonald's Big Breakfast. We'll see if we can do that. See what we can get from McDonald's. We are— I wanted to set a couple deadlines for amendments, if you would.

We'd like— I'd like to set an amendment deadline for House Bill 23, House Bill 13, and House Bill 278 for Friday at noon. If you do have an amendment and you need a little bit more time to work on that deadline, that's fine. We can do that. Just reach out to the office. I also wanted to say if there's anybody online who is listening and would like to provide public testimony, we will open public testimony, but we can also receive public testimony at the Senate State Affairs Committee.

The committee aide will make sure that that gets published. You can send it through [email protected]. That email address again is [email protected].

This will conclude our meeting for today. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 30th. We will consider the Governor's appointee, Stephen Cox, Attorney General designee. We will also hear— have a first hearing on Senate Bill 169, Welcoming Alaska Office, by Senator Lucy Tobin. We will also have some bills previously heard or scheduled.

Without further— further bills coming before the committee, we will go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Let the record reflect that it is 4:43 PM.