Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/04/1999 08:04 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 1999
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Co-Chairman
Representative John Harris, Co-Chairman
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 92
"An Act relating to municipal taxation of alcoholic beverages."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed for
violations of municipal ordinances."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 92
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL TAXATION OF ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/10/99 198 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/10/99 198 (H) CRA, FINANCE
3/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 43
SHORT TITLE: MUNI.ORDINANCES:POLICE TRAINING SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 29 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/99
1/19/99 29 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 29 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
3/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Sponsor of HB 92 and HB 43.
ALICE JOHNSTONE, Legislative Chair
Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
213 Shotgun Alley
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3931
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 92.
MARY ROSENZWEIG
Substance Abuse Directors Association
4111 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 258-6021
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 92.
BRETT FRIED, Economist
Income & Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-3682
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
ANNE SCHULTZ, Acting Director
Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
240 Main Street, Suite 101
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 465-8920
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed community coalitions and local
partnerships.
JULIE KRAFFT, Director
Member Services
Alaska Municipal League
217 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed HB 92 and alcohol-related costs.
VALERIE THERRIEN, Attorney Member
Advisory Board on Alcohol & Drug Abuse
779 8th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 465-8113
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the importance of HB 92.
LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Community & Regional Affairs
PO Box 112100
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100
Telephone: (907) 465-2948
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 92.
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
550 West 7th Avenue #350
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-0350
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed alcohol tax.
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 43.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street
Goldstein Building, Room 401
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 43.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Halcro, Harris, Morgan,
Murkowski, Dyson, Joule and Kookesh.
HB 92-MUNICIPAL TAXATION OF ALCOHOL
Number 0004
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that the first order of business
before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 92, "An Act relating
to municipal taxation of alcoholic beverages."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS, Sponsor of HB 92, Alaska State Legislature,
noted that the committee packet includes the sponsor statement and
other required documents. Representative Davis explained that
currently statute says if a municipality has a sales tax, the
municipality can tax alcohol at the rate of that sales tax. A
municipality without a sales tax cannot tax alcohol. The
legislation before the committee would take that statute off the
books and allow municipalities to tax alcohol at any rate, but a
sales tax ordinance must be initiated in order to tax alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that HB 92 came about due to the impacts
of alcohol-related activity to a community. Legislation at the
state level requires various programs for alcohol abuse and
alcohol-related offenses which is costly, not to mention the costs
incurred at hospitals, court systems, and the police departments.
Municipalities should have the option to raise revenues to offset
those costs which is what HB 92 achieves.
Number 0329
ALICE JOHNSTONE, Legislative Chair, Advisory Board on Alcoholism &
Drug Abuse, testified via teleconference from Sitka. She stated
that the advisory board supports HB 92. A substantial amount of
funds could be generated by allowing municipalities to place an
additional tax on alcohol. During the two years that Sitka had a
four percent tax on alcohol, in excess of $200,000 was collected.
"Passage of this bill would allow communities, if they so choose,
the option to recoup some of the tremendous costs of the numerous
social, safety and health problems directly attributable to alcohol
and in addition to participate in prevention and treatment of its
misuse." The members of the Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug
Abuse ask the committee to approve HB 92 without amendments.
MARY ROSENZWEIG, Substance Abuse Directors Association, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. She informed the committee that
the association represents approximately 50 substance abuse
treatment facilities, including prevention programs, around Alaska.
The association supports HB 92 and anything reducing alcohol
consumption. Research has found that a 10 percent increase in the
sales price of alcohol reduces alcohol consumption by approximately
three to four percent.
Number 0593
BRETT FRIED, Economist, Income & Excise Audit Division, Department
of Revenue, stated that he was present to answer questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that one of the fiscal notes
indicates that HB 92 may cause the state to lose revenue due to a
decrease in consumption of alcohol. The loss would be dependent on
the communities and their adopted.
MR. FRIED agreed with Co-Chairman Halcro's statement.
ANNE SCHULTZ, Acting Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug
Abuse, informed the committee that after the completion of the
planning process, the board determined the primary strategy to
promote positive change was to support community coalitions and
local partnerships. On top of the board's support for HB 92 on the
basis of taxation and reduced consumption, the board views HB 92 as
a way for local communities to control the responsibilities they
need to apply to resolving the abuse of alcoholism in their own
communities.
Number 0804
JULIE KRAFFT, Director, Member Services, Alaska Municipal League,
informed the committee that HB 92 is and has been important
legislation for the Alaska Municipal League and the Alaska
Conference of Mayors. Given the current budget situation, the
legislation is more important than ever. As pressure increases on
local sales and property taxes, municipalities need additional
tools to pay for public services. Ms. Krafft reiterated that under
statute there is a special exemption on alcohol sales which
prohibits local voters from establishing a higher level sales tax
on alcohol. Ms. Krafft emphasized that merely removes that
restriction with the approval of local voters; this is not a new
tax. Alcohol abuse is the number one health and public safety
problem in Alaska and alcohol sales should not receive a special
exemption.
MS. KRAFFT stressed that costs to local taxpayers related to
alcohol use are stunning. She cited the following areas where
alcohol-related costs are incurred: police costs for alcohol-
related felonies and misdemeanors, police costs to transport public
inebriates, emergency medical services, hospital emergency care
costs, prosecutions, direct treatment and rehabilitation of alcohol
abusers, increased costs of youth and family services related to
alcohol use, repaired property damage to public facilities, health
insurance costs paid by local governments, and school districts to
treat alcohol-related problems. Last year, the Anchorage Community
Health Promotion Program reported the following: alcohol is
involved in 60 percent of motor vehicle crash fatalities, 65
percent of suicide attempts, 56 percent of total assaults, 56
percent of domestic violence, 53 percent of sexual assaults, 34-50
percent of homicides, and 83 percent of child abuse.
MS. KRAFFT recognized that the state may continue to reduce support
for services due to revenue shortfalls, therefore as the burden
increases on local taxpayers, municipalities must be given the
proper tools to deal with those burdens. Passage of HB 92 will
provide an option to the voters in a community who are best able to
determine how to allocate local taxes to provide critical local
services.
Number 1028
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS requested Ms. Krafft explain the alcohol
exemption.
MS. KRAFFT explained that in 1985, Alaska considered raising the
wholesale tax on alcohol which the industry did not favor. The
industry agreed with the statute if the statute included language
that would not allow municipalities to raise the alcohol tax
individually in a community higher than the existing sales tax.
She could not speak for the industry, but believed that the
industry feared multiple tax rates across the state that the
industry would have to fight.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if it is legal to have a differential
sales tax on different commodities.
MS. KRAFFT believed that a differential sales tax is already
allowed on tobacco and hotel/motel tax.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO noted that in some communities the liquor
industry has made an effort to promote alcohol education programs
such as the designated driver program. The fact remains that
raising the tax does not necessarily impact consumption to those
people being targeted. Co-Chairman Halcro asked if Ms. Krafft
foresaw municipalities having the ability not only to recoup
alcohol-related costs, but also providing the municipality with
more leverage to go to the industry for more help.
MS. KRAFFT believed that would be the case. If a local assembly
put an increase in alcohol sales tax before the voters, the
industry may come forward and offer other programs.
Number 1284
VALERIE THERRIEN, Attorney Member, Advisory Board on Alcohol & Drug
Abuse, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She informed
the committee that she was testifying on behalf of the legislative
committee. This legislation is one of the most important pieces of
legislation the board would like passed this year. A tax on
alcohol would provide municipalities a revenue source to pay for
the costs of alcohol and drug abuse in the community. Ms. Therrien
reiterated that Sitka collected over $200,000 over the last two
years from alcoholic beverage taxes. Fairbanks does tax alcohol.
Ms. Therrien stressed that the board would like the support of the
legislature on HB 92.
LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community &
Regional Affairs, supported HB 92. Mr. Cotten said that he wanted
to echo Ms. Krafft's comments. As an ex-city manager, any
additional tool that addresses the revenue issue and indirectly
addresses alcohol use in a small community, must be given serious
consideration.
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the smaller communities and larger
hub communities that have a damp status could benefit from this
tax. Representative Joule supported HB 92, but understood the bill
to only benefit those communities that permit the sale of alcohol.
MR. COTTEN agreed that those communities that do not allow the
event of the sale of alcohol would not benefit from this tax. Mr.
Cotten mentioned that in the past, there had been some review of
how to tax at the point of transfer or the point of delivery to a
community and share that tax with the designated region.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE interpreted Mr. Cotten to mean that if a
community with this tax placed a phone order and had the alcohol
shipped, the tax could be imposed at the point of ordering.
MR. COTTEN replied no. Mr. Cotten clarified that he was referring
to one of the creative ways to address the issue to which
Representative Joule seems to be speaking. The alcohol arrives at
the town where it cannot be taxed, but due to the ability to import
the alcohol the effects on the community remain; how can the tax be
captured? Mr. Cotten reiterated that there has been review of
taxing when alcohol enters a community and sharing that tax with
all the areas in the region because the alcohol effects the entire
region. No one has ever introduced such legislation.
Number 1646
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the hub communities have the ability
to create a central station for alcohol beverages coming in, damp
communities in particular, and impose a tax at that point. Is that
tax restricted to the amount of the local tax?
MR. COTTEN did not know, but offered to provide that information.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if HB 92 passed, would the intent of the
department be to decrease funding for community jails in
communities with high numbers of alcohol-related prisoners. Would
there be increased pressure for such communities to increase
alcohol taxes in order to pay for jail services?
MR. COTTEN believed this would be reviewed on a community by
community basis. The funds cannot be designated and would be
placed in the city's general fund. The use of these funds would be
left to the discretion of the city. Some communities will utilize
the funds to attack the issue of alcohol, while other strapped
communities would utilize the funds wherever needed. On the local
level, the differential tax rate would be sold by convincing the
public there is a need in a particular area to justify the
differential rate.
Number 1825
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC),
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Griffin believed
what Representative Joule was referring to is in Title 4 which
deals with alcoholic beverages. Title 4 does allow communities to
establish a community delivery site which would usually be
established in damp communities. A community delivery site is one
step removed from a community liquor store which is also an option
for communities. The ABC Board promotes the use of community
delivery sites as a manner in which to establish more local control
over the amount of alcohol entering a community. The community
delivery does afford the community the ability to levy existing
sales tax on that product. If HB 92 is enacted, a differential tax
could be levied and collected at the local level. Mr. Griffin
clarified that the ABC Board does not get involved with the
taxation of alcohol, but he did want to note the dove-tailing of HB
92 with the ABC Board's effort to promote community delivery sites.
Currently, Bethel and Barrow are reviewing establishing a community
delivery system by local ordinance.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to the history of the current
exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that he was not sure what prompted the
legislation as it stands. In summary, Representative Davis said
this is a local control issue. With regard to the impact of HB 92
on state revenues, legislation related to alcohol issues have been
around forever and alcohol remains a big seller. Representative
Davis believed that alcohol consumption may feel an initial hit,
but would increase shortly thereafter. With regard to the question
of how municipalities may spend the money, Representative Davis
informed the committee that prior legislation attempted to mandate
to the municipalities that any money generated from a tax under
such legislation be directed to alcohol activities. After
researching the issue, it was discovered that the legislature
should not mandate municipalities to dedicate funds.
Representative Davis did not believe the legislature had the legal
authority to mandate municipalities to dedicate funds. The
concerns about wet and damp communities seems to be another issue.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO believed that HB 92 provides municipalities the
opportunity to utilize local control by going before its residents
to get approval for such a tax.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained that the initial impetus for HB 92
was that there are many reductions in municipal assistance and
revenue sharing and the option provided in HB 92 would be another
tool in the municipality's tool box that could compensate for the
restrictions.
Number 2244
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS moved to report HB 92 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the three accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 43-MUNI.ORDINANCES:POLICE TRAINING SURCHARGE
Number 2270
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that the next order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 43, "An Act relating to
police training surcharges imposed for violations of municipal
ordinances."
The committee took a brief at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:37 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS, Sponsor of HB 43, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that the need for HB 43 came to his attention after the
Kenai Borough Attorney saw technical and legal problems with the
legislation. Representative Davis read the sponsor statement as
follows:
The Police Training Fund was established to provide training
for the law enforcement and corrections community of the
state. Appropriations to this fund may be made from income
derived from the imposition of surcharges on criminal
convictions.
Last year, legislation was passed expanding the types of
crimes for which a surcharge is imposed and increasing the
amount of the surcharge applied. This surcharge is imposed on
both state and municipal law violations.
Recently, concern was raised that the phrasing used in the
legislation could be interpreted as requiring surcharges to be
imposed on civil as well as criminal violations of the law.
Additionally, it was argued that if a local government did not
authorize the imposition of a surcharge, an entire ordinance
could be found invalid rather than just the section imposing
the fine.
House Bill 43 is a housecleaning measure to address these two
concerns. First, the legislation clarifies that the surcharge
will be imposed on a violation of a municipal ordinance that
imposes a criminal penalty for its violation. Second, this
legislation specifies that the municipality can not enforce
(or collect) a penalty for a violation unless the municipality
also authorizes the imposition of a surcharge on a violation.
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Davis, said that she was present to answer
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if a surcharge could be dedicated.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that the surcharge is not dedicated. The
Police Training Fund has been designated in statute. Ms. Davidson
explained that the money collected from the surcharge is collected
and placed in the general fund where it is accounted for as is the
case for other designated funds. The intent is to place the
surcharge funds in the designated Police Training Fund, but Ms.
Davidson did not believe the legislature could actually mandate
such.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS informed the committee that legislation in
this regard usually uses the following language, "legislation can
be" rather than "shall be" which circumvents the constitutional
prohibition of dedication.
Number 2537
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI assumed that there have been some problems
in the application of the surcharge which lead to the concerns
resulting in HB 43.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS understood that to date there had not been any
problems. He pointed out that the original legislation would not
allow municipalities to collect the surcharge until the
municipality passes an ordinance which was of concern.
MS. DAVIDSON was not aware of any problems. The letter from the
Kenai Borough expressed concern that the legislation could be
interpreted as applying to the criminal and civil penalties.
Further concern arose because certain municipal ordinances use
language that, under the original legislation, would result in the
inability to enforce an ordinance unless the surcharge was
collected.
Number 2644
MS. DAVIDSON, upon Representative Davis' request, used the
following example: if a person needing a building permit for an
addition to a home did not obtain a building permit, there would be
a $50 fine issued for this civil penalty. The concern arose from
the language in
HB 43 which does not differentiate between criminal and civil
penalties and therefore, the civil penalty would have a surcharge
imposed upon it. There was also concern that if a municipality did
not authorize the imposition of a surcharge, the municipality could
not impose the fine for the civil penalty nor could the
municipality enforce the building permit requirement due to the
phrase "cannot enforce an ordinance". The concern that under the
previous language, all aspects of an ordinance could be argued
invalid rather than only the penalty portion. The concern lead to
the changes in Section 2 of HB 43.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked if he were to violate an ordinance, would
he pay that fine in his bail to the municipality or does the state
send out a bill.
MS. DAVIDSON said that when a ticket, for example a traffic ticket,
is issued the ticket lists the surcharge; all charges are included.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO understood that once the municipality collects
the fine, the money is transmitted to the state where it is placed
in the general fund. According to the language on page 2, lines
18-19, the municipality would be reimbursed up to 10 percent of the
fine. Then the state places that in the general fund to be
distributed and goes into a general police training fund. Is it
prorated for the municipality's contribution? He inquired as to
the destination of the redistribution of the funds.
MS. DAVIDSON noted that this was an amendment that Senate Finance
placed in the legislation last year. There was discussion whether
the court system or municipality should keep the 10 percent of the
collection or the entire surcharge given to the state to be
appropriated back to the municipality. The Senate Finance
committee preferred the entire surcharge to come to the state who
would then decide what percentage up to 10 percent the municipality
would be reimbursed.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to how the percentage is determined.
Number 2896
MS. DAVIDSON did not know. With regard to the reimbursement of the
municipalities, last year's Senate Finance committee determined
that the entire surcharge would be collected and then a portion
reappropriated back out. If the funds are placed in the Police
Training Fund, that fund may be appropriated to the Department of
Public Safety to the Police Standards Council for the State Trooper
Academy in Sitka or to municipal police training academies meeting
the Alaska Police Standards Council requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that the placement of the funds in
the state's general fund is a way to increase state jobs rather
than have the jobs at the local level.
TAPE 99-11, SIDE B
MS. DAVIDSON understood that the court system already has an
accounting system in place to estimate the money coming in. She
informed the committee that last year, Anchorage was not concerned
with the collection.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked if the funding for the Police Training
Fund was dollar for dollar.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified that would be the legislature's
decision with the appropriation of dollars to the various funds.
Last year, the surcharge was estimated to bring in $1.2 million per
year. Whether that money is kept in the general fund or rolled
into the training fund is up to the legislature. In further
response to Co-Chairman Halcro, Representative Davis was not sure
of the time taken for the state to reimburse the municipality. He
deferred that question to Ms. Shaw. Representative Davis believed
that the municipalities would benefit from the Police Training Fund
whether the municipalities receive money back or not.
Representative Davis believed if there was no one else to testify,
it would be beneficial for Jerry Luckhaupt to testify.
Number 2800
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and
Research, Legislative Affairs Agency, said that HB 43 makes minor
changes to the changes made last year. Mr. Luckhaupt noted that
the Alaska Court System had concerns with the legislature's ability
to require the imposition of a surcharge on a violation of a
municipal ordinance which was addressed by requiring the
municipality to impose the surcharge otherwise the ordinance could
not be enforced. Now there are concerns with that language because
municipalities enact entire bodies of ordinances of which some may
not have penalties. The concern was that the language could
prevent the municipality from enforcing the entire ordinance. Mr.
Luckhaupt did not entirely agree with that interpretation, but the
concerns were addressed in HB 43. He informed the committee that
there have not been any problems and that no one has lost a case on
this issue yet. Only letters between attorneys have raised the
possibility of a problem.
MR. LUCKHAUPT pointed out that the substantive portion of HB 43 is
Section 2 where the following change is made, "A municipality many
not enforce a penalty for violation of an ordinance for which a
surcharge is required to be imposed ..." which he feels addresses
the possibility that a municipality could enforce any other portion
of an ordinance that does not deal with the penalty. Further, the
imposition of the penalty was confined to criminal violations or
violations of municipal ordinances that had a penalty enforced
through the criminal courts.
MR. LUCKHAUPT recognized that there was also concern the
legislation would prevent municipalities from enforcing their
ordinance through civil means. He informed the committee that a
government can utilize two methods of coercion to enforce
compliance. One method is through a criminal or quasi criminal
process. He explained that the process would be criminal if the
prosecution is for a felony or misdemeanor penalty while the
process would be quasi criminal if it's a noncriminal infraction or
violation. For example, traffic tickets are infractions and
noncriminal by definition and do not have criminal penalties
attached, but traffic tickets are still enforced through the
criminal courts. There is also the civil process for enforcing
ordinances or statutes and those are enforced through the civil
courts and may have a penalty attached, a civil judgment not a
fine.
MR. LUCKHAUPT addressed the earlier references to dedicated funds
by emphasizing that the surcharge cannot be dedicated. The
legislature establishes a fund and the money to be placed in the
fund is accounted for separately and the legislature appropriates
the money into the fund. The statute will say, "the legislature
may appropriate, in this case, the surcharge money to the fund."
Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that there is a problem with allowing the
municipality to keep the 10 percent at the time of collection. The
statute says that the reimbursement may not exceed 10 percent which
leaves the percentage in the hands of the legislature. Further,
this is state revenue and must be appropriated. Last year Senate
Finance determined that the municipality should not receive more
than 10 percent of the surcharge because the legislature did not
want to create a windfall if the municipality's efforts to collect
the surcharge were fairly minor. Mr. Luckhaupt reiterated that if
the legislation allowed the municipality to keep 10 percent of the
surcharge, it would become a dedicated fund which the legislature
cannot do.
Number 2365
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the issues regarding civil and
criminal proceedings were brought up last year.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said there was discussion on those issues from
Representative Porter and Senator Donley. In last year's
legislation, there is a cut off in which the fine must be greater
than $30 in order to assess the surcharge. That language was in
response to parking tickets of which many are less than $30 and a
surcharge was not desired for those violations. Mr. Luckhaupt
noted that at the time the surcharge was addressed in Title 12
which deals with criminal procedure and sentencing. At the time,
he felt that they were dealing with the criminal enforcement
mechanisms. Some violations of building codes are criminal; the
municipality chooses to enforce that through a civil or criminal
process. Often, municipalities have chosen to enforce violations
thought of as civil in criminal courts, therefore this surcharge
would apply to those violations. That was noted in the committee
process last year.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS emphasized that the changes in HB 43 address
the concerns of the municipalities to date.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if Representative Davis believed that the
money collected from the surcharge is going to police training.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied yes. Last year's legislation expanded
the surcharge law, but this year will be the first year the
legislature will have the ability to appropriate additional funds.
Representative Davis believed that in the past, all the surcharge
funds were allocated to the police training fund.
Number 1982
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS moved to report HB 43 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the two accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community & Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:13 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|