03/15/2007 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB169 | |
| HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 101 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2007
8:24 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Anna Fairclough, Co-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Woodie Salmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to municipal impoundment and forfeiture."
- MOVED HB 169 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to uniform traffic laws."
- MOVED CSHB 101(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 169
SHORT TITLE: MUNIS IMPOUND/FORFEIT MOTOR VEHICLE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARDNER
03/01/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/07 (H) CRA, JUD
03/15/07 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 101
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM TRAFFIC LAWS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) CRA
02/15/07 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/15/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/07 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/15/07 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 169.
IRIS MATTHEWS, Staff
to Representative Berta Gardner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 169, answered
questions.
JAMES FORNELLI, Senior Administrative Officer
Treasury Division
Finance Department
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 169, answered
questions.
JANICE SHAMBERG, Member
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 169.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 101, Version C, on behalf of
Representative Gatto, sponsor.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter of HB 101 and Version
C.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 101, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:24:58
AM. Representatives LeDoux, Fairclough, Neuman, and Olson were
present at the call to order. Representative Cissna arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 169-MUNIS IMPOUND/FORFEIT MOTOR VEHICLE
8:25:41 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 169, "An Act relating to municipal impoundment
and forfeiture."
8:25:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 169, explained that the legislation was
brought forward by a member of the Anchorage Assembly who was
interested in dealing with those who have over $1,000 in
outstanding traffic fines. Those with large numbers of unpaid
traffic fines often have long wrap sheets. She noted that the
committee packet includes a list of those with a large amount of
outstanding traffic fines. This legislation allows
municipalities the ability to impound vehicles of those who have
accumulated $1,000 in fines. She opined that HB 169 places
people on notice that the municipality is watching. She further
opined that when the small [infractions] are addressed, the
larger [infractions] often follow and thus HB 169 may be a good
crime fighting tool. She highlighted that the legislation uses
permissive language and is of zero cost to the state.
8:28:17 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, referring to the language "motor vehicle used
by a person" rather than "owned by a person", posed a situation
in which a vehicle was lent to a person. In such a situation,
could the vehicle be impounded if the person borrowing the
vehicle fit the criteria established in HB 169.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied that it's a possibility depending
upon the ordinances of the municipality. She surmised that if a
person unknowingly lends his/her vehicle to a person fitting the
criteria in HB 169, the municipality would have a way to
determine that and make an allowance for it. This legislation
simply establishes a framework that allows municipalities to
move forward with their own regulations.
8:29:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if there is any intent language with
regard to how municipalities would establish this.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that it's not necessary since
municipalities have elected officials that are answerable to
their constituents. This legislation, she reiterated, simply
provides a tool.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether there is any
collection effort at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied that there is, although
municipalities don't seem to spend a great deal of money to
collect these fines.
8:31:00 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH, referring to the Municipality of Anchorage
(MOA), related that it first tries to attach to the permanent
fund dividend. However, other collectors rank higher. She
noted that MOA does have a collection agency which it utilizes.
8:31:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to how errors would be
handled. He also inquired as to which vehicle would be taken in
a situation in which the driver fitting the criteria specified
in HB 169 owns more than one vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that these
individuals would be discovered when law enforcement officials
have reason to check the license plate or stop the driver. She
said she didn't expect municipalities to actively seek vehicles
to seize. This legislation is just a tool when someone comes to
the attention of law enforcement for something else. If an
error does occur, existing statute already provides recourse.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that $7.5 million in fines
should be an incentive to municipalities to go after these
individuals, which he said he didn't view as a bad thing.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that the accumulated fines
being targeted in HB 169 are for moving violations. She further
clarified that finding individuals fitting the criteria in HB
169 and taking the vehicle doesn't necessarily mean that the
money is presented. Moreover, HB 169 isn't a fundraising
effort, but rather is an effort to address criminal behavior and
the failure to heed consequences.
8:34:38 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to a first-time offender with a
fine that exceeds $1,000 and the possibility of law enforcement
taking the vehicle. She inquired as to whether there should be
a delinquency provision.
8:35:32 AM
IRIS MATTHEWS, Staff to Representative Berta Gardner, Alaska
State Legislature, pointed out that the documents listing the
offenders in MOA demonstrate that they, even the lower end
offenders, average four to five citations. Ms. Matthews
explained the she worked with the municipality to establish the
$1,000 threshold of fines, which represents several unpaid
fines. She further explained that for a fine to be unpaid, one
has already had 30 days to pay and thus a fine wouldn't be
considered delinquent until after that 30 days has passed.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH pointed out that the legislation refers to
"unpaid" rather than "delinquent."
8:36:58 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to whether there are any
constitutional issues with regard to impounding a vehicle that
doesn't belong to the individual [driving who has more that
$1,000 in fines].
MS. MATTHEWS said that such hasn't been discussed. However, the
legislation is placing language in the statute where other
vehicles are impounded. She pointed out that when an individual
is charged with driving under the influence (DUI), no matter
whose vehicle it is, the vehicle is impounded. For any
impoundment there is an administrative hearing process in which
the vehicle owner would be able to come forward.
8:38:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the documents in the committee
packet include citations written by Alaska State Troopers or
only those by municipal police departments. He also asked how
the state would take advantage of the tool provided by HB 169.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that the state is simply
providing permissive language for the municipalities. However,
she pointed out that when an individual is pulled over, the
Alaska State Trooper or municipal law enforcement would have
access to information regarding the individual's driving record,
including unpaid fines, is available.
8:39:57 AM
JAMES FORNELLI, Senior Administrative Officer, Treasury Division
Finance Department, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), specified
that the citation list included in the committee packet is
exclusively citations from the Anchorage municipal police
department and don't include any state citations.
8:40:38 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if state troopers write citations within
the municipality.
MR. FORNELLI said he isn't sure. However, he pointed out that a
citation from a trooper would be issued under state code, which
doesn't correlate with the municipal code.
8:41:24 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to the constitutionality of a
municipality confiscating a used vehicle that is being used by
another party.
MR. FORNELLI said he wasn't able to answer.
8:43:16 AM
MR. FORNELLI clarified that MOA receives these cases from the
courts as an unpaid judgment. Once MOA receives a case, a
letter is sent and garnishment of the permanent fund dividend is
utilized. In the course of the last year, MOA has begun to
utilize the garnishment of bank accounts and wages.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work for everyone because not
everyone has bank accounts or is employed. These cases are
ultimately sent to a third-party collection agency that
specializes in municipal debt collection. The third-party
collection agency has been minimally successful because those
who have been cited are very good at hiding. Mr. Fornelli then
explained that when the citation is issued, the citation is
retained by the police department for approximately 45-60 days
in order to allow the cited individual the time to pay the fine.
The individual being cited is notified by receipt of the
citation as well as by mail. After that 45-60 days, the court
then receives the unpaid citations and either defaults the
judgment or it goes to trail. Citations in that process are
sent another letter by the courts specifying that without
restitution, the individual will proceed to municipal
collections. Once the municipality receives the citations,
approximately 60-90 days from issuance of the citation has
passed. Again, another letter is sent specifying what could
result from nonpayment, including proceeding to a collection
agency. The aforementioned takes another 60 days. Therefore,
it would take four to five months before what is being proposed
in HB 169 could occur and during that time the offender has
received multiple letters and opportunities to comply and pay
citations.
8:48:27 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to at what point a fine is
declared delinquent.
MR. FORNELLI opined that when the municipality receives the fine
from the court it arrives as a delinquent criminal fine or fee.
The municipality usually works that case for approximately 60
days.
8:49:38 AM
JANICE SHAMBERG, Member, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage, recalled an assembly meeting during which a young
woman related that she was struck while driving by someone who
would qualified under this legislation. After speaking with the
police department, Ms. Shamberg said she understood that
legislation such as HB 169 is necessary to address individuals
with multiple unpaid offenses/citations. These repeat offenders
have no qualms about driving while having these citations. She
explained that she provided a draft ordinance upon which HB 169
was based. Ms. Shamberg pointed out that there will be an
appeal process in place during which someone who has loaned a
vehicle to an individual who would qualify under this
legislation would have the opportunity to present that
information. Someone who knowingly loans an automobile to
someone else without taking into account that individual's
lifestyle, should have some inconvenience to get the vehicle
back, she explained. The original ordinance wasn't an effort to
target these repeat offenders, but since these are repeat
offenders they present every opportunity for law enforcement to
stop them. She related that it isn't the intent for a single
large ticket to trigger impound or forfeiture. This legislation
is meant to capture those who drive with disregard for the life
and safety of others, she emphasized.
8:54:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH offered an amendment to page 2, line
1, to change from "unpaid" to "delinquent" in order to provide
clarity such that a single event wouldn't cause an individual to
immediately lose his/her vehicle. She then inquired as to the
language "used by a person" and whether it might create possible
constitutional issues.
MS. SHAMBERG said that the intent of the term "unpaid" versus
"delinquent" would be specified in MOA's ordinance. She
characterized such a language change as a friendly amendment
that relays the intent. The constitutionality issue, she noted,
was discussed at length with the attorneys in Anchorage who
don't view there to be a problem due to the inclusion of the
appeals process. If there are errors, the Anchorage Police
Department has said it is willing to pay for the recompense of
errors.
8:57:13 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to municipal law and the use of
a vehicle that is deemed to be connected with prostitution. She
recalled that MOA takes the vehicle of persons involved in such.
MS. SHAMBERG replied yes. She recalled that the vehicle of a
driver soliciting a prostitute is taken. If the vehicle is
actually owned by someone else, she surmised that during the
appeal process the vehicle would be returned.
8:58:29 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Ms. Shamberg could provide the
committee with the written discussion of the language "used".
MS. SHAMBURG replied yes.
8:59:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that HB 169 merely adds a
fifth element to current statute that already uses the
terminology "motor vehicle used".
8:59:51 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 1;
Delete "unpaid"
Insert "delinquent"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:01:51 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH moved to report HB 169, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 169(CRA) was
reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 101-UNIFORM TRAFFIC LAWS
9:02:41 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 101, "An Act relating to uniform traffic
laws."
9:02:55 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH moved to adopt CSHB 101, Version 25-
LS0262\C, Luckhaupt, 3/12/07, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version C was before the committee.
9:03:16 AM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, pointed out that the committee should have a letter
from the Office of the Mayor of Anchorage dated March 5, 2007,
in which he responded to comments and discussion at the previous
committee hearing. The mayor offered a couple of suggestions to
further clarify statute. The sponsor choose to move forward
with the suggestion of judicial imposition of the ignition
interlock requirement. However, the second suggestion was not
addressed because it is incorporated in Representative Meyer's
legislation, HB 19. Mr. Hilyard related that Section 2 does
address some of the sentencing confusion that was identified by
Anchorage's municipal attorney, John McConnaughy. He related
that he has provided Mr. McConnaughy and the mayor's chief of
staff with Version C, but hasn't been able to reach them for
comment.
9:05:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern that she only recently
saw the letter from the mayor and wasn't sure that Version C
fits within what MOA found at fault. She expressed interest in
receiving municipal feedback on this prior to moving the
legislation.
MR. HILYARD related that he spoke with the mayor's chief of
staff two days ago and faxed a copy of Version C requesting
comments. He further related that he has made attempts this
morning to reach the mayor's chief of staff and Mr. McConnaughy,
but to no avail. Mr. Hilyard explained that the legislative
drafter was charged with drafting Section 2 such that it adopted
the mayor's first suggestion in the most correct manner.
9:08:07 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH said she originally shared Representative
Cissna's concerns, but has had repeated contact and
correspondence [with MOA] since the initial meeting on HB 101.
The bottom line is that from the legislature's legal
perspective, the municipality must be in compliance regardless
of whether they agree or not. She opined, "I do think that
we're ready to move today on the bill that's before us and that
we have provided the municipality additional time." She related
the calls she has made trying to contact municipal officials in
Anchorage. Co-Chair Fairclough opined that the situation seems
to be a stand-off in which the choice is either a legal action,
which would waste resources at the state and local level, or a
compromise during this legislative session. Therefore, Version
C is a compromise that she said she supports.
9:12:12 AM
MR. HILYARD, in response to Co-Chair LeDoux, clarified that the
mayor's letter included two suggestions, the second suggestion
would tie ignition interlock to the issuance of temporary
limited licenses, which is the essence of HB 19. If HB 19
doesn't make it through both bodies, then Representative Gatto
would entertain inserting the second suggestion, he said. In
response to Representative Neuman, Mr. Hilyard related that both
the sponsor of HB 19 and HB 101 have been in discussion even
before either legislation was prefiled. The discussion was that
while each dealt with ignition interlocks, they were
fundamentally different in the ultimate goal. Therefore, the
decision at this point was to keep the two pieces of legislation
separate.
9:15:19 AM
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, related that the mayor's
letter offers the following two proposals: to adjust the
ignition interlock requirement when an individual has a blood
alcohol content (BAC) of .16 or greater and adjust who decides
that and at what phase of the sentencing process in which that
decision is made; to eliminate the courts and assign it to the
Division of Motor Vehicles, possibly at a time when a limited
license is issued. Mr. Luckhaupt said that he was directed to
work the first proposal, which is close to what currently exists
in statute. The mayor suggested altering Title 12, which is
criminal procedure statute. The difficulty with the
aforementioned is that all of the state's sentencing procedures
for drunk driving are in Title 28. Therefore, placing this in
Title 12 is problematic because those dealing with sentencing or
the crime of drunk driving wouldn't know to look there for
sentencing. The aforementioned led to the suggestion being
placed in Title 28 since it's a drunk driving provision. The
greater decision for the committee is whether to go with the
original legislation requiring ignition interlock. The
aforementioned was applied statewide under the Alaska Uniform
Traffic Laws Act. The Act was established in order that folks
traveling through different areas of the state would know what
is expected of them. Therefore, municipalities are expected to
change the municipal code to be consistent with the provisions
of the uniform traffic code, although at times the legislature
has decided to exempt certain municipalities from the code.
9:21:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if and when the state has sent
notice to municipalities regarding this uniform Act and any
changes to it. He mentioned the difficulty of smaller areas
with limited resources to comply with something like this, even
if the area is notified.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that annually each municipality with its
own municipal traffic code is required to send a copy of its
traffic code to the state. Furthermore, every municipality has
the option to adopt the Uniform Traffic Laws Act. He noted that
many of the smaller municipalities don't have their own traffic
code and thus merely adopt the state's code. The first chapter
of Title 28 sets forth the procedure and municipalities are
required to identify their traffic laws using similar numbers to
the state's code or specifically adopt and cite the state's
code. With regard to when the legislature amends laws, Mr.
Luckhaupt related his assumption that the DMV has a procedure
for notifying communities. He pointed out that until MOA's
difficulty with the ignition interlock law with which the
Anchorage municipal attorney had issues and didn't notify the
Anchorage Assembly about the change, there hasn't been a
compliance issue with municipalities with their own traffic
code.
9:24:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested Mr. Luckhaupt's help in drafting
a letter to distribute to the smaller communities in order to
inform them of state law.
9:24:58 AM
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to Co-Chair Fairclough, said that
MOA's traffic code is on file with DMV, the Legislative
Reference Library, and on the Internet as well. Mr. Luckhaupt
said that a year ago he did perform research from which he came
to know that MOA hasn't amended it's traffic code to reflect
this change in law in 2004.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH related her understanding that the existing
[ignition interlock] law should be implemented in its entirety.
MR. LUCKHAUPT opined that the law is in effect and any MOA code
that isn't consistent with state law falls by the wayside.
There have been a number of situations in which MOA has
attempted to create more stringent penalties for drunk drivers
than state law provides. Because of it was less favorable to
the defendant, the defendant would raise the issue and it would
be taken to the courts and the MOA ordinance would be struck
down because it was inconsistent with state law. However, [MOA
not applying the ignition interlock law is beneficial to the
defendants who along with MOA aren't going to raise the issue.
Therefore, defendants in MOA are receiving a lesser sentence
than those elsewhere in the state. In further response to Co-
Chair Fairclough, Mr. Luckhaupt related that if MOA continues to
ignore the Alaska Uniform Traffic Laws Act, the attorney general
would have options such as a declaratory judgment and
extraordinary writs.
9:28:46 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Version C is tight enough that MOA has
to enforce the [ignition interlock law].
MR. LUCKHAUPT said there's no wiggle room that would allow MOA
to not enforce [the ignition interlock law]. Furthermore, the
2004 law with which MOA had problems has been changed to reflect
and address MOA's concerns.
9:29:27 AM
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to Representative Neuman, pointed out
that if communities aren't using their own local traffic codes,
they're using the Alaska Uniform Traffic Laws Act and the
regulations adopted by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities already. In further response to Representative
Neuman, Mr. Luckhaupt explained that a municipal police officer,
just as a state trooper, can cite an individual under the state
or the municipal traffic code. For example, a number of years
ago Fairbanks eliminated all of its municipal prosecutors and
criminal enforcement, and thus Fairbanks police officers cite
individuals under the state law for all traffic offenses
committed within the municipality.
9:32:07 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to why the sponsor brought forth
legislation rather than requesting a declaratory judgment.
9:35:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 101, related that it was his personal philosophy. He related
that he contacted officials within MOA, which resulted in a
response from the mayor who suggested remedies. Therefore, he
wanted to work with those involved.
9:36:29 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH commented that she would leave it to the
sponsor regarding whether ultimately the attorney general must
be brought in to deal with the situation.
9:37:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked if the sponsor would entertain a
friendly amendment to hold any road funds until MOA is in
compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "I'll fall on my sword to get drunks
out of their cars."
9:38:31 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
9:39:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON highlighted that it's the second time no
one from MOA has appeared during the hearing of HB 101, which he
remarked was disappointing.
9:39:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report CSHB 101, Version 25-
LS0262\C, Luckhaupt, 3/12/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 101(CRA) was reported from the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
9:40:04 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|