Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/17/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB108 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB61 | |
| HB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 108 | ||
| = | HB 19 | ||
| = | HB 61 | ||
| = | HB 88 | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 17, 2005
1:45 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:45:10 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire; Suzanne Cunningham, Staff,
Representative Kevin Meyer; Michael Pawlowski, Staff,
Representative Kevin Meyer; Kristin Ryan, Director, Division
of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental
Conservation; Shalon Szymanski, Staff, Representative Lesil
McGuire; Randy Ruaro, Legislation Regulation, Department of
Law; Anthony Newman, Program Officer, Division of Juvenile
Justice, Department of Health and Social Services
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mark Premo, Anchorage Municipality, Anchorage; Larry Meyers,
Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue,
Anchorage; Kate Giard, Chair, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 19 An Act relating to pesticides and broadcast
chemicals; and providing for an effective date.
CS HB 19 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with a new fiscal note
by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
HB 61 An Act relating to licensing for a Calcutta pool
as a game of chance.
CS HB 61 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with indeterminate note
#1 by the Department of Revenue.
HB 88 An Act relating to certain weapons offenses
involving minors; to aggravating factors in
sentencing for certain offenses committed against
a school employee; and providing for an effective
date.
HB 88 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 108 An Act relating to the regulation of water and
sewer utilities of political subdivisions that are
not in competition with other water and sewer
utilities.
CS HB 108 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the
Department of Environmental Conservation, fiscal
note #2 by the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development and fiscal note #3 by the
Department of Law.
1:46:03 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 108
An Act relating to the regulation of water and sewer
utilities of political subdivisions that are not in
competition with other water and sewer utilities.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-
LS0455\F, Craver, 3/17/05, as the version of the bill before
the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER,
explained that the committee substitute includes the
addition of the two previously adopted amendments creating
an "F" version of the bill. She added that in reviewing the
draft, it was brought to the Sponsor's attention by a
representative of the Municipality of Anchorage that a
technical change was needed under Section 3. On Page 2,
Line 28, and on Page 3, Line 5, "appointed" should be
deleted and replaced with "approved". The Anchorage charter
does not allow for a member to be appointed but they are
allowed to be approved.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if approved would implicitly mean
appointed and approved. Ms. Cunningham said that it would.
Representative Weyhrauch attempted to clarify the statement
made by Vice Chair Stoltze. Vice-Chair Stoltze commented
that it was a semantics concern.
Representative Holm asked what would happen if the person
was not approved. Co-Chair Meyer thought that the mayor
would have to make the appointment. Ms. Cunningham agreed
that the mayor would have to make appointments to come
before the assembly for approval to fill the spots on the
board.
Representative Weyhrauch thought that there would be
members, some appointed and approved. Those appointed, but
not approved, would not have a counting vote. Co-Chair
Meyer agreed.
MARK PREMO, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE
MUNICIPALITY, ANCHORAGE, clarified that the powers of
appointment rests with the mayor; the powers of approval or
confirmation rests with the assembly. Until they are
approved by the assembly, they are a non-voting member of
the board.
Representative Holm commented on the specifics of the
board's make-up. He asked what would happen if they could
not get the approval of the members on the board.
Representative Kelly inquired if the Anchorage utility opted
out, would those people be laid off and the expenses taken
from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
KATE GIARD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIR, REGULATORY
COMMISSION OF ALASKA (RCA), ANCHORAGE, explained that when
any utility becomes unregulated, their revenues come out of
the pool of the revenues calculated by the RCA. The pool
revenues then become smaller. There is not a direct
correlation between an employee and any regular utility.
All revenues would then get smaller.
1:55:54 PM
Representative Kelly commented on a conflict within the
Fairbanks utilities and the mess, which resulted from that.
He asked about the "authority" to deal with such an
oversight. Co-Chair Meyer advised that there was concern
regarding the checks and balances from the Anchorage
Assembly. For some folks, that was not enough insurance and
consequently, the idea of an authority came into play, which
would oversee rate increases.
Representative Kelly requested future information regarding
the process.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT the proposed changes on
Pages 2 & 3, deleting "appointed" and inserting "approved".
There being NO OBJECTION, the changes were adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 108 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 108 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Environmental Conservation, fiscal note #2 by the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development and fiscal
note #3 by the Department of Law.
1:59:03 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
An Act relating to pesticides and broadcast chemicals;
and providing for an effective date.
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER,
explained that Amendment #3 resulted from a conversation
during the last hearing on HB 19. (Copy on File). Part of
the discussion revolved around a hornet's nest under the
edge or eves of a bread and breakfast. He noted that
Amendment #3 address where the health concerns are that give
rise to the reason that HB 19 is before the Committee. He
requested that the Department of Environmental Conservation
discuss the health concerns and definitions currently before
the Committee.
2:01:21 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, pointed out that
where the Department witnesses the most concern with
pesticides is in long-term exposure. The areas of most
concern are places such as apartments while spraying is
occurring or in a park where grass is being sprayed. She
stated that public notice makes the most sense in areas of
significant exposure.
Mr. Pawlowski followed up that the idea is to remove
reference to the business community but still include parks,
apartments and public sport fields.
Co-Chair Meyer passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Stoltze and
requested that he Chair this portion of the meeting.
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Vice-Chair
Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Mr. Pawlowski clarified that the definitions were taken from
the previous sections, B, C & D. He added that they had
attempted to "tidy up" the definition.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if those impacts were for the
customers but not necessarily for the employees. He asked
if the employees were assumed to know the risks. Mr.
Pawlowski said that was correct and would then move to
worker's compensation issues.
Representative Holm noted support for the amendment;
however, did not know if he could support the bill.
Representative Kelly interjected that he was not opposed to
the bill.
2:06:09 PM
Representative Kelly discussed that the Department of
Environmental Conservation regulates and controls restricted
chemicals. He was concerned that the State would not be
able to provide the necessary oversight. He knew that it is
against the law to hurt neighbors. He questioned whether
tying the costs of covering and exposure concerns was wise.
Co-Chair Meyer responded that the intent was to address the
public health issue. Alaska is the only State that does not
require the large chemical companies to pay a registration
fee. He believed that the chemical companies should be
asked to pay costs to run the program.
2:09:07 PM
Ms. Ryan explained the work of the Department. The
Department registers chemicals that are available for sale
in Alaska. The Department is already inspecting stores.
Currently, they inspect the use chemicals, by certified
applicators. The bill requests that the public must be
notified when some of the restricted use chemicals are being
sprayed. The bill is being scaled back by the amendment and
only affects areas where long-term or significant exposure
can occur.
Ms. Ryan thought that the certified applicator portion was
more significant than the notification. It is important
that the people that are applying the chemicals know the
basics of how to do it right and safely. HB 19 would
accomplish that. It will make manufacturers, who profit
from the use of the chemicals, help pay for that use.
2:11:22 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #3.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
Representative Holm asked the definition of pesticide. He
read the definition that it was anything that could alter
the state of a living being whether it is plant, fungus,
animal or insect.
Representative Holm warned the Department of the "largeness"
of the proposed action. Ms. Ryan responded that the bill
only impacts chemicals that the State already registers. The
Federal Insecticide Act is the legislation that dictates
what pesticides hinder growth. The products are labeled
regarding their safe use. If it is not used according to
the label, federal and state law is violated. She admitted
that language is broad. The chemicals in Alaska amount to
over 5700 products. The Department will exempt certain
items from that fee.
2:14:16 PM
She acknowledged that the broadcast chemical term is also
broad. It is defined in Statute, as chemical substances,
which are released into air for purposes of preventing,
retarding, destroying or stimulating plant or animal life.
He thought that HB 19 is restricted to the chemicals
registered through the registration process already.
Representative Holm referenced "stimulating" growth and
asked if fertilizer would be included. He questioned how
that could be monitored in public areas. He worried about
the "camel's nose under the tent". He emphasized that there
is a "huge" oversight of already federally mandated
programs. Representative Holm thought that there was a lot
of money being spent by the chemical companies to properly
register and label their products. The Department of
Environmental Conservation does not have the personnel to go
through the process to properly educate people how to
duplicate the federal process. He questioned the need for
the legislation.
2:16:44 PM
Representative Holm questioned if the public would be well
served by undertaking the proposed work. He found the bill
to be potentially onerous.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that Representative Holm's
insights were expressed in regards to the program that is
already in statute. HB 19 only clarifies that the program
already in existence will now be paid by the chemical
companies instead of the general fund. Getting rid of the
program could be addressed through the budgetary process.
2:19:03 PM
Mr. Pawlowski addressed the changes to the revised fiscal
note. He noted that the Department of Environmental
Conservation thought that the three positions could be dealt
with in the normal budgetary process. The note was reduced
in the travel line, reduced the contractual line by $10
thousand dollars, reduced supplies by $1 thousand dollars,
reduced equipment and brought the realized revenue to the
general fund. In year one, there would be a $96.4 thousand
general fund dollar increase which would improve by $20
thousand dollars.
2:20:38 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that it would save approximately $100
thousand dollars in year one. Mr. Pawlowski added that in
year two, the State would realize approximately $18 thousand
dollars in subsequent advantage. The costs of setting up
the program billing system would be absorbed in year one.
That would allow the addition of the second position to
allow for the regulation and enforcement of the program.
The real advantage is that the fees could subsequently be
reduced.
Vice-Chair Stoltze mentioned correspondence his office has
received on the issue. He asked if the Department's larger
concern was collecting the fees or the public health. Ms.
Ryan emphasized that the primary focus is public health.
Additionally, a company that is benefiting from the use of a
product should be paying their share. Knowing that Alaska
is the only State that does not do that, it is a legitimate
request to have the fees supports the program.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the Department would be willing
to make due with less for the publics health. Ms. Ryan
advised that the Department made a compromise knowing that
the amendment would deal directly with a decrease in the
workload.
2:23:12 PM
Representative Holm referenced that the current pesticide
definition includes biological agents such as ladybugs. He
distributed a list of biological agents. (Copy on File).
He reiterated that the legislation would be a huge step.
2:24:57 PM
Representative Kelly understood that the Department is
currently doing the work and asked what would be changed.
Ms. Ryan responded that there would need to be regulations
st
written to address general fund money going away, July 1.
There will need to be fees to replace that to sustain the
work. Writing regulations is a significant amount of work.
Co-Chair Meyer interjected that the bill will require that a
notice be distributed regarding what pesticide will be
sprayed in certain public areas. It is a right to know
bill. Ms. Ryan added that there would be two new
requirements:
· They will have to use a certified applicator to
apply pesticides in a park or apartment building;
and
· Those certified applicators would have to post a
sign so that people are aware that spraying has
occurred in the area.
2:27:53 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 19 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying new fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CS HB 19 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a new fiscal note by the Department
of Environmental Conservation.
AT EASE: 2:28:38 PM
RECONVENE: 2:30:33 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
An Act relating to licensing for a Calcutta pool as a
game of chance.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-
LS0281\F.1, Luckhaupt, 3/17/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for
the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Stoltze explained that the amendment would narrow
the scope of the bill.
SHALON SZYMANSKI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE,
agreed that was a fair calculation of the amendment.
2:33:12 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there was a prohibition on
participants engaging in wagering. Ms. Szymanski pointed
out that Section 8, Page 3, mentions that the competitors
must be 18 years or older. She thought language could be
added to address that the person placing the wagers also be
18 years of age or older.
Vice-Chair Stoltze reiterated his question regarding whether
the participants should be prohibited from wagering. Ms.
Szymanski replied that in many Calcutta pools, the
competitors also have the ability to place wagers. Vice-
Chair Stoltze suggested that should be a regulatory issue.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE, SPONSOR, explained that there
must be written regulations in that area. She provided a
brief history of the bill, advising that the overall intent
is to make law-abiding citizens of those people that have
been putting together these type activities for the
charities. Over the years, there has been a sort of
"chilling effect" on them.
2:37:26 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if a title change could be made.
Representative McGuire replied it could.
Representative Foster OBJECTED to Amendment #2. He did not
know of any golf course in Southwest Alaska. He asked why
only urban Alaska would benefit from the bill.
Representative McGuire intended that today's meeting be a
"work session". Originally, the language was broader to
reflect the reality existing in Alaska. Things like this
exist on in rural and urban areas. The problem is that the
Department of Revenue has testified that the bill would be
the largest change in gaming regulations since pull-tabs.
She indicated her frustration. She pointed out that an
Alaskan Native Corporation that provides pools to benefit
scholarships brought the original bill forward.
Representative McGuire stated that she did not want to get
into a situation in which she was at odds with the
Department of Revenue.
2:40:47 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that that the Legislature does
not want to visit the gaming statute each time a new game of
chance comes forward.
Representative Hawker shared Representative Foster's
concerns. He thought that the bill could legitimize
activities in the State. He thought that the legislation
could legitimize various contests of chance statewide. He
did not arrive at the same implications as the Department of
Revenue. Representative Hawker questioned likening the
legislation to pull-tabs. He reiterated that he did not see
the Calcutta pools in the same light as pull-tabs. He
endorsed the sentiment of Representative Foster and asked to
continue dialogue.
Representative McGuire asked to get testimony on the record
to that effect. She added that there is an incredible
amount of latitude that the Department of Revenue could have
establishing regulations regarding charitable bowls.
2:44:37 PM
Representative Hawker noted that in the context of the law
as a whole, the legislation would not allow just anyone to
execute a Calcutta pool. Representative McGuire agreed and
said that any type of gaming done for charity would continue
that spirit. Regarding who would put together a Calcutta
pool, a list of those people would be made. She stressed
that for the regulations, it would not be a commercial
enterprise but would instead be for charitable reasons.
Page 2, Line 9, notes that the Department "may" issue a
permit to the municipality, etc. That portion of Statute
defines the only boundaries and the Department of Revenue
has established some "wild scenarios".
2:47:12 PM
Representative Croft asked if a qualified organization would
have to be a non-profit. He referenced the definition in
Section 9; currently, it would be a sporting event in the
State. Representative McGuire replied that it would have to
be in the State and the idea considered was that the person
organizing it would have to be a participant. On Page 3,
Section 8, elementary, secondary, or post secondary school
sporting events would be excluded.
2:48:48 PM
Representative Croft wanted it to be clear each time what
was authorized, making sure that there was a cost benefit.
Representative McGuire replied that the original request was
from the Seri Native Corporation golf classic and they offer
for scholarships.
Representative McGuire pointed out that Page 2, Line 14,
does reference dog-mushing contests. As long as the goals
are charitable and the activities are in State, it would be
okay. She pointed out Section 8 exclusion of the
elementary, secondary and postsecondary events.
2:51:02 PM
Representative Croft questioned why it was considered a game
of chance rather than a game of skill.
LARRY MEYERS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ANCHORAGE,
explained that the term "game of chance" is a term of art
that is used to describe almost every event. The term "game
of skill" is defined in Statute.
2:52:17 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that in the 1980's, the pull-
tab issue was a very small enterprise in the State. It has
become over a $300 million dollar industry. He thought it
would be important to keep a handle on the activities; there
are scopes of gaming that people are comfortable with. As
public policy, he did not know what Calcutta pools would
encompass and thought that the legislation would be a
"policy" start to begin the discussion.
2:55:04 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out the Attorney General's
report, which disallows these activities. Representative
McGuire offered follow up on that information.
2:55:40 PM
Representative Hawker added that if the law was passed and
there were abuses found, and then the State could pass
another law to address the concerns. He recommended erring
on the side of supporting the non-profit organizations.
Representative McGuire stated that a wager or bid would have
to occur in an auction. Co-Chair Meyer requested that
discussion be addressed toward Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Meyer MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to the amendment.
Representative McGuire recommended that the discretion of
the Committee play out and added that it was okay either
way. It must remain in State, while being a contest of
skill and additionally, it must be a non-profit organization
doing it.
Representative Kelly noted that he favored a title change
and did not think it should be limited.
3:00:18 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW Amendment #2. Representative
McGuire recommended a conceptual amendment to tighten the
title, being more reflective of the charitable goals.
3:01:13 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED a conceptual amendment to tighten
the title, stating to "authorize golf events as the Calcutta
pools as a charitable game of chance". Co-Chair Meyer
OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Representative Hawker
asked if Representative Kelly intended to include golfing.
Representative Kelly replied that he did not. He restated
the intended conceptual amendment: "Authorizing Calcutta
pools as a charitable game of chance". Co-Chair Meyer
OBJECTED.
Representative Croft pointed out that the title would be
changed. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, the conceptual amendment was
adopted.
3:03:14 PM
Co-Chair Chenault voiced support for the legislation. He
pointed out that most of the situations are for a good cause
and that the intent is to help children.
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that he wanted a product that
serves the State while helping the charitable events.
Representative McGuire advised that she would not be
"hostile" to anything that would help to tighten HB 61.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
LS0281\G.1, Luckhaupt, 3/16/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for
discussion purposes.
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that the amendment would change
the title of the bill and that it would benefit a public
radio station in Talkeetna.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if the animal classics would cover
concerns in Amendment #1 and if it should be a Department
decision.
Mr. Meyer responded that the history of each classic has
been added by specific name and would need to be added in
that format.
3:09:03 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that the only definition of
animal classics was defined in AS 05.15.692.
Representative McGuire suggested on Page 2, Line 13,
deleting "bird classics" and inserting "goose classics",
broadening the category. Vice-Chair Stoltze cautioned the
way in which that language is being handled. He thought
that cock fighting could result.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that he did not want to spend a lot
more time on the amendment.
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER,
addressed AS 05.15.180, limitations on authorized activity.
With the exception of raffles, lotteries, pull tabs and
numerous other items, activities may not be licensed under
st
that chapter unless it was licensed before January 1, 1959.
She referenced a bill presented by Vice Chair Stoltze, which
rd
passed the 23 Legislature, and added a sentence replacing
st
the timeline to November 1, 2002.
Ms. Cunningham advised that she had spoken with Legal
Services about incorporating all the bird classics under
animal classics but because of the time perimeters, it
cannot be done. The Kenai Goose Classic is already listed.
Representative Kelly referenced Page 2, Section 4©, and
asked about the Calcutta pool. Co-Chair Meyer recommended
that questions now only be directed to the amendment.
Representative Holm recommended language of migratory bird
classics.
3:14:21 PM
Co-Chair Meyer indicated concern with the way the bill was
moving.
Co-Chair Meyer MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment #1.
3:15:41 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Foster, Kelly, Moses, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Hawker, Holm, Meyer
Representative Weyrauch, Representative Joule and Co-Chair
Chenault were not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-3).
RECESS: 3:16:49 PM
RECONVENE: 3:17:46 PM
3:17:51 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that passage of Amendment #1
would change the title. He gave his permission to the legal
drafters to make the necessary changes. Representative
Croft advised that the intent was to make the title as tight
as possible.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 61 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 61 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with indeterminate note #1 by the
Department of Revenue.
3:19:00 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
An Act relating to certain weapons offenses involving
minors; to aggravating factors in sentencing for
certain offenses committed against a school employee;
and providing for an effective date.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-
GH1096\Y, Luckhaupt, 3/17/05, as the version of the bill
before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
3:19:49 PM
RANDY RUARO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGISLATION
REGULATION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained the committee
substitute.
· It provides for an aggravator in Section 3 in cases
where assaults have occurred on school grounds,
school buses or school sponsored events.
· Section 4, a new section, closes a loophole in
response to a judicial opinion that found that a
defendant could claim credit on repeated sentencing.
· Section 5 provides for an automatic waiver for 16 &
17 year-olds who are charged or convicted in certain
Class A & B felonies misconduct weapon offenses.
The House Judiciary Committee did much work on
Sections 3 & 5, and made those changes.
Representative Croft asked about Section 5. Mr. Ruaro
thought that Representative Croft was referring back to
Section 1 of the original bill, which does not relate to the
mitigating section.
Representative Croft noted the categories that automatically
waive juveniles back to adult court. He wondered the types
of weapon infractions that would automatically be waived to
adult court. Mr. Ruaro explained the weapon offenses
automatically waived would be listed under AS 11.61.190. He
noted the change made by the House Judiciary Committee, the
risk of physical injury to a person. The other class
indicates if a gun is possessed during a drug deal and/or
possessing a gun on school grounds or near a day care after
being convicted of a felony or being adjudicated a
delinquent minor.
3:25:11 PM
Representative Croft noted concern about constituents who
"carry" weapons for defensive purposes and then pick up
their children from schools.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if all fiscal notes were zero. Mr.
Ruaro replied they were.
Vice-Chair Stoltze referred to Section 2 and asked how
important the survey is to the Department of Health & Social
Services to the bill. Mr. Ruaro responded it is not
critical. The Senate Judiciary Committee did amend that
portion out of the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the same bill had been introduced on
the Senate side. Mr. Ruaro replied that it had. Vice Chair
Stoltze noted that at the time amendments are taken, he
would propose one to delete Section 2.
3:27:51 PM
Representative Croft asked about Section 5, minors being
waived to adult court. He asked if delinquency rules would
apply.
ANTHONY NEWMAN, PROGRAM OFFICER, DIVISION OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, replied
that they would apply. Representative Croft continued his
line of questioning regarding misconduct of weapons in the
second degree, indicating that it is problematic. He gave
an example of a child tried as an adult. He asked about AS
11.61.195, the lower degree of weapon defense.
Mr. Ruaro explained that Section 195 offenses involve
possessing a gun during a drug offense. He stated that is a
serious enough crime to be subject to an automatic waiver.
When possessing a weapon near a school or daycare, everyone
rd
knows that guns and schools do not mix well. The 3 example
mainly addresses the drive-by shooting offenses. The judge
would again have the discretion.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to adopt Amendment #1, deleting
Section 2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Weyhrauch asked about the fiscal note and the
additional work required for the Public Defenders office.
Mr. Ruaro anticipated a low number of cases. Mr. Newman
related that in the past two years, there have been 16
youths that would have fallen under the auto-waiver statute.
Representative Weyhrauch asked about the costs of housing
juveniles without including a fiscal note. Mr. Newman
explained that of the 16 youths, 10 had been adjudicated and
5 were given institutional orders. Representative Weyhrauch
reiterated his concern with the zero note.
3:34:59 PM
Representative Weyhrauch addressed the schoolyard bullying
issue. Mr. Ruaro opined that HB 88 would not be an
appropriate vehicle to address bullying, recommending other
options.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, deleting
Line 30, Page 3, second degree weapon defenses.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Croft explained that those are serious
offenses in which youth are automatically waived out of the
juvenile court. He voiced his concerns.
Vice-Chair Stoltze provided a personal experience at a high
school and asked if the situation would be treated as
possession. Representative Croft read from statute and
noted that it would be treated as possession.
3:40:30 PM
Representative Holm shared a personal experience and asked
if a hunting situation could be waived to an adult status.
Mr. Ruaro asked if Representative Holm was referencing
Subsection 3. Mr. Newman said that the bill addresses when
firearms discharge under circumstances involving substantial
risk and are discharged from a propelled vehicle.
Representative Croft clarified that a propelled vehicle
could be anything moving such as a car, boat, snowmobile,
etc. He asked if the behaviors should be indicated under
the automatic waivers section.
Representative Holm talked about grouse hunting and shooting
from vehicles and such a person being remanded to an adult
status. He agreed with Representative Croft that is
important to be careful, and that minors often do not use
good judgment. Mr. Ruaro agreed that it is important to be
careful, however, prosecutors must use discretion.
3:44:05 PM
Co-Chair Meyer suggested that more time be given to develop
a new committee substitute for HB 88.
Representative Croft WITHDREW Amendment #2.
HB 88 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:46 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|