Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/26/2004 08:06 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 188-BAIL SCHEDULE FOR SKIING VIOLATION
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, sponsor of HB 188, told members he
introduced this legislation at the request of the downhill ski
industry in Alaska. The purpose of HB 188 is to complete the
implementation of the Alaska Ski Safety Act (ASSA), which was
passed by the Eighteenth Legislature in 1994. He noted that
Representative Kerttula co-sponsored this legislation. Her
father carried the original ASSA.
He explained that in 1994, the fact that Alaskans valued
downhill skiing as a sport and had a great opportunity to
develop winter tourism was recognized. The ski industry was
fairly unregulated but as large ski areas were being developed,
the need to adopt regulations to define the rights and
responsibilities of both the operators and users of ski areas
became apparent. The ASSA attempted to do that and put quite a
few burdens on the operators of ski areas, regarding patrol,
safe ski lifts, etcetera, to make the sport as safe as possible.
While that act recognized the duties of operators, it also
required affirmative duties of skiers by expecting the skier to
know the range of his ability. However, a number of particular
offenses that have presented sufficient danger were not included
in the original act, and the industry has asked that it be able
to fine skiers for those offenses to deter unsafe and
inappropriate behavior. He emphasized that HB 188 does not
change any of the aspects of the ASSA. Its purpose is to clear
up two problems.
He explained the first addition as follows:
The first section really makes a change. It eliminates
this tag line that says...a person...[that] violates a
provision of certain sections is guilty of a
violation. The commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources shall authorize people to issue
these citations, but another tag line says within a
ski area over which the state has jurisdiction. Now,
that's become an item of some confusion, as we've had
a couple of changes in administration since 1994 and
with people in the Department of Natural Resources,
and the ski industry itself.
As I talk to members of the ski industry, their
interpretation of that original provision was that
that was there to distinguish federal from state
jurisdiction so that the state was not trying to pass
laws or regulations that would be trying to regulate
federal operations, which we could not do. They wanted
to include - within state jurisdiction, it's sort of
like you know, saying, there's the primary law
enforcement over the area - that would include both
areas operated by the state itself as well as private
operations operating within the state in an area
that's under state jurisdiction.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified that state jurisdiction would apply on
federal property unless otherwise provided.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that is what was at issue: who had
jurisdiction where. He added that this bill enjoys the support
of both the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the ski
industry and both want to make it very clear that it applies to
any ski area, not only those operated by the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER continued:
The second [change] was the original ski safety act in
1994 contemplated that the Supreme Court would
establish a bail forfeiture schedule for those
violations specified in the section referenced in the
bill here, which, in the sponsor statement, I've
attached an addendum to that. These are specific items
in Section 05.45.100 that were identified within the
bill as being those activities that a person could do
that we wanted to discourage with the greatest
possible deterrents. You'll find that in the very end
of the package there is a letter from the Eaglecrest
Ski Area, which summarizes at page 2 the bail schedule
that had been proposed by DNR back in 1994. It
basically moves the schedule of fees for these
violations from $50 to $150 for several of the
violations.
I want to emphasize that none of these violations for
which a bail forfeiture schedule is contemplated have
anything to do with judgmental calls on a skier's
ability to ski. These are not speeding tickets for
skiing too fast. This is not giving the ski patrol the
ability to go out there and essentially be a police
force on the ski slope but these are items that are
very objectively determined - having a collision,
leaving someone injured, skiing in a closed area,
skiing or riding lifts under the influence of drugs
and alcohol, crossing the track of an uphill lift,
using skis without stopping devices - obviously
something could become a missile going downhill, and
skiing in a closed area.
The Supreme Court has also - and in your package are
two letters that are particularly succinct about this,
and their statement was quite simply that the Supreme
Court does not believe there is clear authorization in
the statute to establish the bail schedule. And so
Section 2 gives very clear and succinct direction to
establish the bail forfeiture schedule and, again, the
Supreme Court shall establish by rule or order a
schedule of bail amounts, which may be forfeited
without a court appearance for a violation of c or g.
The third section follows up that point of without a
court appearance - I mean this is not a criminal
activity; this is just something you want to
discourage. The penalty is only - these offenses are
classified as violations, which are punishable only by
a small fine.
The third section of the bill goes to the point of law
where these sort of issues are dealt with and this is
AS 12.25.180 and 190, which are really part of the
arrest and citation section of the Code of Criminal
Procedure where we specifically exempt any citation
issued under the ski safety act from having the
requirement that an individual appear in person should
they forfeit their bail on this. Other areas of
citations where we've got bail schedules in the state
that are similar are motor vehicle citations with a
bail fine schedule, fish and game violations with a
bail schedule, obviously the proposal is to add the
ski safety act. We've also got the parks and
recreational facilities, littering citations and
...also the Boating Safety Act citations. That third
section, again, is specifically saying that when you
issue a citation here, the citation does not have to
have a written promise to appear in court since it's
at best addressed only by a fine if offered.
We do have available today to present both the
Department of Natural Resources and representatives of
the Alaska ski industry, should you wish to query them
any, sir.
8:30 a.m.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the ski industry could currently be
issuing citations for each of the offenses if it wanted to.
MR. HAWKER said his understanding is that under the existing
structure, the violation schedule is punishable today by a $50
fine. He added that the bill would authorize the Supreme Court
to establish a bail schedule.
SENATOR FRENCH referenced the bail schedule in the Eaglecrest
Ski Area letter and asked if they are suggestions to the Supreme
Court.
MR. HAWKER said that is his understanding and that DNR proposed
that schedule to the Supreme Court in 1994 when the court said
it had no authority to adopt it.
SENATOR FRENCH expressed concern that right now a person could
be cited for a $50 violation and will lose the lift ticket. He
believes that is a severe enough penalty for many of the
offenses.
CHAIR SEEKINS believed the proposed bail schedule contains
ceilings for the fines rather than mandatory amounts. He added
that many fines are suspended upon condition of no recurrence.
He believes the point of the bail schedule is to provide a
meaningful penalty to prevent people from endangering others.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER felt Chair Seekins' analysis is right on
point and that Commissioner Irwin would support that analysis
also. He pointed out there is particular concern about skiing in
closed areas, therefore the fine needs to be sufficient to
discourage that activity. If an area was closed because of
avalanche danger, that activity could expose a large number of
people to injury.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked about the definition of "peace officer" in
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER acknowledged that section is confusing
because peace officers are not involved in ski safety act
activities; that act applies to ski operators and DNR. He
explained:
If you notice, it moves into Alaska statute section
12, which is the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this
is generically a section excluding certain citations
from having this mandatory requirement to appear. In
this context the word 'peace officer,' which is
typically - I guess the paragraph is prefaced by...'a
person cited for the crime shall give a written
promise to appear in court by signing at least one
copy of a written citation prepared by the peace
officer'. That is the general rule when, in this
state, someone has committed a crime and is being
cited by a police officer for it.
Then the next paragraph is where it becomes operative
and that is 'the written promise requirement does not
apply to boating citations' and all the rest of these.
The implication that it involves a requirement that a
peace officer issue the citation is...not contemplated
or required under the ski safety act. This is strictly
a violation activity managed by the Department of
Natural Resources and folks designated by the
commissioner to be part of the process, not involving
peace officers.
CHAIR SEEKINS indicated that several people have inquired about
that section and thanked Representative Hawker for the
explanation. He then asked Representative Hawker if his intent
is to create a more serious deterrent for those people who
knowingly put the life and safety of other individuals at stake
through bad practices on ski slopes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that is correct, within the larger
context of promoting a vibrant downhill ski industry in Alaska.
SENATOR OGAN asked about places like Hatcher Pass where people
ski and snowmachine but there is no operator.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER answered the definition section of the ski
safety act, which is AS 05.45.200, specifically provides that a
ski area means downhill ski slopes, trails or places under the
control of a downhill ski area operator. A ski area does not
include a cross-country ski trail, even if owned by an operator.
HB 188 does not affect open land that is not commercially
developed as a downhill ski area.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed with Senator Ogan that people who put other
people's lives in danger on unmanaged slopes should be
penalized.
SENATOR OGAN pointed out that the state does not have the
resources to pay for avalanche forecasting but if he were a park
ranger he would hire an avalanche expert. He felt that modifying
the bill to allow state parks to close, particularly Chugach
State Park, when hazardous conditions exist would be wise. He
pointed out that whenever a rescue team is engaged in a search
after an avalanche, 50 people's lives are put at risk.
CHAIR SEEKINS took public testimony.
MR. LARRY DANIELS, ski area general manager, Alyeska Resort,
stated support for HB 188. He said this legislation simply
completes the 1994 ski safety act as originally contemplated.
The ski safety act has been beneficial over the years as it
specifies both the skiers and operators' responsibilities. HB
188 will provide enforcement power for the ski safety act. He
described some of the violations that occur and the dangers
caused by those violations.
MR. DAVID WILSON, mountain manager, Alyeska Resort, told members
that Alyeska Resort has kept violation records for three years,
which show a decrease in the number of violations cited. Four of
those violations were very serious: collision, jumping from the
chairlift, ticket fraud, and skiing in a closed area. Most
citations are issued for skiing in closed areas. In the 2000-
2001 season, DNR issued five citations; in 2001-2002 it issued
one citation. He emphasized that citations are not issued
arbitrarily. They are used as deterrents.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Wilson if the resort has the authority
now to issue citations.
MR. WILSON said Alyeska Resort notifies DNR, which issues the
citations.
SENATOR FRENCH remarked that HB 188 would allow the ski area
operator to pick folks to issue citations and asked Mr. Wilson
if Alyeska Resort has discussed that possibility.
MR. DANIELS replied that Alyeska's staff would not directly
issue citations. They would take recommendations to DNR staff,
which would decide whether to issue the citations.
CHAIR SEEKINS affirmed that Senator French's interpretation is
correct in that the bill allows the commissioner of DNR to
authorize individuals to issue citations.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reminded members that language is in
current statute.
There being no further participants, CHAIR SEEKINS closed public
testimony.
SENATOR OGAN repeated his belief that the committee should
consider including state park closures in the bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that would require a title change.
SENATOR OGAN said he would only want to make that change with
the sponsor's concurrence.
TAPE 04-52, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded that although he feels Senator
Ogan's concern is legitimate, he would prefer to keep the bill
as is. He noted this legislation is specific to organized ski
areas and the ski safety act and he has not even looked into any
other statutes that apply to mechanized sports.
CHAIR SEEKINS cautioned that any legislation that pertains to
mechanized vehicles would entail a great deal of public input so
he would prefer not to burden HB 188 with that discussion at
this late date in the session.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that he feels lukewarm about this bill
if Alyeska only issued six citations in two years. He believes
HB 188 is an attempt to fix something that is not broken.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced he would hold the bill until the entire
committee is present.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|