Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1994 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 337 - DRUG FREE RECREATION AND YOUTH CENTERS Number 184 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman for scheduling this bill. It's really a pretty simple concept. It's an expansion of the current law we have which provides for drug free schools. It expands that concept to include an area 500 feet around youth and recreation center that are operated by a municipality or by the state. Basically, it increases the penalties by one notch, for instance from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony for possession of controlled substances. It increases the penalties for possession in those zones. The need for the bill, Mr. Chairman, comes from a problem in my district surrounding the Spenard rec center. I've gotten reports that, ironically, the place where you send kids to play and have recreational activities, are actually being approached in the parking lot by people wanting to sell drugs. It is an expansion of the drug free zones around the schools presently. There is no fiscal note with the bill. The bill does provide for municipalities to erect signs if they so choose, and in the case of our community, I'm sure they will probably choose to do that. They can also post signs in the rec centers, themselves, that would alert potential drug dealers that this is not a place that they are invited, by any means, to do business. That is basically what the bill does." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Nordlund, I certainly agree with the concept of your bill, and will support it. I have one question, however. On the designation of recreation or youth center, will there be any problem with private versus public facilities? Are we making this inclusive to any kind of facility, regardless of ownership?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a good question. When we originally had the bill drafted, it included all recreation centers, regardless of whether they would be operated by nonprofit, or whatever. In talking to the Departments of Law and Public Safety, they thought the definition was too broad, so we narrowed it down to rec centers that are operated by municipalities, or by the state. Otherwise, it would be virtually impossible to enforce all the areas that were included in the original version of the bill." Number 252 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I've got a couple of questions that the sponsor might be able to answer. Do we have any estimate as to what these signs might cost? I envision actually allowing municipalities to post signs at recreational facilities or youth center, ballparks, playgrounds, and what not. But when we look at the total numbers and the total cost, because this is a little bit different than hanging a sign like `School Zone', where it's just attached to the post, we are talking about a whole new feature, if in fact, we are talking about the same kind of vehicle for the sign to be embedded on. Or are we talking about placing a sign on, let's say, a building. I'm not clear." Number 275 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I have something here from the Department of Transportation that says, `large sign contracts average approximately $50 per square foot for installed sign. Including the need to locate signs rather accurately, the estimated cost per sign is conservatively $150 a piece.' Again, this is something that would be up to the municipality to decide the size of the sign, where they would be located, and even whether or not they wanted to put the sign up, given their own budget constraints. There is no mandate here." Number 292 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "And that kind of is what I'm leading to. I certainly support the idea. I am just wondering how effective it would actually be, considering the budget constraints of many municipalities around -- and just $150 per -- and I don't know how many facilities this would apply to. Do you have any numbers just for Anchorage alone?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any numbers as to how many signs would be necessary to effectively post the area, or not necessarily an indication of whether or not they would, other than the fact that we got letters of support from Chief O'Leary, and the Department of Parks and Recreation, and various entities in our community, indicating they would like to have this as an additional tool for enforcement." Number 316 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "As Representative Nordlund points out, the city of Kenai goes along with it. There is overwhelming support from various types of groups, as well as various cities." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Nordlund. The permissiveness in the signage, that was done in order for us not to do an unfunded mandate necessarily." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, these are programs that are operated by municipalities, and I think it should be up to them to decide how - including this particular aspect of signage for a criminal offense - it should be up to the municipalities to decide on whether on where to put them and if they want to put them..." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if I might offer what I call a friendly amendment to page four, line 19, and insert after `may' the word `prominently' post a sign. We are in fact, increasing the penalty. I think at least it should be apparent that we are, in fact, entering a drug-free recreational zone or area. And if it is going to be on a building, let's not put it on the side of a door, where you can't see it from the front of the building." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, I would certainly consider that a friendly amendment." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Let me see if I understand the amendment. On page four, line 19 we would be inserting the word `prominently' -- `may prominently post a sign at each recreation and youth center.' Is there any discussion on the amendment? Is there objection to the amendment?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, the word `prominently' might fit in better after the word `sign.' `May post a sign prominently.'" CHAIRMAN PORTER AND REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with that. CHAIRMAN PORTER: "So, the amendment to the amendment would be to move `prominently' the word, not the act, `may post a sign prominently at each recreation and youth center.'" REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "To the maker of that amendment, is there any merit to doing that in both one and two?" REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "I suppose as the maker of the amendment, there could possibly could be some merit with the exception that I believe that when we look at the drug-free zone signs, they are generally attached to the school or entering the school zones, so I think in those cases, it would be fairly prominent." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: "The reason I brought that up is in two they `may' and in one they `shall' and it seems almost backwards that you may post a prominent sign, but in the other one, you shall post a sign, it just doesn't have to be prominent." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Well, I would be hesitate to (indiscernible) right now, because that is existing law and it may affect signs already up." REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND: "Mr. Chairman, they might have to (indiscernible), they might have to go back and take another look at where they're posting a sign and somebody might argue that they are not prominently posted, and get into all that...." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Okay, with no objection, we will consider that we have adopted amendment number 1, which is now placement of the word `prominently' between `sign' and `at' on line 19, page four. And Representative Phillips." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: "I would be honored to move the bill, if that would be appropriate at this time. I would move that we move HB 337 out of Judiciary, with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Is there discussion? Is there objection? HB 337 is moved."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|