Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
04/24/2007 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB145 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 145-MUNIS IMPOUND/FORFEIT MOTOR VEHICLE
CHAIR OLSON announced the consideration of SB 145.
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt CSSB 145(CRA), version C.
SENATOR WAGONER objected for an explanation.
3:41:01 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE, sponsor of SB 145, said the bill allows
municipalities to impound motor vehicles owned by persons who
have more than $1,000 in unpaid traffic fines. Under current
law, municipalities are authorized to adopt local ordinances for
impoundment and forfeiture of vehicles for crimes including
driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended license, and
driving without insurance. The fines must be paid in order to
get a vehicle back. She said that SB 145 would add "accumulation
of more than $1,000 in unpaid citations" to the list. She said
the Municipality of Anchorage brought this idea forward, because
1,017 of its individuals have a total of over $7.57 million in
unpaid traffic fines.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said it's important to note that it's the rare
person who would allow up to $1,000 in fines to accumulate in
the first place. One person has 43 different citations totaling
almost $10,000 and another has 70 totaling $7,853. This law is
meant to target the habitual, repeat offenders who blatantly
disregard public safety and refuse to pay their citation fees.
Many refuse to pay the fines because they know the municipality
has no recourse.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said the Anchorage Assembly unanimously passed
an ordinance on the same issue two weeks ago making it a
misdemeanor. SB 145 does not do that; it is about an impoundment
- not making it a crime - for anyone who has at least three
unpaid traffic tickets worth over $1,000. It uses forfeiture as
a way to encourage compliance with the law and has no fiscal
impact to the state. Individuals stopped by a police officer
under these circumstances would lose their vehicle for up to 30
days. To get it back, the individual would have to pay the $390
in administration fees plus towing and storage fees - and they
would have to pay their traffic fines.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said a person that did not pay the traffic fines
and was caught a second time could lose the vehicle permanently.
The CS adds a new section that would allow the department to
provide information on individuals' employment history or
records confidentially to a municipal attorney who would assist
the municipality in finding the individuals and assist in
collection of their civil or criminal fines, penalties, or other
payment or judgments that were ordered by the court.
3:44:47 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she is a privacy nut and so she inserted
language saying that prior to release of this information, the
department and the municipal attorney would have to enter into a
written agreement that must specify the purpose of the
information, a description of the information provided, a
description of the procedure for transmitting, securing, using
and disposing of the information, and the method of
reimbursement for the cost of providing that information.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said that people will testify that it is
increasingly difficult for municipalities to collect these
unpaid fines. It is low on their list of priorities because they
have no method to get to the repeat offenders who are the worst
ones. The amendment would change the "may" to "shall". Her local
assembly, which is bipartisan, has passed this, and there has
been positive feedback. She added that the costs of running a
municipality are passed on to folks who do pay their fines and
abide by the law while offenders just shrug their shoulders.
This will get their attention. It may also be a deterrent.
Studies from the DNA database law show that a general attitude
toward disrespecting the law on a repeat basis tends to trend
into other areas.
3:47:55 PM
SENATOR STEVENS noted that this is just another tool that a
municipality can choose to use or not. He remarked that the size
of the accumulated fines was amazing.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said forfeiture would get offenders' attention,
and she wants to make life as difficult as possible for them.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if "meter maids" would have a list of
offenders to check.
SENATOR MCGUIRE replied that is her understanding. If someone is
stopped for another violation, this law would kick in. It could
happen with a meter person.
3:50:52 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked why she proposed taking a violator's vehicle
instead of his driver's license. What happens if an offender is
driving someone else's vehicle or a company vehicle?
SENATOR MCGUIRE replied that was a very good question and it has
been debated. It was found that impounding the vehicle was the
most effective away of getting offenders' attention. She didn't
know the answer to what would happen with a company vehicle.
When she was chair of the House Judiciary Committee she found
using the threat of taking a driver's license tended to not get
people's attention as well, because people who have this kind of
mentality have a general disregard of the law. Having a driver's
license is a privilege and why would that individual care about
his privilege to drive when he hadn't cared enough to not drive
drunk three different times or have 43 citations issued to him.
3:53:24 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt Amendment 1, which changes "may"
to "shall" on page 1, line 5.
CHAIR OLSON objected for an explanation.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said there is some concern that the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD) might not want to
give out the information. This would make the bill unworkable.
CHAIR OLSON asked under what circumstances they would be
unwilling to release this information.
SENATOR MCGUIRE replied she couldn't speculate, but said if the
legislature wants to adopt sharing that information as public
policy then the bill ought to say "shall".
3:55:14 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked why they are asking the DOLWD for the
information.
SENATOR MCGUIRE replied that this bill has to do with the
garnishment of wages, and Title 23 already has many ways to
access DOLWD records for IRS and payment of child support, for
instance. The municipalities can ask for the ability to work
with the department in the same way. This wouldn't help with
individuals who work for themselves.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection and without further objection
Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:57:08 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she hoped for a conceptual amendment
[Amendment 2] for a severability clause to state that if any
part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the remainder of it
could still be enforced.
SENATOR STEVENS asked why she thought one part may be ruled
unconstitutional.
WENDY CHAMBERLIN, Municipality of Anchorage, answered that the
DOLWD has expressed concern over providing any information due
to confidentiality laws. From the municipality's point of view,
it already has the confidential information in terms of names of
the offenders, their social security numbers, addresses, ages,
et cetera, but frequently these offenders move jobs and they
don't have the employers' names and addresses. The department
originally thought it could provide that information, but then
it asked for explicit direction to do it to be on the safe side.
3:59:16 PM
SENATOR KOOKESH asked what the unconstitutionality would be.
MS. CHAMBERLIN replied that the municipality's attorneys said
there wouldn't be one, but the DOLWD had some concerns about
severability, and she thought it was a wise course to put the
severability clause in there.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the first section goes down because
it's unconstitutional, the next section would still allow
someone's vehicle to be impounded.
MS. CHAMBERLIN replied yes. She said driver's license records
from the Anchorage police department show there is a tremendous
correlation between motor vehicle accidents and drivers who have
significant delinquent traffic fines. Often their licenses have
already been taken away.
4:01:25 PM
CHAIR OLSON read Amendment 2:
If any part of this bill is ruled unconstitutional,
the remainder of the bill will remain in force.
There were no objections and Amendment 2 was adopted.
STEVE SMITH, Deputy Chief, Division of Administration, Anchorage
Police Department, said the department supported the bill. The
department's main mission is to change bad behavior in offenders
by enforcing the law and imposing consequences on bad behavior.
Unenforceable consequences do not change bad behavior. A small
portion of Anchorage's population does not recognize these
sanctions and become delinquent. These offenders typically pose
an ongoing danger to the public due to the bad attitude that
exudes in their conduct. The provisions in this bill will give
law enforcement an additional tool to change that behavior. As
was noted, taking their licenses away does not work, because
they don't recognize that authority in the first place. Many
don't have a license already. At the very least it "gets them on
their feet instead of on the road."
4:04:22 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what happens to the vehicle if an offender
doesn't show up to get it back.
MR. SMITH replied that an impounded vehicle is subject to
forfeiture, which is a separate proceeding. He said they try to
recover some of their costs through those proceedings,
especially if a car has been impounded for a long time.
4:05:42 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked what happens if the vehicle is not registered
in the violator's name.
MR. SMITH replied that the bill does not require that the driver
has to be the registered owner; so the vehicle would be subject
to impound no matter who owned it.
CHAIR OLSON asked what would happen if someone borrowed the
preacher's wife's car.
MR. SMITH replied that he could see how that might not be fair
to the preacher's wife, but these scofflaws have a support
network and pass vehicles around. This provision would make that
person someone you wouldn't want to lend your car to. It narrows
their "friend pool" for accessing different vehicles.
4:07:14 PM
CHAIR OLSON observed that a person with thousands of dollars in
fines and a jalopy worth $400 could just let it go.
MR. SMITH said that was a reasonable supposition, but police
focus on behaviors. "We want them off the street."
SENATOR WAGONER supposed a person has a valid driver's license
and is working as a delivery person in a $17,000 company van.
MR. SMITH replied the police would follow the law and impound
the vehicle. He deferred to others, but he thought the
legitimate owner would have a way to get the vehicle back.
4:08:59 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if the department would impound aircraft that
doesn't belong to the violator as well - in reference to page 2,
line 4.
MR. SMITH replied that the Anchorage police don't get involved
with air or watercraft.
CHAIR OLSON said the language says it would have that authority.
MR. SMITH replied that item 5 is specific to motor vehicles
under the delinquent traffic fine section. So the department
wouldn't have the authority relating to water and aircraft under
the $1,000 delinquent traffic fine provision.
4:10:17 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she wanted to make it clear that the bill
will not impact the current statute that applies to air and
watercraft. All this bill does is deal with motor vehicles.
DAN MOORE, Treasurer, Municipality of Anchorage, said the
traffic and criminal fine cases they are pursuing for collection
are all ones that have run through the court system and are
considered judgments which they are fully empowered by the court
to collect. They have a formal agreement with the court system
to act as its collection agent. In terms of unpaid default
judgment cases, it is at a crisis point for local governments
within Alaska and for the Alaska court system. He strongly
supported the concepts behind the major elements in CSSB 145 and
felt that it would greatly enhance public safety. Going forward,
it would encourage better compliance with the law.
4:12:57 PM
MR. MOORE said the original proposed language was very specific
for how the DOLWD would comply with future requests by a
municipal attorney for employer information for garnishing
wages. In the past it had complied but not in the last couple of
years. He supported the language changing "may" to "shall". He
said the City of Anchorage has been pursuing these cases very
actively for the last several years and has done all sorts of
things that improve collection realization. It formed a task
force that included the court system, the Division of Motor
Vehicles, the municipal prosecutor, and the Anchorage Police
Department. The magnitude of the problem was quoted accurately
in the Anchorage figure by Senator McGuire, but he stated the
figures for the state would be much greater.
MR. MOORE said the two main categories for garnishing wages they
would pursue are for unpaid traffic citations, which amounts to
almost $8 million and affects 23,000 individuals and the second
category of criminal fines, which gets into domestic violence
and DUIs. Criminal fines add up to over $16 million of unpaid
fines and are tied to over 16,000 individuals. The problem is
huge and despite the department's efforts, they are not able to
take a big enough bite out of it. It gets worse every year.
4:16:02 PM
MR. MOORE added that they propose asking that the DOLWD provide
employer names and addresses. This is commonly-asked
information. With it, they could follow the court process of
garnishing wages. He said the department's 14-year track record
for protecting information is good. It has never had any breach
of confidentiality. Every year the municipality receives 600,000
names along with date-of-birth and social security numbers from
the Department of Revenue. It already has a working relationship
with the court. The wages are from a private employer data base
that the Department of Labor maintains and updates quarterly.
The information will be very timely, he added.
MR. MOORE said the department has already garnished the wages
from people employed by the Anchorage municipality. He state
that this legislation provides the greatest public good by
holding debtors accountable for breaking public laws, thus
encouraging greater compliance and improving public safety. He
said that every dollar collected via wage garnishment by the
municipality will go back to the police department budget to
fund police enforcement. It will also partially reimburse the
court system for court collection costs.
4:18:14 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if he was correct that Section 2, which
deals with impoundment and forfeiture of vehicles, would be used
for the $7 million in unpaid traffic citations, but getting the
employers' names and addresses from the DOLWD would be for
collecting the $16 million in unpaid civil or criminal fines.
MR. MOORE replied that the intent is that the wage garnishment
process would apply to both traffic and criminal fines together.
There is a lot of crossover between scofflaws and the people who
owe criminal fines. Representing the treasury, he is more
focused on collecting the dollars. The effect of the second part
of the bill dealing with impoundment is to interrupt the "high
flyers," and get them off the road. That is more of a public
safety issue. They are trying to recover the over $20 million
that exists in both traffic and criminal fines.
4:20:36 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if Section 1 covers the unpaid criminal
and the unpaid traffic citations as well.
MR. MOORE replied that it covers traffic fines, because in
Anchorage those are considered civil violations.
CHAIR OLSON asked if revoking the driver's license wouldn't be a
more valuable tool.
MR. MOORE replied that the task force has researched the top 300
violators and found they commonly ignore the law and drive
regardless of the status of their license. History has shown
that scofflaws aren't affected by revoking their licenses.
CHAIR OLSON asked about vehicles that are registered to a person
other than the offender.
4:22:48 PM
JOSHUA FREEMAN, Assistant Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage,
responded that the assembly has made a finding based on data
provided by the Anchorage Police Department that there is a high
correlation between motor vehicle accidents caused by drivers
with significant delinquent traffic fines and that just
suspending a person's license doesn't mitigate the problem.
Taking their vehicle causes them more of a problem than telling
they can't drive any more. However, while the department can
take vehicles for public safety purposes, he didn't think it
could take them just to collect fines and the proposed
legislation would make it necessary for the state to authorize
the municipalities to make this a misdemeanor offense. The
$1,000 fine limit is where it is a public safety issue.
4:26:17 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked what the chances are of getting a list of the
offenders.
MR. MOORE replied that he included the list in an email to the
committee aide.
CHAIR OLSON asked if the list could be posted on line.
MR. MOORE replied yes.
SENATOR WAGONER said he thought that would be irrelevant.
4:27:35 PM
MICK FORNELLI, Municipality of Anchorage, reiterated that all of
these issues come to it as a default judgment. It wants to
utilize the available tools under due process. The municipality
has utilized the writ of execution to file against bank accounts
and the permanent fund dividend. This law will allow it to go
against wages. However, to be effective the employer's name
needs to be known, and the Department of Labor has that
information. Names are needed for filing against a bank account
or the permanent fund dividend, but in a wage situation, one
needs the employer's name. He reiterated this provides the
opportunity to have a consequence for those who have failed to
comply with the law.
4:29:38 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if this bill would benefit communities
other than Anchorage.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
replied yes. The City of Fairbanks is considering a similar
ordinance. The reason the DMV supports this is because this bill
doesn't impound, but it allows local governments to do such a
thing by ordinance. It adds a tool to the tool box.
4:31:04 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked about the severability and constitutionality
of SB 145.
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, said the constitutionality deals with privacy
issues in Section 1, and this is whether the disclosure of the
information by the Department of Labor might infringe on privacy
interests. But the representative from Anchorage was accurate in
stating that it already has the confidential information on
these offenders, so the DOL would not be giving up that
information. There is a potential argument that the employer
identification information could fall under right-to-privacy
interest, but he didn't think it was a violation. Section 2
contains the other question of whether the department could take
a vehicle for failure to pay fines - a financial issue alone,
but tying it to the safety issue could help it pass
constitutional muster. He didn't see either issue raising any
problems.
4:33:52 PM
SENATOR WAGONER removed his objection to adopting the CS as
amended and it was adopted.
SENATOR MCGUIRE thanked the committee and added information
about the aircraft issue saying that current aircraft law
references "operating a vehicle, aircraft or watercraft while
under the influence of alcohol, an alcoholic beverage, an
inhalant or controlled substance". The other part is refusing to
take a breathalyzer. SB 145 does not impact that law.
She concluded that passing this bill will not make it state law
but will give the option to municipalities across the state to
adopt ordinances that will give them a strong tool for affecting
those individuals who continue to thumb their noses at the law
to a level that reaches above $1,000. People who do pay their
fines pay for others that don't and that adds up to the millions
of dollars. Many municipalities are in financial trouble. She
said the misdemeanor issue could be discussed in Judiciary
Committee.
4:36:24 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if the $7.5 million was in citations alone or
if it included the accumulated interest.
MR. MOORE replied that the amount only includes the fine amount
and the collection costs that are awarded by the courts. No
interest is accumulated.
CHAIR OLSON asked if the administrative costs are $390 per
incident.
MR. MOORE said that was for the impound program.
4:37:12 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to report CSSB 145(CRA), Version C, as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections and it was
so ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Olson adjourned the meeting at 4:37:39 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|