Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/28/1998 01:05 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 261 - LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING SURCHARGE Number 2300 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the committee would hear HB 261, "An Act relating to a surcharge imposed for violations of state or municipal law and to the Alaska police training fund." He asked Representative Davis to present the bill. Number 2309 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor, explained that in 1994 a bill was passed that initiated the surcharge and established the Alaska police training fund. During the debate of that legislation, the statement, "A tax is a tax, a fee is a fee, and a surcharge is a surcharge," was quoted. He asked the committee to keep that in mind. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the sponsor statement and sectional analysis pretty much detail this bill. There are people who break the law, and there are increased needs relating to law enforcement, correctional officers, Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) and others involved who need special training. In addition, the legislature, city councils, and city and borough assemblies pass laws that require specific training in certain areas, such as in domestic violence cases. This is an expense that the state is currently paying for, and this bill will make the abuser pay. Those who are creating the problem and the need for training will, with HB 261, have a surcharge on their fines that will go towards the Alaska police training fund. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained that in 1994, when the legislature passed the law that initiated a surcharge, a broad list of violations and crimes was considered. It is his understanding from the debate that took place that it was felt that a small piece of legislation was best. That passed, and what is currently in effect is a $10 surcharge on moving violations; those dollars are being appropriated by the legislature to the training fund to provide for training and certification of public safety officers and correctional offers around the state. Representative Davis noted that probation and parole officers are included in that also; training is required of them to handle specific cases. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said where the surcharge is currently $10, HB 261 raises it to $15. In addition, it expands to other crimes the assessment of a surcharge. He said the fiscal note indicates how many crimes are currently tried - by category, including the numbers of felonies, DUIs (driving under the influence), misdemeanors, and infractions - and it applies the surcharges. TAPE 98-5, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he believes that currently the trooper academy in Sitka is being provided $800,000 in straight general funds. Over time, HB 261 is attempting to cover all of the training needs for public safety officers, probation/parole officers, VPSOs and correctional officers in Alaska. He emphasized that those abusing the system will be paying for the needs they create. CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to the fiscal note (from the Alaska Court System, dated 01/27/98, faxed from "Admin. Accounting" on 01/28/98). He asked why the funding source shows that it is the general fund, rather than general fund/program receipts. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS specified that the fiscal note from the Alaska Police Standards Council, dated 01/27/98, indicates general fund/program receipts. He pointed out that the fiscal note for 124.9 (thousand dollars) is from the Alaska Court System and reflects the cost to the court for clerks to administer the surcharge, the fines as they come in. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about Representative Davis's indication that they would receive some $450,000 in fines. Number 0082 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that is correct. That is the amount in fines, and this would be an additional cost to the courts. Number 0103 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT questioned why three new people are needed for something that they are largely already doing. He asked whether it is because of the new crimes that are being covered. Number 0110 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he could skirt over that and someone from the court system could get into some detail. He advised members there is some concern by the court system. Currently, their computers would not be able to handle this; there would have to be some manual work done to properly account for and distribute the dollars. Number 0134 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether these surcharges are something that local governments could do, and "we're sort of preempting the field." Number 0142 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded that a city police officer will assess a surcharge, as they currently do. However, in most areas, the citations and so forth are collected by the courts unless those are mailed in. The state courts are still involved in accounting for and distributing the dollars. Number 0161 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested there would have to be a theoretical limit on the efficacy of these. He stated, "You start to get to a level of surcharges - I have no idea whether we're close to that or not - but a level of surcharges where we're not collecting the money anymore; we're over what these offenders can afford, and we're getting to counterproductive. Have you satisfied yourself that we're sort of not in that range yet?" Number 0181 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had not completely satisfied himself, but in many cases, there is a lot of discretion of the courts as to what the fine will be, especially for felonies. Where there is discretion, he would imagine the ability to pay would be taken into consideration. Number 0204 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the ability to pay is something the courts factor in all the time within the hierarchy of what they assess for restitution and fines. He stated his assumption that this surcharge would be the lowest priority that has to be paid. Number 0223 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he believes the bill would make it a mandatory surcharge effected to all of the citations and fines. He noted that there is an opportunity for community work to pay it off, as there is for fines. Number 0238 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged he is not really familiar with the criminal law and how it works. He asked whether there is a mandated minimum fine, for example, for particular offenses like driving under the influence, which allows them to charge the $85. Number 0263 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS suggested perhaps Representative Porter could answer that. He explained that for a first-offense DUI, there is a mandatory amount, and he believes there is also a mandatory amount for a second offense. However, there is discretion for felonies, as well as for some misdemeanors. Number 0290 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that there is a situation where there are various offenses, with minimum or refined ranges applied to them. House Bill 261 calls for specific amounts of monies and surcharges against those for a specific purpose. He asked whether there is any distinction between charges brought under a municipal code or state law. He further asked what happens to all these fines and whether they go into the general fund. He then noted that two communities in Alaska, Anchorage and Juneau, prosecute their own crimes. He asked, "Can't we have a surcharge to pay those folks back? Or how does that work?" CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Davis whether he wanted Representative Porter to answer the question; Representative Davis said it would be fine. Number 0354 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it is true to a certain degree that the City and Borough of Juneau prosecutes some of its misdemeanors; and to a much larger degree, the Municipality of Anchorage prosecutes its misdemeanors. However, the funds being discussed here, while not dedicated, are program receipts that would be going into the police standards training fund. He stated, "And the disparity that I have with that - I guess in the interest of the statewide good - I voted for and consented to the original bill, in which the surcharge was just a small surcharge on traffic tickets. That goes into the police standards training fund." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, "Now, the primary responsibility for the police standards operation is the required training that a corrections officer now, or a police officer, must have to be certified for the police -- it's called the Municipal Police Academy, and I don't know what the corrections now is called, but I assume it's the corrections basic academy or something. But the first application, by statute, of these funds would have to go to that. Certainly there, hopefully, will be funds available for other types of in-service training." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, "And, getting to my problem, then, the Anchorage Police Department could minimally ... benefit from these funds. But up to that point, they haven't. And, quite frankly, they will have contributed half of them. And so, I can't support this, unless some provision is made that some of these funds, proportionately, can go to the agencies that generated them. And the Anchorage Police Department is the only department that does its own training. So, as to benefit law enforcement throughout the state, those of us from Anchorage that were involved in this said okay to the little one, but I can't do this. I just flat can't." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that satisfied Representative Rokeberg's questions. Number 0470 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it clarified several issues but didn't exactly answer all his questions. He asked whether most fines are shared with the municipalities. Number 0479 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered that municipalities do assess the surcharge, which is collected and goes to the police training fund. The Police Standards Council trains municipal officers. Therefore, the municipalities are contributing and getting a benefit. Anchorage has its own training academy. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated, "So, they don't utilize ... a lot of the functions and training facilities that -- the Police Standards Council sends the recruits and other members that need training. How it could be addressed? If Anchorage is excluded, then that's certainly one way, to exclude the Municipality of Anchorage from it. There may be other ways." He suggested Mr. Shaw, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council, may have considered mechanisms to address the problem. Number 0550 CHAIRMAN GREEN said understanding what he'd heard, either the "424" does not include training for Anchorage police, or the expenditures are for non-Anchorage police. He suggested there is a disparity between the coverage and the expenses. Number 0569 LADDIE SHAW, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council, said he would think they are all-inclusive. He explained, "Relative to your question, historically we do not pay for the Anchorage Police Department recruit training, nor do we pay for the Alaska State Trooper recruit training. Our responsibility by statute is to pay for all municipal basic-level training. What we've done with the existing surcharge is that we have regionalized them to the best of our ability to support in-service training between the Anchorage Police Academy and the Department of Public of Safety training academy in Sitka." MR. SHAW continued, "We budgeted $40,000 last year. And when we use the academy in Anchorage, we use it for Southcentral Region. So we support the Anchorage academy through the Kenai Police Department, Seward, and all of Southcentral. And, as an example, we put on a number of in-service courses at the Anchorage Police Academy, in our support of those training dollars to that academy. Again, not being able to support their basic training, that was our best justification for use of those dollars." MR. SHAW advised members they had also budgeted $35,000 for a new municipal corrections officer academy at the Anchorage Police Academy; these are basically jail officers for about 17 communities statewide. They are trained at the Anchorage Police Academy with the dollars from the Alaska police training fund. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that with the corrections now part of police standards, this problem is even more exacerbated because the Municipality of Anchorage pays the state for prisoner care for people that they arrest, yet they are not appreciating any of the revenue from the surcharge. He said it is kind of a double hit. Number 0671 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 0- LS0920\E.1, Luckhaupt, 1/27/98. Amendment 1 read: Page 1, line 1, following "relating": Insert "to fines and" Page 2, following line 14: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 3. AS 12.55.035 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (f) In imposing a fine, the court may not reduce the fine by the amount of a surcharge or otherwise consider the applicability of a surcharge to the offense." Renumber the following bills [sic] sections accordingly. Number 0687 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected for discussion purposes. He asked: If this is mandatory surcharge, does it affect restitution at all? He suggested in the hierarchy, it would seem that this would be below restitution. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he doesn't know whether there is any hierarchy on fines or whether this is just added. He explained that the rationale of the amendment is "for the courts, to hold any thought of the surcharge down here while you get done with your business and assessing fines, and then ... tack on a surcharge." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the concern is that they would reduce the other fines otherwise, to compensate for that surcharge. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Chris Christensen to clarify the issue. Number 0755 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, said he does not believe that the legislature has set forth a priority that convicted criminals are supposed to pay fine, surcharge, restitution. He stated, "I think the priorities are when someone goes out and attempts to collect, through the civil process. For example, the attorney general has a fines collection unit, and they seize ... lots of permanent fund dividends every year. I think in that hierarchy, surcharges fit into the category of monies owed to the state, which is below child support and restitution and things of that nature." Number 0789 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Well, would you consider to be a surcharge something to be paid following a fine?" Number 0794 MR. CHRISTENSEN stated his understanding that judges typically order the payment of things all at once, or they set a payment schedule, and as the money comes in, it is sent straight off to the general fund. In the example of traffic infractions, most people typically pay with one check that lumps everything together. He indicated his own agency must sort it out and specify what percentage goes where. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN introduced Kevin Jardell, attorney and committee aide for the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Number 0835 KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Green, advised members he had some experience in the criminal field and had recently addressed the surcharge issue. It has been his experience that the judges are required to impose the present surcharge, and it is a requirement that it be paid within ten days of the sentencing. MR. JARDELL said he could not speak as to whether any action has ever been instituted through a borough, city or municipality to claim the $25 surcharge; he doesn't know whether it is effective or efficient for them to do so, and he doesn't know whether they have ever gone to that step. However, he does know that they are required to pay within a certain amount time. That then goes down to accounting, and from there, he'd never heard of anyone actually having to go through a process to pay for it. "I imagine most of them do pay the surcharge within that amount of time," he added. MR. JARDELL said there is no hierarchy for a judge setting a specific order of payment; during sentencing, the judge just speaks to the idea that the defendant must pay this within ten days. Typically, the defense attorney would then ask for more time - six months or a year, for example - to pay the fine, depending on how long the defendant will be in jail and things of that nature. Number 0936 MR. JARDELL restated that the surcharge has to be paid within ten days. If it is not paid, it has no bearing on whether or not the fine is paid. He added, "If the fine is not paid, they will go to probation and revoke probation or impose suspended ...." Number 0946 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the surcharge is part of the sentence or a civil assessment. Number 0954 MR. JARDELL replied that he has done some research recently; he believes that almost every state imposes some type of surcharge, as does the federal government. He said he cannot find any case law that speaks to whether a court has addressed the question of whether it is civil or criminal. Mr. Jardell said his assessment is that it is a civil imposition, and that they would have to go through a contempt proceeding, because the court ordered it, "but it would be a contempt proceeding if you were going to something to the nature of -- place someone in jail for not paying the fine." Number 0983 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated his understanding that if there is a failure to pay a fine or restitution, that is, in essence, failure to comply with the sentence of the court. MR. JARDELL said that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked: If there is a failure to pay the surcharge, which is severable from the fine, is that jailable directly, as a failure to complete the sentence? Number 1011 MR. JARDELL said it is his understanding that it is not. The judge would have the ability to institute a contempt proceeding for not complying with the order to pay a surcharge. But other than that, the boroughs and municipalities would have to institute a "civil process to claim, just as any debtor." Number 1033 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether Mr. Jardell had seen any double jeopardy arguments in regards to this. MR. JARDELL said he has seen no case law. Number 1044 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the handout titled, "Estimated Revenues from Passage of HB 261 Based on FY 96 Court Disposition of Cases Where Defendant Pled Guilty or was Found Guilty," which lists Mr. Shaw as the source and carries the date 1/22/98. Representative Croft then referred to the line titled, "Percent of Total Surcharge Collected," and he asked for an explanation. MR. SHAW said those are from historical 1996 court records. Those percentiles add up to 100 percent. Of the 100 percent collection, 7 percent were felonies, for example. He specified that it was not 7 percent of 100 percent compliance. Number 1152 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the columns with ranges of from 50 to 100 percent compliance. He asked whether they have any idea of the average success rate for those. Number 1165 MR. SHAW replied, "What I have from the superior court felony case disposition, fiscal year '96, is pled guilty and nolo, is all I have. And we have a percentage of those. As an example, on felony cases, of 2,878 total, we have 2,041 pled guilty. We do not know, of those 2,041, how many were actually paid upon. We just know that those were pled guilty. Our estimates are only on bail forfeiture, pled guilty or nolo by numbers, not by dollars collected, because we have not been involved ourselves with collecting on felonies prior to this, and I cannot tell you what has and has not been collected upon. Number 1204 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated his understanding that they know the various percentages of who pled guilty, who contested and who pled nolo contendere, but they don't know how often that surcharge was collected. He asked, "So, on those 50 to 100, we're just laying out some guess ranges?" MR. SHAW responded, "What we've done is we try to build an historical number from a full fiscal year of collections on the existing surcharge. And those are primarily moving violations. And so, we have an historical track record now that we can pull from. We just have not dealt with issues like infractions and felonies in the past. Ours have been traffic offenses up until this bill." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked: Of traffic offenses, what percentage of the money does the state get on the surcharges? MR. SHAW said approximately 55 percent is what they have collected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether that is a $25 surcharge. MR. SHAW responded that it is a $10 surcharge on moving violations; it is a $25 surcharge on driving under the influence or driving with a revoked or suspended license. Number 1253 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is a number somewhere, either a total or by category, about the amount collected over the total amount of fines. MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that they do not have that information, and that is one of the things he wants to talk about. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the committee would bring that up again. Number 1281 REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES noted that these fines are collected and go into the general fund. She asked whether they are treated as program receipts or as general fund income. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said program receipts. Number 1313 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated her concern: She does not like surcharges. She commented, "A tax is a tax is a tax, and a fine is a fine is a fine, and so a surcharge on a fine is a tax." She said this whole thing is based on an allocation, as opposed to anything else. She added, "Otherwise we could just raise the fines. I'm not convinced they're as high as they should be anyway." Number 1349 MR. SHAW advised members that Alaska has just received $1 million to hire police officers. In the last two weeks, his office has received requests to help implement police departments around the state. Places like Alakanuk, Anvik and Egegik, which have not historically had police departments, now have developed ordinances to fund police departments through this Department of Justice grant. Mr. Shaw explained, "What they do not fund is the training. We have an obligation to support their basic training." MR. SHAW provided an example. Of the 17 officers to be hired under this grant, four will be hired in Alakanuk. Mr. Shaw stated, "Now, at $5,700 dollars apiece, we have to increase our budget accordingly to fund those. In 1995, we had the ability to fund 13 police officers. Fiscal year '97, we funded 30 police officers. Fiscal year 2000, we're looking at funding up to 60 police officers in the state. And our existing budget would not allow that." Number 1413 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Mr. Shaw anticipates that the state's portion of that would come from surcharges. MR. SHAW replied that it could. Number 1423 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his objection to Amendment 1. Number 1443 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any other objection. Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1463 MR. CHRISTENSEN presented his testimony. He specified that his comments would relate to fiscal issues, and he would make those comments again to the House Finance Standing Committee and proposing some amendments. He said he had been working with the sponsor on that. However, he wanted the House Judiciary Standing Committee to be aware of these issues also. MR. CHRISTENSEN explained, "Surcharges are something that have become very, very popular in other states. And, of course, we take no position on the philosophy behind surcharges. ... That's something that our constitution leaves to your discretion, and I know the supreme court has made it clear in several cases that in this state, sentencing is primarily a matter ... of the legislature. There is very little judicial discretion in fashioning a sentence beyond what the legislature sets in the statute. In California, for example, they now apply $17 in surcharges for every ten dollars' worth of fine. So, if you get a $1,000 fine, you owe the government $2,700." Number 1516 MR. CHRISTENSEN continued, "The surcharge that was passed several years ago was the first surcharge we've had in Alaska. And at that time, we told the legislature that the computer system we had was marginally capable of accounting for one surcharge, but it was incapable ... of accounting for more than one surcharge." MR. CHRISTENSEN told members the court system has been in the Dark Ages with computers for many years. They don't currently have an integrated case accounting system; instead, they have a 20-year-old statistics-generating program that modifications have been made to so it can do some case accounting. MR. CHRISTENSEN explained, "Now, you gave us some money about five years ago to design an integrated computer system for the courts that would not just do accounting but would look at all areas of the court system and pull statistics out that you need to make the kind of decisions you have to make here. ... That system has been delayed. When that system is up and running - in about a year and a half - it will be able to keep track of up to 99 surcharges, which should take care of the next three or four years." [There was laughter.] MR. CHRISTENSEN informed the committee that for now, any surcharge above and beyond what is already on the books has to be handled completely by people, not by a computer. If everybody convicted of an offense wrote a check to the state before leaving the courthouse, it would not be a problem. However, there many variations in how these are paid. Some defendants pay at the time of sentencing; some mail in their money and never show up at court; some pay the court at a later date, perhaps in a different fiscal year; some do time payments; some never pay at all and have their permanent fund dividends seized by the attorney general sometime down the road; some never pay but do not have their dividends seized because they have moved out of state or are in jail on another charge; some do community service in lieu of paying the fine or surcharge; some pay, then appeal the conviction, resulting in an order from the appellate court to give the money back; some pay money directly to municipalities; and some pay it to the state and the state has to turn it over to the municipalities. MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members it is labor-intensive, and a lot goes into it that people don't realize it. With an appropriately designed computerized system, it is just a question of data entry, which they will have in a year and a half. Number 1670 MR. CHRISTENSEN told members the fiscal notes he had provided are a low-ball figure of what it costs to do this by hand. He pointed out that it costs them nothing for a judge to impose the surcharge, for them to receive money from the defendant or for them to turn it over to the general fund. The cost is in counting it before it is turned over to the general fund. MR. CHRISTENSEN stated, "And in good conscience, as a manager, Mr. Chairman, I can't really justify telling the legislature that I need three new union employees to count the money before we give it to you. Last year, we turned over $4.4 million in fines and bail forfeitures to the general fund. We keep none of it; we turn over every penny. And you will get that money anyway. And I will be proposing some ways to the Finance Committee to ... eliminate the need for a fiscal note, to impose a surcharge, collect the money but not take bodies to do it. And that would probably involve - for the next year and a half, until the computer system is on-line - having us make some educated estimates based on pulling a sample, rather than actually tracking each individual case." Number 1746 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how the fines themselves, not the surcharges, are disposed of. Do they all go back to the state's general fund, or is there any sharing between the municipalities and the state? Number 1774 MR. CHRISTENSEN answered, "If the state collects money from a municipal prosecution, they turn the money over to the municipality. ... If they collect it based on a state prosecution, it's all turned over to the general fund. ... Now, the major municipalities, we set up a system many years ago wherefore -- for mail-in bail, for traffic tickets, things like that. You don't ever send it to the state; you send it directly to the city. The cities used to like to use the state's accounting system; it saved them a lot of expense, but ... that really wasn't a good thing. And so the major cities all do it themselves. Some of the smaller communities, we will accept their tickets and process it and send it back, but we keep 10 percent and turn that in to the general fund." Number 1827 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, for the Municipality of Anchorage, whether the municipality's prosecutors would bring an action under state statute or would always use the municipal code. MR. CHRISTENSEN responded that they always use their municipal code. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that therefore, any fines would go back to them. MR. CHRISTENSEN concurred. He said the court system is always used one way or another, so there is no savings there. However, it does save the Department of Law, the Public Defender Agency and the Department of Corrections a lot of money, because if someone is charged under a municipal code section, the city prosecutor pays to prosecute it. They hire a private public defender to represent the person if he or she is indigent, and they are theoretically supposed to reimburse the Department of Corrections for the incarceration. Number 1882 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the surcharges under that circumstance, in Anchorage or Juneau, would go to the training fund here. Number 1890 MR. CHRISTENSEN stated his understanding that the surcharges are supposed to come to the general fund. He said he thinks that is one of the problems with the existing surcharge; not as much money was raised as people anticipated, which he believes is partly because in some municipalities, the money is being paid directly to them, for mail-in bail, and the municipalities are keeping it. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Well, where are you mailing the money now?" MR. CHRISTENSEN replied, "When we get it, we send it to the general fund. If the city gets it ...." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that includes the surcharge money. MR. CHRISTENSEN said that is correct. Number 1938 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said none of this is filtering down to Anchorage, the biggest generator. It goes to the general fund, where it is viewed as program receipts that go into the training fund. MR. CHRISTENSEN said that is his understanding. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested this is another way that urban areas subsidize rural areas, and he won't support it. He said that to him, it is a user fee. "We all need the police, but the people that are getting busted are using them," he explained. "And I'm perfectly willing to have them pay a surcharge for this training. But it's got to be some equity, and it's got to filter down to the main generator, or I'm not going to support it. So, I've got two choices: You can either eliminate the whole thing and we'll send that million dollars back to the feds - and maybe our taxes will go down next year - or you can amend this bill here ... to address the equity problem. And I would highly recommend that the sponsor address the equity problem." Number 2031 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he has a different understanding of the flow of money. When the municipal prosecutor takes an Anchorage Police Department (APD) case and runs it through the district court, the fines collected from that case go back to municipal coffers, as he understands it. He asked whether it is correct that the Municipality of Anchorage is responsible for all misdemeanor prosecutions generated by the APD. Number 2064 MR. CHRISTENSEN replied, "My understanding is that they're responsible for it if the charging officer charges under a municipal ordinance." He said he believes that sometimes they charge under state laws too. "So, it depends," he added. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that essentially all domestic violence cases, DUIs and simple assaults come through the municipal prosecutor. Number 2087 MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that Anchorage does most of those things internally, through the municipal prosecutor's office. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the state court and the state prosecutor pick up the felonies generated in Anchorage. MR. CHRISTENSEN concurred. Number 2105 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the fines and forfeitures that come in to the municipal coffers from the collections of the court for municipal misdemeanors do not come close to paying for the prosecutor's office, let alone for public defenders, police or corrections costs. Number 2157 MR. CHRISTENSEN said, "One of the previous witnesses stated that we'd been collecting 55 percent in the past. I would expect that to go up, because we did pull a sample of citations which people thought should have had surcharges on them and there weren't. And what we discovered is that 60 percent of them -- there were police officers around the state, both troopers and city police officers, who were using the old uniform citation, which didn't have a surcharge on it. ... They're expensive; people don't want to throw them away. And if you write somebody a ticket and it doesn't say you have to add $10 onto the ticket for a surcharge, they don't send in that amount on their check, and we have no way of going after it. So, over time, as the local police and the troopers get rid of the old forms, I would expect more money to be collected by the state." Number 2238 MR. SHAW referred to Representative Porter's comments about how much Anchorage brings in. Mr. Shaw stated, "1996 offenses by citation: There were 99,000 citations written; of those citations, Anchorage wrote 32,000. That's approximately 32 percent. The Alaska State Troopers wrote 31,000 of those. So between the two - collectively between the troopers and the Anchorage Police Department - there's no question that those two agencies bring in the most. But just for the record - since I do have the citations, by offense, here in front of me - 32 percent of those dollars came directly from Anchorage." Number 2288 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section- Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, noted that the bill deals with Title 12 and not much with criminal law. That morning, she had spoken with Marilyn May, Assistant Attorney General, who is the head of Collections and Support, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law. Ms. May is in charge of collecting money from people who don't pay in the courthouse, and they must try to track those people down. Ms. Carpeneti informed members she had asked Ms. May to write a letter to the committee outlining the problems with the current and proposed surcharges, and possible solutions. Number 2369 MS. CARPENETI advised members of a minor issue with HB 261. On page 2, line 18, it is a little confusing. It establishes a surcharge of $85 for a felony, and then it establishes a surcharge of $75 for drunk driving-type offenses. However, there is a felony in those DUI offenses. She suggested the committee might want to clarify whether the drunk driving felony should be under the $85 or the $75 surcharge. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Shaw for verification that his testimony had been that 32 percent of the citations were written by the APD, and approximately the same amount by the troopers. MR. SHAW replied, "Yes, that's true." TAPE 98-6, SIDE A Number 0006 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said state citations are not the Municipality of Anchorage citations; therefore, there should be a greater amount of money coming from Anchorage if that testimony is correct. Number 0032 MR. SHAW responded, "We get a check every three months from the Municipality of Anchorage. They send us a check directly; we sign it back to the general fund. With the state citations, which -- that 99,000 number I gave you are total citations, both municipal and state, that are put into the APSIN [Alaska Public Safety Information Network] system." Number 0099 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he was confused. He asked, "The 32 percent, approximately, Municipality of Anchorage, 32 percent troopers and another third, everybody else?" MR. SHAW said yes. Number 0123 CHAIRMAN GREEN said now he was confused; he was of the opinion that of the 99,000 total, 32 percent are from Anchorage. Number 0143 MR. SHAW said that is true. Number 0152 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said now he was confused. He asked, "The 32 percent Anchorage, is that Municipality of Anchorage? That's APD stops, as opposed to APD or -- another 32 percent was trooper stops within the municipality, like on the Glenn [Highway] or on the Seward [Highway], anywhere?" MR. SHAW said no. The state trooper citations are statewide. The Anchorage citations are within the Municipality of Anchorage. "We don't count Palmer or Wasilla," he added. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether that is a combination of APD and troopers. Number 0188 MR. SHAW replied, "The 66 percent, roughly, that's an affirmative." Number 0198 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the question is whether some of the state trooper citations are actually within the Municipality of Anchorage. MR. SHAW said yes. Number 0221 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were other questions. There being none, he announced that with the concurrence of the sponsor, he would hold HB 261 over. He noted that several concerns had been expressed, including that about the felony DUI. In addition, a letter would be coming within the next few days. Number 0264 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was fine with him. (HB 261 was held over.)
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|