Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB74 | |
| SB193 | |
| SB108 | |
| SB140 | |
| SB71 | |
| SB218 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(FIN)
"An Act relating to theft and property offenses;
relating to the definition of 'prior convictions' for
certain theft offenses; establishing the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission and providing an
expiration date; relating to the crime of custodial
interference; relating to the duties of the Alaska
Judicial Council; relating to jail-time credit for
offenders in court-ordered treatment programs;
relating to conditions of release, probation, and
parole; relating to duties of the commissioner of
corrections and board of parole; establishing a fund
for reducing recidivism in the Department of Health
and Social Services; requiring the commissioner of
health and social services to establish programs for
persons on conditions of release or probation that
require testing for controlled substances and
alcoholic beverages; requiring the board of parole to
establish programs for persons on parole that require
testing for controlled substances and alcoholic
beverages; relating to the duties of the Department of
Health and Social Services; and providing for an
effective date."
5:02:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the administration was largely
responsible for the CS.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 64(FIN), Work Draft 28-LS0116\Q
(Gardner, 4/19/14).
Representative Holmes OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that his staff would discuss the
changes in the CS.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, commented that his staff was
alert to any changes in the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze concurred.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. He discussed items that
had been removed from the bill including the reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court
ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of driving
under the influence relating to termination of a revocation
of a person's driver's license. Limitations of driver's
licenses and restoration of a driver's license were also
addressed in the CS. He added changes related to
confidentiality of certain records of criminal cases and
the reduced recidivism item, which was changed from a fund
to a program.
Mr. George noted that the former section 1 of the bill had
been removed. The section included a provision in SB 108.
He moved to former sections 28, 29, 30 and 31, which had
been removed.
Senator Coghill asked about the provisions that had been
removed.
Mr. George replied that the provisions related to the
limited licenses and confidentiality report records.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the changes were before the
committee as individual amendments.
Mr. George pointed to section 27, page 16, line 30
addressing electronic monitoring for individuals in a
private residence or community residential center. He
discussed the removal of a section related to driver's
license revocation. He pointed out section 31, page 21,
lines 13 and 14 addressing the report to the legislature by
electronic means. He continued with section 32, page 22
including the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's
membership and staff. Item 7 was changed to Commissioner of
Corrections or their designee. Item 8 was changed to
Commissioner of Public Safety or designee and item 9 was
changed to an active duty member of a municipal law
enforcement agency. The commission included 13 individuals
with 11 voting members and previously included 11
individuals with 9 voting members.
5:08:09 PM
Mr. George continued to address changes in the legislation.
He pointed to page 23, line 15 related to the powers and
duties of the commission. He pointed to item 7, which was
changed and new item 10.
Senator Coghill relayed that the item was under the powers
and duties of the commission. He expressed agreement with
the items.
Mr. George moved to page 24, items K and L on lines 25
through 28. He noted the removal of a previous item related
to the over-classification of prisoners. He stated that the
word efficacy replaced the word effects on line 26 of page
24. He pointed to section 33, page 25, lines 5-7 addressing
the criminal justice commission's establishment of date and
staffing from the judicial council.
5:11:27 PM
Mr. George moved to page 26, lines 10 through 20 and
language relating to the recidivism reduction program. He
noted that references to the creation of the fund were
removed. He stated that language that allowed the
commissioner to enter into contracts to provide for
programs in the section was added as seen on lines 17
through 20.
Senator Coghill provided comments on the changes. He stated
that he could understand the removal of the drivers
licenses provisions; it had been difficult to arrive at a
solution. He believed the policy was straightforward. He
stated that he liked the idea of a private attorney on the
commission. He understood the change to police force.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that a private attorney was
rarely a prosecutor.
Senator Coghill replied that he sought a candidate that was
not employed by the state. He agreed with the solution of
the police force.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he had considered a union
member because of the unfettered opinion.
Senator Coghill opted for a small commission.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he would not recommend a
larger commission.
Senator Coghill stated the difficulty increasing beyond the
$750 felony level.
5:15:07 PM
Representative Gara pointed to page 28, line 3 of the bill
and wondered if a typo was missed. He wished to verify that
"prosecutions" meant cases that were charged "on or after"
as interpreted by the Courts.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the language would be
clarified before the bill was moved.
Representative Gara pointed to another area where he
thought words may be missing.
Co-Chair Stoltze directed staff to review the language. He
commented that the committee was waiting on a draft CS of
the capital budget.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the Work Draft 28-LS0116\Q was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated that an alcohol provision had
been removed from the bill.
5:18:48 PM
RECESSED
8:43:02 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze brought the meeting back to order.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL offered to
detail the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the committee understood the
bill. He initiated the amendment process.
Representative Holmes MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
1.
Page 18, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 30. AS 28.15.201(d) is amended to read:
(d) A court revoking a driver's license, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license under AS
28.15.181(c), or the department when revoking a
driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to
obtain a license under AS 28.15.165(c), may grant
limited license privileges if
(1) the revocation was for a misdemeanor conviction
under AS 28.35.030 or a similar municipal ordinance
and not for a violation of AS 28.35.032;
(2) [THE PERSON
(A) HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED AND THE LIMITED
LICENSE IS NOT GRANTED DURING THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF THE
PERIOD OF REVOCATION; OR
(B) HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED AND THE LIMITED
LICENSE IS NOT GRANTED DURING THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF THE
PERIOD OF REVOCATION;
(3)] the court or department requires that the person
either
(A) [TO] use an ignition interlock device during the
period of the limited license whenever the person
operates a motor vehicle in a community not included
in the list published by the department under AS
28.22.011(b) and, when applicable, [(A)] the person
provides proof of installation of the ignition
interlock device on every vehicle the person operates;
or
(B) submit to daily testing as required under AS
47.38.020 in place of the use of the ignition
interlock device; use of daily testing in place of an
ignition interlock device under this subparagraph is
conditioned upon the person's not violating the
requirements of the program established in AS
47.38.020; if the person violates those requirements,
the court or the department shall
(i) revoke the person's limited license; or
(ii) require the use of an ignition interlock device
as provided in (A) of this paragraph and shall require
the person to continue to submit to daily testing as
required under AS 47.38.020 [THE PERSON SIGNS AN
AFFIDAVIT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
(i) OPERATION BY THE PERSON OF A VEHICLE THAT IS NOT
EQUIPPED WITH AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE IS SUBJECT
TO PENALTIES FOR DRIVING WITH A REVOKED LICENSE;
(ii) CIRCUMVENTING OR TAMPERING WITH THE IGNITION
INTERLOCK DEVICE IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR; AND
(iii) THE PERSON IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE IGNITION
INTERLOCK DEVICE THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF THE LIMITED
LICENSE, TO KEEP UP-TO-DATE RECORDS IN EACH VEHICLE
SHOWING THAT ANY REQUIRED SERVICE AND CALIBRATION IS
CURRENT, AND TO PRODUCE THOSE RECORDS IMMEDIATELY ON
REQUEST];
(3) [(4)] the person is enrolled in and is in
compliance with or has successfully completed the
alcoholism screening, evaluation, referral, and
program requirements of the Department of Health and
Social Services under AS 28.35.030(h);
(4) [(5)] the person provides proof of insurance as
required by AS 28.20.230 and 28.20.240; and
(5) [(6)] the person has not previously been convicted
of violating the limitations of an ignition interlock
limited license or been convicted of violating the
provisions of AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032 while on
probation for a violation of those sections."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 19, following line 30:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(i) A person granted a limited license and required
to use an ignition interlock device under (d)(2)(A) of
this section shall sign an affidavit acknowledging
that
(1) operation by the person of a vehicle that is not
equipped with an ignition interlock device is subject
to penalties for driving with a revoked license;
(2) circumventing or tampering with the ignition
interlock device is a class A misdemeanor; and
(3) the person is required to maintain the ignition
interlock device throughout the period of the limited
license, to keep up-to-date records in each vehicle
showing that any required service and calibration is
current, and to produce those records immediately on
request."
Page 22, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 35. AS 28.35.030(t) is amended to read:
(t) Notwithstanding (b) or (n) of this section, the
court
(1) shall waive the requirement of the use of an
ignition interlock device when a person operates a
motor vehicle in a community included on the list
published by the department under AS 28.22.011(b);
(2) may waive the requirement of the use of an
ignition interlock device when the person regains the
privilege to operate a motor vehicle if the court
requires that a person convicted under this section
submit to daily testing as required under AS 47.38.020
in place of the use of the ignition interlock device;
use of daily testing in place of an ignition interlock
device under this subsection is conditioned upon the
person's not violating the requirements of the program
established in AS 47.38.020; if the person violates
those requirements, the court shall
(i) revoke the person's license, privilege to drive,
or privilege to obtain a license for the remainder of
the period the person is required to use an ignition
interlock device as provided in (b) or (n) of this
section; or
(ii) require the use of an ignition interlock device
as provided in (A) of this paragraph and shall require
the person to continue to submit to daily testing as
required under AS 47.38.020."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 30, line 4:
Delete "or"
Following "probation":
Delete ","
Page 30, line 5, following "beverages":
Insert ", a person granted a limited license as
provided by AS 28.15.201(d), or a person required to
comply with this section as provided by AS
28.35.030(t)"
Page 30, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) If a person is required to comply with the
program provided in this section as a condition of a
limited license under AS 28.15.201(d) or when required
by AS 28.35.030(t), the commissioner shall adopt
regulations that provide a means to ensure that the
division of motor vehicles and the court receive
notice if the person fails to appear for an
appointment as required by the program or tests
positive for the use of controlled substances or
alcoholic beverages."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 32, lines 12 - 13:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Page 32, line 14, following "Act,":
Insert "AS 28.15.201(d), as amended by sec. 30 of this
Act,"
Page 32, line 15:
Delete "AS 28.15.201(g) and (h)"
Insert "AS 28.15.201(g) - (i)"
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 32, lines 15 - 16:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 32, line 16:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 32, line 17:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 32, line 17, following the first occurrence of
"Act,":
Insert "AS 28.35.030(t), as amended by sec. 35 of this
Act,"
Page 32, line 17:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 32, line 18:
Delete "sec. 35"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 32, lines 18 - 19:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 32, line 19:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 32, line 20:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Page 32, lines 21 - 22:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Page 33, line 23:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 33, line 25:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 33, line 30:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 34, line 2:
Delete "sec. 35"
Insert "sec. 37"
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 34, line 5:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 34, line 9:
Delete "Section 37"
Insert "Section 39"
Page 34, line 10:
Delete "Section 45"
Insert "Section 47"
Page 34, line 11:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Holmes explained that the amendment
addressed misdemeanor offenders for driving under the
influence (DUI) offenses. She stated that existing law
allowed reinstatement of the license over time with
enrollment in the ASAP program, obtaining of a high risk
insurance plan and utilizing an interlock device. The
amendment would allow the option of twice-a-day testing
versus the interlock device. She noted the efforts in both
bodies on the issue, but recognized that the proper balance
had not been achieved so she would withdraw the amendment.
Representative Holmes WITHDREW Amendment 1.
8:47:00 PM
AT EASE
8:50:56 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson had questions about the fiscal notes.
Representative Costello pointed to the fiscal notes
including previously published notes: zero impact from the
Department of Administration, zero impact from the
Department of Administration, fiscal impact note from the
Department of Corrections.
8:53:26 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the Department of
Corrections fiscal note. She thought that most of the
programs would be paid by the offender. She asked for
detailed information on the note.
RON TAYLOR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
replied that the PACE and risk assessment programs would
not be paid for by the offenders. He explained that the
24/7 program would be paid for by offenders. The PACE and
risk assessment programs added probation officer positions
to administer the programs.
Representative Wilson asked if the positions were all
filled and how difficult it would be to fill 14 more
positions.
Mr. Taylor replied that the positions were new. The PACE
program was operational with a couple of positions in
Anchorage, Palmer and Fairbanks. The goal was expansion to
a statewide basis.
Representative Wilson asked if the PACE pilot program's
positions were filled.
Mr. Taylor affirmed that the positions were filled.
Representative Wilson was unhappy with the cost listed in
the fiscal note.
Representative Edgmon believed that the fiscal impact would
be offset by the savings achieved by the electronic
monitoring program.
Mr. Taylor concurred.
Representative Wilson wondered if the offenders could be
placed on electronic monitoring without the 14 additional
positions.
Mr. Taylor explained that the PACE program did not involve
electronic monitoring.
8:56:53 PM
Representative Wilson asked for the savings resulting from
the PACE program.
Mr. Taylor answered that there was not a projected savings
for the PACE program. He explained that the program was
designed to target high-risk technical violators for
probation and parole that would revisit the system
repeatedly. The program would ensure expedited attention
and increased supervision monitoring through the program
and through the court.
Mr. Shilling clarified that the 27/7 sobriety program was
paid for by offenders, while the PACE program was an
intensive form of probation that would lead to fewer days
in jail. He agreed that the intent of the program was for
cost savings resulting from less jail time. He pointed out
that states enacting similar programs experienced cost
savings. He agreed that electronic monitoring was
significantly less expensive than housing prisoners, but
the PACE program required new personnel to achieve the
savings.
8:58:32 PM
Representative Wilson understood, but the program was
currently operating. She wondered if it was working.
Mr. Taylor answered that the program was very limited in
terms of the number of participants.
Representative Wilson noted that 120 people were
participating. She thought more documentation should be
provided regarding the program's success.
Mr. Shilling answered that the judicial council had
compiled a comprehensive study on the PACE pilot program.
He offered to provide the results to the representative's
office. He stated that the results mirrored those positive
savings seen in other state's participating in similar
programs.
Representative Wilson believed that more time was needed
before 25 additional people were hired.
Mr. Shilling answered that 14 personnel were required for
the PACE program and the additional requests were for the
risk needs assessments program.
Representative Edgmon believed that the bill spoke to the
state's high recidivism numbers. He spoke to the high cost
of housing inmates and believed that the initial spending
would save state money in the long run.
Mr. Shilling agreed. He stated that probationers were a
large cost driver for the department. He stated that PACE
was intended to repair the damaged system.
9:01:19 PM
Representative Costello continued to discuss the fiscal
notes. She clarified the Department of Corrections note
allowed for 25 positions. Additional fiscal notes included
a previously published fiscal impact note from Department
of Corrections and a previously published fiscal impact
note from the Department of Health and Social Services.
Representative Wilson asked about the Department of Health
and Social Services 24/7 program. She wondered where the
funds would be repaid by offenders.
Mr. Shilling noted that the fiscal impact was due to the
24/7 program's indigency waiver attached. If the offender
had an inability to pay, the state would pay for the cost
of testing. He explained that the fiscal note assumed that
one third of the people on 24/7 sobriety would be unable to
pay. He opined that the estimate was overly cautious and
provided a high estimate.
9:04:01 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered how high the estimate was.
Mr. Shilling deferred to an expert from another state
utilizing a similar program.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that the money would not be
returned to the general fund once the bill passed with the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Wilson replied that the question had been
asked earlier in the day. She thought the offenders would
pay for the program. She asked for a clarification on the
program.
Mr. Shilling replied that the fiscal note separated costs
for electronic monitoring and in-person testing. He
estimated that the in-person testing would cost $5 per day,
while the electronic monitoring would cost $10 per day. He
wished to hear more about the department's estimate.
Representative Wilson commented that the program was active
and vendors were already performing the service. She
believed that the estimates would be simple to obtain.
Co-Chair Stoltze welcomed a suggestion for a reduction. He
suggested a 25 percent reduction.
Representative Wilson suggested reducing the fiscal note to
$500,000, removing the portion for offenders that could not
pay.
9:06:54 PM
Mr. Shilling asked DOC to elaborate on a current program.
Mr. Taylor relayed that indigent people accounted for 20
percent of the people with electronic monitoring systems.
He clarified that the program was separate from the 24/7
program.
Representative Wilson had been informed by the department
that those criminals utilizing ankle bracelets could afford
to pay the cost.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if the department had the ability
to take Permanent Fund Dividends to cover the cost.
Mr. Taylor replied yes.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was an objection to
reducing the fiscal note to $500,000. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Gara OBJECTED and stated that the savings of
the jail bed cost was not reflected in the fiscal note. He
was worried that the savings would be unraveled.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Gara if he wished to
have a roll call.
Representative Gara responded that he did not wish to have
a roll call if he was alone in his opinion.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the fiscal note was reduced to
$500,000 and the revised fiscal note was ADOPTED.
Representative Costello discussed the remaining fiscal
notes including one fiscal impact note from Department of
Health and Social Services, one indeterminate note from the
Department of Law, one zero impact note from the Office of
the Governor, one zero impact note from the Alaska Court
System, and one fiscal impact note from the Alaska Court
System.
9:11:53 PM
AT EASE
9:12:18 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 28-LS0116\Q.7,
Gardner, 4/19/14, (copy on file).
Page 16, line 31, through page 17, line 3:
Delete "by electronic monitoring at a private
residence, or at a community residential center.
If electronic monitoring at a private residence
or [OR, IF] a community residential center:
Insert "at a community residential center or by
electronic monitoring at a private residence. If
[,IF] a community residential center or
electronic monitoring at a private residence"
Representative Holmes OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained that the amendment was brought to the committee
by the Department of Corrections. The language read that an
individual could serve their incarceration by electronic
monitoring at a private residence or a community
residential center, which might be confusing to a person
interpreting the law in the future. The intent was not that
electronic monitoring would be required at a community
residential center. By changing the language the
legislature would provide clear instruction.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the amendment applied to
the finance version of the bill rather than the judiciary.
Mr. Taylor agreed that the amendment provided
clarification.
Representative Holmes WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 64(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson expressed disappointment in the lack
of statistics available for the programs seeking funding
through the bill. She requested semiannual reports from the
department to help the legislature determine the best use
of funds in the future. She valued current statistics when
making large item budget decisions.
9:16:14 PM
Representative Holmes stated that recidivism was a large
problem and she did not wish to see another project akin to
Goose Creek Correctional Center. She credited the sponsor
and staff for their hard work on the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the section related to Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Representative Gara appreciated the section.
Representative Edgmon stressed that the legislation's
expense would grow if the strategies in the bill were not
employed. He supported the bill and posited that the
programs worked well in other states.
Representative Gara noted that one cost was not measured in
the legislation. He stated that fewer victims would suffer
if criminals were monitored 24 hours a day. He stated that
a price for the safety was impossible to calculate.
9:19:05 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman discussed victims in Alaska. He hoped
that a reduction in recidivism would result in fewer
victims. He mentioned the efforts in the Mat-Su valley to
educate community members about crime in the area. He spoke
about the troopers involved in investigations related to
low-level drug crimes and robberies. He stated that the
legislature must help ensure that the department reports on
the spending to determine which programs were most
effective.
9:20:50 PM
AT EASE
9:21:32 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara spoke to the PTSD component of the
bill. He appreciated Co-Chair Stoltze's support of the
item. He discussed that the disorder had increased due to
numerous wars. He explained that PTSD was triggered and
those people who could not escape their trigger endured
great suffering. He stated that incarcerated prisoners were
susceptible to inescapable triggers in their jail cells. He
pointed out the bill's sentence mitigator provided to the
accused if combat-related PTSD or traumatic brain injury
was a substantial cause for committing the crime. A similar
mitigator was allowed for fetal alcohol syndrome.
Representative Holmes addressed the 24/7 license
provisions. She understood the public's concerns about
drinking alcohol and driving. She argued in favor of a
limited license following a driving while intoxicated
infraction. She advocated for the ignition interlocks. She
stated that the 24/7 program allowed for testing every 12
hours, which she deemed optimal.
9:25:57 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the work done by Mr. Shilling.
He appreciated the work done by his staff Mr. George. He
spoke to the significant work done on the bill.
The committee applauded for the work done by Mr. Shilling
and Mr. George.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCSCSSB 64(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from
the Alaska Court System, one new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Law, one new fiscal impact note from
the Alaska Court System, one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Corrections, one new fiscal impact note
from the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Health and Social Services, three previously published zero
fiscal notes, FN8 (ADM), FN10 (ADM) and FN13 (GOV), two
previously published fiscal impact notes: FN14 (DHS) and
FN16 (COR).
9:28:31 PM
AT EASE
11:23:45 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFC CS SB 108 (FIN).pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 108 |
| CS WORKDRAFT FIN Y version.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 193 |
| SB 108 Court View Disclaimer.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 108 |
| SB 64 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS0116Q.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 140 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS1246B.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 140 |
| SB 71 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS0594H.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB 64 MADD Document.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 218 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS1567-P.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 218 |
| SB 71 Amendment Munoz #1 HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB 64 Amendment #1 Holmes.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Amendment Replacement #1 Holmes.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |