Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/15/2007 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB169 | |
| HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 101 | ||
HB 101-UNIFORM TRAFFIC LAWS 9:02:41 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 101, "An Act relating to uniform traffic laws." 9:02:55 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH moved to adopt CSHB 101, Version 25- LS0262\C, Luckhaupt, 3/12/07, as the working document. There being no objection, Version C was before the committee. 9:03:16 AM HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out that the committee should have a letter from the Office of the Mayor of Anchorage dated March 5, 2007, in which he responded to comments and discussion at the previous committee hearing. The mayor offered a couple of suggestions to further clarify statute. The sponsor choose to move forward with the suggestion of judicial imposition of the ignition interlock requirement. However, the second suggestion was not addressed because it is incorporated in Representative Meyer's legislation, HB 19. Mr. Hilyard related that Section 2 does address some of the sentencing confusion that was identified by Anchorage's municipal attorney, John McConnaughy. He related that he has provided Mr. McConnaughy and the mayor's chief of staff with Version C, but hasn't been able to reach them for comment. 9:05:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern that she only recently saw the letter from the mayor and wasn't sure that Version C fits within what MOA found at fault. She expressed interest in receiving municipal feedback on this prior to moving the legislation. MR. HILYARD related that he spoke with the mayor's chief of staff two days ago and faxed a copy of Version C requesting comments. He further related that he has made attempts this morning to reach the mayor's chief of staff and Mr. McConnaughy, but to no avail. Mr. Hilyard explained that the legislative drafter was charged with drafting Section 2 such that it adopted the mayor's first suggestion in the most correct manner. 9:08:07 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH said she originally shared Representative Cissna's concerns, but has had repeated contact and correspondence [with MOA] since the initial meeting on HB 101. The bottom line is that from the legislature's legal perspective, the municipality must be in compliance regardless of whether they agree or not. She opined, "I do think that we're ready to move today on the bill that's before us and that we have provided the municipality additional time." She related the calls she has made trying to contact municipal officials in Anchorage. Co-Chair Fairclough opined that the situation seems to be a stand-off in which the choice is either a legal action, which would waste resources at the state and local level, or a compromise during this legislative session. Therefore, Version C is a compromise that she said she supports. 9:12:12 AM MR. HILYARD, in response to Co-Chair LeDoux, clarified that the mayor's letter included two suggestions, the second suggestion would tie ignition interlock to the issuance of temporary limited licenses, which is the essence of HB 19. If HB 19 doesn't make it through both bodies, then Representative Gatto would entertain inserting the second suggestion, he said. In response to Representative Neuman, Mr. Hilyard related that both the sponsor of HB 19 and HB 101 have been in discussion even before either legislation was prefiled. The discussion was that while each dealt with ignition interlocks, they were fundamentally different in the ultimate goal. Therefore, the decision at this point was to keep the two pieces of legislation separate. 9:15:19 AM GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, related that the mayor's letter offers the following two proposals: to adjust the ignition interlock requirement when an individual has a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .16 or greater and adjust who decides that and at what phase of the sentencing process in which that decision is made; to eliminate the courts and assign it to the Division of Motor Vehicles, possibly at a time when a limited license is issued. Mr. Luckhaupt said that he was directed to work the first proposal, which is close to what currently exists in statute. The mayor suggested altering Title 12, which is criminal procedure statute. The difficulty with the aforementioned is that all of the state's sentencing procedures for drunk driving are in Title 28. Therefore, placing this in Title 12 is problematic because those dealing with sentencing or the crime of drunk driving wouldn't know to look there for sentencing. The aforementioned led to the suggestion being placed in Title 28 since it's a drunk driving provision. The greater decision for the committee is whether to go with the original legislation requiring ignition interlock. The aforementioned was applied statewide under the Alaska Uniform Traffic Laws Act. The Act was established in order that folks traveling through different areas of the state would know what is expected of them. Therefore, municipalities are expected to change the municipal code to be consistent with the provisions of the uniform traffic code, although at times the legislature has decided to exempt certain municipalities from the code. 9:21:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if and when the state has sent notice to municipalities regarding this uniform Act and any changes to it. He mentioned the difficulty of smaller areas with limited resources to comply with something like this, even if the area is notified. MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that annually each municipality with its own municipal traffic code is required to send a copy of its traffic code to the state. Furthermore, every municipality has the option to adopt the Uniform Traffic Laws Act. He noted that many of the smaller municipalities don't have their own traffic code and thus merely adopt the state's code. The first chapter of Title 28 sets forth the procedure and municipalities are required to identify their traffic laws using similar numbers to the state's code or specifically adopt and cite the state's code. With regard to when the legislature amends laws, Mr. Luckhaupt related his assumption that the DMV has a procedure for notifying communities. He pointed out that until MOA's difficulty with the ignition interlock law with which the Anchorage municipal attorney had issues and didn't notify the Anchorage Assembly about the change, there hasn't been a compliance issue with municipalities with their own traffic code. 9:24:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested Mr. Luckhaupt's help in drafting a letter to distribute to the smaller communities in order to inform them of state law. 9:24:58 AM MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to Co-Chair Fairclough, said that MOA's traffic code is on file with DMV, the Legislative Reference Library, and on the Internet as well. Mr. Luckhaupt said that a year ago he did perform research from which he came to know that MOA hasn't amended it's traffic code to reflect this change in law in 2004. CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH related her understanding that the existing [ignition interlock] law should be implemented in its entirety. MR. LUCKHAUPT opined that the law is in effect and any MOA code that isn't consistent with state law falls by the wayside. There have been a number of situations in which MOA has attempted to create more stringent penalties for drunk drivers than state law provides. Because of it was less favorable to the defendant, the defendant would raise the issue and it would be taken to the courts and the MOA ordinance would be struck down because it was inconsistent with state law. However, [MOA not applying the ignition interlock law is beneficial to the defendants who along with MOA aren't going to raise the issue. Therefore, defendants in MOA are receiving a lesser sentence than those elsewhere in the state. In further response to Co- Chair Fairclough, Mr. Luckhaupt related that if MOA continues to ignore the Alaska Uniform Traffic Laws Act, the attorney general would have options such as a declaratory judgment and extraordinary writs. 9:28:46 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Version C is tight enough that MOA has to enforce the [ignition interlock law]. MR. LUCKHAUPT said there's no wiggle room that would allow MOA to not enforce [the ignition interlock law]. Furthermore, the 2004 law with which MOA had problems has been changed to reflect and address MOA's concerns. 9:29:27 AM MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to Representative Neuman, pointed out that if communities aren't using their own local traffic codes, they're using the Alaska Uniform Traffic Laws Act and the regulations adopted by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities already. In further response to Representative Neuman, Mr. Luckhaupt explained that a municipal police officer, just as a state trooper, can cite an individual under the state or the municipal traffic code. For example, a number of years ago Fairbanks eliminated all of its municipal prosecutors and criminal enforcement, and thus Fairbanks police officers cite individuals under the state law for all traffic offenses committed within the municipality. 9:32:07 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to why the sponsor brought forth legislation rather than requesting a declaratory judgment. 9:35:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 101, related that it was his personal philosophy. He related that he contacted officials within MOA, which resulted in a response from the mayor who suggested remedies. Therefore, he wanted to work with those involved. 9:36:29 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH commented that she would leave it to the sponsor regarding whether ultimately the attorney general must be brought in to deal with the situation. 9:37:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked if the sponsor would entertain a friendly amendment to hold any road funds until MOA is in compliance. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "I'll fall on my sword to get drunks out of their cars." 9:38:31 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. 9:39:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON highlighted that it's the second time no one from MOA has appeared during the hearing of HB 101, which he remarked was disappointing. 9:39:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report CSHB 101, Version 25- LS0262\C, Luckhaupt, 3/12/07, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 101(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|