Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB74 | |
| SB193 | |
| SB108 | |
| SB140 | |
| SB71 | |
| SB218 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2014
8:46 a.m.
8:46:33 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:46 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Heather Shadduck, Staff, Senator Pete Kelly; Senator Peter
Micciche; Sara Chambers, Director, Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Senator Fred Dyson; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney
General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division,
Department of Law; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska
Court System; Chuck Kopp, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson; Daniel
George, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze; Jesse Logan,
Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire; Suzanne Armstrong, Staff,
Senator Kevin Meyer; Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jordan
Shilling, Staff, Senator John Coghill; Ron Taylor, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Corrections.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Pat Pitney, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks
SUMMARY
CSSB 64(FIN)
OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS/RECIDIVISM BILL
HCS CSSB 64(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
zero fiscal note from the Alaska Court System,
one new indeterminate fiscal note from the
Department of Law, one new fiscal impact note
from the Alaska Court System, one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Corrections,
one new fiscal impact note from the House Finance
Committee for the Department of Health and Social
Services, three previously published zero fiscal
notes, FN 8(ADM), FN10 (ADM) and FN13 (GOV), two
previously published fiscal impact notes: FN14
(DHS) and FN16 (COR).
CSSB 71(FIN)
PAYMENT OF FISHERY RESOURCE LANDING TAX
HCSCSSB 71 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN3 (CED)
and one previously published indeterminate fiscal
note: FN4 (REV).
SB 74 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA BUILDING FUND
SB 74 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Administration, one
new zero fiscal note from the University and one
new zero fiscal note from the Department of
Revenue.
CSSB 108 (JUD)
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CRIMINAL CASE RECORDS
CSSB 108(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 119 (FIN)am
BUDGET: CAPITAL
CSSB 119 (FIN)am was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 218(FIN)
MUNI BOND BANK; UAF HEAT & PWR PLANT
HCS CSSB 218(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with no recommendation and with two previously
published fiscal notes: FN1 (UA) and FN4 (REV).
CSSB 140(FIN)
AIDEA: ARCTIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM/FUND
HCSCSSB 140 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(CED).
HCSSB 193 (FIN)
CONTRACTORS: BONDS; LICENSING
HCSSB 193 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
zero fiscal note from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development and one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development.
SENATE BILL NO. 74
"An Act creating the University of Alaska building
fund for the payment by the University of Alaska of
the costs of use, management, operation, maintenance,
and depreciation of space in buildings; and
authorizing the Board of Regents of the University of
Alaska to designate buildings for which the fund is to
be used."
8:47:36 AM
HEATHER SHADDUCK, STAFF, SENATOR PETE KELLY informed the
committee that the bill would create a special account in
the general fund for the university building fund. The fund
was modeled after the public building fund. The university
would utilize the long-term sustainable model in an effort
to control deferred maintenance costs. The legislation's
intent was for culture change regarding university building
maintenance.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the last hearing included
invited testimony and university presentations. He pointed
out the absence of testifiers, both in the room and online.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
8:49:32 AM
Representative Wilson asked about the Alaska public
building fund.
Ms. Shadduck did not know how much the Alaska public
building fund was worth.
Representative Wilson stated that an illustration of the
fund's success might have provided worthy information for
committee members.
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed that a presentation of the
comparative model would be helpful.
8:50:16 AM
Representative Costello discussed the three zero fiscal
notes.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT SB 74 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 74 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Administration, one new zero fiscal note from
the University and one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue.
8:51:38 AM
AT EASE
8:53:10 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to bonds required for contractors."
8:53:19 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the bill was debated in a
previous committee hearing. He stated that the proposed CS
deleted the provision for "handyman."
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 193, Work Draft 28-LS0697\Y (Martin,
4/17/14). Representative Guttenberg objected for the
purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the senator was familiar with the
intent of the language change in the CS.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE suggested a misunderstanding
regarding the term "handyman." He clarified that the
handyman category protected the handyman's interests. A
handyman would require a $5 thousand bond rather than the
$10 thousand expected from a contractor. If a person was
not a contractor, the regulations would not be changed. He
explained that the decreased bond cost was requested by
Alaskan handymen.
8:55:30 AM
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, stated that Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development experienced
frequent requests from handymen for state licensure. She
noted that a misconception existed within the community
regarding the complex exemption list provided by the
department.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if a handyman would obtain a regular
business license.
Ms. Chambers concurred, but noted that the guidelines
regarding the necessity of a contractor's license were
often confusing. The department believed that codifying a
handyman license for the correct professional and business
license categories would assist those people seeking the
licensure.
8:57:30 AM
Senator Micciche stated that the change in the CS would
move the handyman into a higher category and cost them more
for licensing. He believed that the objective of the CS was
to save money for the handyman, but instead the change
moved them into a more expensive level of bonding. He
stated that the bond would cost $150 to $250 annually for
the entry level, which would protect the handyman and the
customer.
8:58:45 AM
Representative Wilson asked how the CS and original version
affected the handyman.
Senator Micciche responded that for earnings less than
$2500 per job nothing changed. He noted that the bill did
not alter the laws governing contractors. He clarified that
the action of advertising would lead to establishment of a
contractor status.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that advertising was the trigger.
9:00:27 AM
Representative Wilson pointed out the qualification figure
of $10 thousand.
Senator Micciche responded that prior to the legislation, a
contractor required insurance at $2500, but did not require
a bond.
Representative Wilson asked if the CS would cause an
expense for the handyman category that was prevented in the
original legislation.
Senator Micciche responded that that a lower-level handyman
would pay between $150 and $250 more for the bond with the
CS.
9:01:52 AM
Ms. Chambers added that the department served many Alaskans
seeking business licenses. Many handymen advertised, which
required licensure as a general or specialty contractor.
She spoke of 516 investigative matters last year for the
construction contractor category. She stated that the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development would
investigative matters for unlicensed practice. She stated
that the legislation would help avoid a $1000 daily fine
for being in business as a handyman without a license.
Representative Wilson understood that the solution was
licensure.
Ms. Chambers concurred.
9:04:04 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked for CS version clarification during
the committee discussion.
Senator Micciche stated that he had been referring to the
original legislation.
Representative Costello asked for version clarification
throughout Ms. Chambers' testimony.
Ms. Chambers replied that maintaining the bonding
requirement for the handyman category would help accomplish
the goal.
Representative Costello asked if Ms. Chambers referred to
the original version.
Ms. Chambers concurred.
Representative Holmes OBJECTED. She stated that she would
express OBJECTION to the CS as it might cost more money.
9:06:15 AM
Senator Micciche spoke to the adoption of the CS. He stated
that when a handyman advertised in Alaska, a minimum bond
of $10 thousand was required. The cost of the bond was
dropped to $5 thousand for the handyman category.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt the CS,
version Y.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED: Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Gara,
Guttenberg, Holmes, Munoz, Austerman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (11/0).
The workdraft was not adopted.
Representative Holmes expressed better understanding of the
bill because of the CS.
9:09:12 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for amendments.
Representative Costello discussed the two zero fiscal
notes.
9:09:53 AM
Representative Holmes MOVED to REPORT SB 193 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
9:10:20 AM
AT EASE
9:10:33 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Holmes rescinded the prior motion to move
the bill. She MOVED conceptual amendment 1, which added the
effective date of January 1, 2015. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:11:16 AM
Representative Holmes MOVED to REPORT SB 193(FIN), as
amended out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCSSB 193(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and one
new zero fiscal note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
9:21:55 AM
AT EASE
9:36:17 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 108(JUD)
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain
records of criminal cases; and providing for an
effective date."
9:36:29 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the CS was introduced at the
request of the administration.
SENATOR FRED DYSON took issue with the CS. He stated that
the CS eliminated a crucial effort to protect privacy.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 108(JUD), Work Draft 28-LS0973\G,
(Strasbaugh, 4/14/14). Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for
discussion.
9:38:41 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
testified in favor of good balance regarding the
legislation. The balance included privacy for those people
mistakenly charged or arrested and those people who should
not be protected.
Representative Costello requested an explanation of the CS.
9:40:18 AM
Ms. Carpeneti explained that the CS proposed that records
be removed from Court View for confidentiality. The records
included those where a person was arrested without a charge
from a prosecuting authority or probable cause. The
difference was that cases for people acquitted after a jury
trial were not removed. She informed the committee that
when a person was acquitted by a jury, the charges were not
established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but
acquittal did not prove that the person did not commit the
offense with probable cause in support of the crime.
9:41:24 AM
Representative Munoz asked if a person would apply to have
the cases removed from Court View after an acquittal.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the course would remain public,
as stated in the CS.
9:42:09 AM
Representative Munoz asked about the situations where cases
were removed from Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti understood that an application for removal of
cases was not necessary in either version of the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Vice-Chair Neuman to chair the
remainder of the meeting.
9:42:33 AM
Ms. Carpeneti asked if her explanation of the CS was
adequate.
9:43:32 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman took the gavel.
Representative Wilson commented about the lack of process
regarding whether a person remained on Court View. She
noted that an application for removal of a case or name
from Court View would provide the necessary process.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that a process like the one suggested
by Representative Wilson could provide another solution.
She highlighted the importance of advertising a pattern of
theft or domestic violence.
9:45:13 AM
Representative Gara asked if a lack of evidence could lead
to dropping a charge.
Ms. Carpeneti replied yes.
Representative Gara pointed out page 2, line 2 of the CS
stating that a person with a dropped charge would remain on
Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti replied yes.
Representative Gara discussed a case where an innocent
person had charges dropped and asked Ms. Carpeneti if
innocent people might remain on Court View.
Ms. Anne Carpeneti replied that if a case was presented to
a grand jury who then returned a no true bill, the Court
View documentation would be removed. She added that a
finding of no probable cause at a bail hearing would also
remove the case from Court View.
Representative Gara asked if the crime was a misdemeanor
and the prosecution dropped the charge for lack of
evidence, would the person remain on Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that if a person was charged by a
law enforcement officer, and the case was screened out by
the law office, a charging document would not be filed.
9:46:50 AM
Representative Gara wondered about a case with a
misdemeanor charged and tried without a grand jury. In the
hypothetical scenario, the evidence was not present and the
charge was dropped, yet the accused person's name would
remain on Court View.
Ms. Carpeneti disagreed and explained that the charging
document would not have been filed during the screening
process in the law office.
Representative Gara repeated his question differently. He
asked if the prosecution filed a charge against a person
and found later that the person was innocent, the CS stated
if the charge was dropped, the case would remain on Court
View.
Ms. Carpeneti replied correct. She agreed that the CS was
not perfect but she believed that the CS allowed for the
best balance to protect the public and people who were
mistakenly charged.
9:48:22 AM
Representative Gara agreed that the criminal justice system
was imperfect. He acknowledged that some criminals and
drunk drivers had never been charged and were not on Court
View. Given that the system was imperfect, he believed in
protection of the innocent people first.
9:49:30 AM
Ms. Carpeneti stated that people addressed in the CS had a
probable cause finding.
Representative Gara disagreed. He pointed to line 2,
sentence 2, where it was stated that there was no grand
jury in misdemeanor cases.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed, but stated that a misdemeanant was
arraigned by a municipal officer.
Representative Gara asked why the misdemeanant whose
charges were dropped should remain on Court View.
9:50:30 AM
Ms. Carpeneti suggested that the policy decisions were for
the committee to make. She opined that the balance was
better in the CS, but acknowledged that the decisions were
difficult.
Representative Gara apologized for his argumentative tone.
Ms. Carpeneti asked about dangerous people who would be
removed from Court View and kept in confidential files. She
opined that the CS allowed for the better judgment
regarding the decision about removing names from Court
View. She stated that the original bill allowed dangerous
people to be removed from Court View and made their files
confidential.
Vice-Chair Neuman clarified that the comments made by Ms.
Carpeneti were her opinion.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the administration shared her
opinion.
Representative Costello asked for clarification regarding
the innocent until proven guilty. She asked if the
administration agreed with the statement.
Ms. Carpeneti clarified that the term guilty in the legal
system referred to guilt by proof beyond a reasonable doubt
by a jury of 12 people. She agreed that a person should not
be sent to jail unless the prosecution could establish
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She believed that a person
should be able to review the Court View document. She added
that the Court View document specified that the list did
not include convictions, but only warnings. She believed
that people should have access to the information unless no
probable cause was established or the state or prosecuting
authority did not file charges.
9:53:32 AM
Representative Costello mentioned that the language in the
original version of the bill focused on the acquitted
defendant. She noted that the CS focused the language
toward the prosecuting authority on line 2, page 2 and the
judicial officer on line 4, page 2. She asked why the shift
away from the innocent occurred in the CS.
9:54:41 AM
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the entities such as the jury,
the judge, and the prosecuting authority traditionally made
decisions regarding criminal charges. She characterized the
shift as one away from a jury's decision.
Representative Costello discussed testimony on the original
bill regarding the demographic interested in Court View.
She asked the response to the testimony heard interpreting
guilt following an arrest.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that the issue was troubling. She
assumed that the population was informed and warned that
charges did not indicate convictions. She suggested further
education about Court View and stated that many people were
listed on the sight for one reason or another. If a person
remained on Court View, it was because a judicial entity
suspected probable cause to charge the person.
9:57:35 AM
Representative Costello asked about the CS, line 9, page 2.
Ms. Carpeneti discussed the exception and noted the
presence in most iterations of the bill. The section
addressed people who worked for the Department of Health
and Social Services regarding decision making related to
the welfare of the child and adult with a disability. The
information available to the department personnel allowed
them to provide a safe situation for a disabled person or
child in need.
Representative Costello asked if the section was in the
original version of the bill.
Ms. Carpeneti did not recall, whether the section was in
the original version of the bill.
9:59:56 AM
Representative Costello acknowledged that the sponsor
concurred that the section was in the original version of
the bill.
Vice-Chair Neuman appreciated the representative's
questions.
10:00:01 AM
Representative Holmes discussed Court View. She expressed
concern about other aspects of the bill. She expressed
greater concern with the fact that the bill sealed records
of cases removed from Court View. She expressed discomfort
with the earlier versions of the bill and appreciated the
CS most for its tailored approach. She noted that a person
might have a long list of arrests without conviction, whose
records would be confidentially sealed. She expressed
extreme discomfort with the broad language included in the
original bill. She argued that Court View was a different
matter. She appreciated Representative Wilson's idea to
petition to have a case removed from Court View. She
requested the opinion of the administration regarding the
sealing of court records.
10:03:24 AM
Ms. Carpeneti shared the concern that the records would be
deemed confidential. She shared a history of the bill. She
agreed that the physical files and those found
electronically on Court View were connected. She understood
that a proposed court rule could separate Court View
documents from the paper ones in the court building. She
stated that neither version of the bill decoupled the
electronic from the paper records. She agreed with the
gravity of the concern.
Representative Holmes clarified that the language in the CS
would also seal the records.
10:04:53 AM
Representative Thompson revisited the statements made by
Representative Gara. He noted the hypothetical case where
charges were made for a reason, but dismissed for lack of
evidence. The case would remain on Court View and affect a
person's ability to achieve employment.
Ms. Carpeneti understood the serious concern. She suggested
that maybe the CS did not extend far enough in the
circumstance mentioned. She preferred the CS to the regular
bill in terms of public protection. She suggested that the
committee "fine tune" paragraph one of the CS. She offered
to help the committee work to implement their suggestions.
10:06:55 AM
Representative Wilson suggested that a representative from
the Alaska Court System join the conversation. She
understood that the automatic withdrawal of some cases
added to the concern from the judicial and court system.
10:07:34 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that with either version of the bill, the qualifying cases
would be made confidential automatically both on Court View
and in paper form. She expressed concerns with the work
draft and the concerns of automatic removal of cases
without petition. She asked if the filing of a petition
with a questionnaire might allow for more comfort in the
bill.
Ms. Meade stated that the court was neutral on the bill.
The petition would have a tremendous fiscal impact on the
court system. She stated that 9,508 misdemeanors were
dismissed last year and an influx of petitions would
increase the caseload and cost. She believed that the
sponsor's decision to avoid the use of petition was due to
the high fiscal impact.
10:09:52 AM
Representative Wilson expressed concern about the number of
misdemeanors on Court View. She suggested a fee for the
petition.
10:10:27 AM
Representative Holmes asked about steps taken by the court
system to address the issue. She was interested in the
separation of Court View as an administrative court
function from sealing confidential records.
10:11:07 AM
Ms. Meade responded that two of the three categories of
cases covered in the CS included those with no probable
cause and no charging documents filed were addressed in a
draft court rule. She noted that the court had an
administrative rule that eliminated certain cases from
Court View. The Supreme Court determined that the cases
should not be posted because of the ease with which the
information could be accessed. She anticipated the adoption
of the proposed rule within the next 60 days, which would
remove a criminal case from Court View that was dismissed
because the prosecuting authority declined to file a
charging document. Also, removed would be a case dismissed
for lack of probable cause. She opined that the bill was
not necessary because of the proposed court rule already in
the public comment process. The cases mentioned were much
less controversial.
10:13:28 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman requested clarification regarding the
version of the bill being discussed.
Ms. Meade responded that the two of the categories
addressed in the CS were covered in the court rule. She
stated that the court rule was less excessive because the
paper record remained accessible. The items covered in the
original version of the bill included all cases that
resulted in full dismissal. Full acquittals were not
covered in the court rule.
10:14:20 AM
Representative Gara asked about a case where the
prosecution charged, but the charge was dropped prior to
the trial. He asked if the people would remain on Court
View after the adoption of the court rule.
Ms. Meade replied yes.
Representative Gara asked if a person was charged by the
prosecution, and the case was dismissed under the original
bill, would the case be removed from Court View. He
hypothetically suggested that a person was charged with a
crime and the prosecution realized after interviewing
witnesses that the case was poor, so the charge was
dropped. He asked if the person would remain on Court View
under the proposed rule considered by the court.
Ms. Meade replied yes.
Representative Gara clarified that legislative intent was
indicated to protect people in the hypothetical scenario.
Ms. Meade agreed and noted that the initial version of the
bill would protect those people in the hypothetical
scenario.
Representative Gara stated that under the CS, a person
wrongly imprisoned would remain on Court View because they
were indicted by a grand jury.
Ms. Carpeneti concurred and noted that the 9000 dismissed
misdemeanors addressed a majority of cases dismissed as a
result of a plea agreement where the defendant agreed to
plead guilty to one charge, while the other charges were
dismissed. She wanted to clarify that mistakenly charged
misdemeanors were relatively rare in the state.
10:17:18 AM
Ms. Meade disagreed and noted that the number of
misdemeanors quoted were those completely closed by
dismissal where there was no guilt found on any of the
charges in the case.
Ms. Carpeneti stood corrected.
Vice-Chair Neuman requested Senator Dyson's presence at the
testifier table.
10:18:02 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked about the three scenarios
provided in the original bill. He asked if an
administrative procedure was available to appeal for the
removal of one's name from Court View.
Ms. Meade replied that a rule existed allowing a person to
make their case confidential. She noted that a weighing
process existed to allow discernment for removal of names
or cases from Court View. The court would not remove a name
or case from Court View for reasons of privacy.
Ms. Carpeneti mentioned a procedure in AS.12.62 where a
person could have a name or case removed from the Alaska
Public Safety Information Network.
10:19:59 AM
Senator Dyson expressed frustration with the Department of
Law and the Alaska Court System regarding the legislation.
He informed the committee about his multiple requests to
the Department of Law regarding obsolete items in the
criminal code. He mentioned his frustration regarding the
CS introduced at the last moment. He stated that he first
read the CS eight minutes prior to the meeting. He agreed
that the criminal justice system was flawed. He stated that
the procedure for removing one's name from Court View was
ineffective. The procedure allowed a person to visit the
head of the resting department to petition for removal of a
name or case from Court View. Wrongful arrest must be ruled
in order for a name or case to be removed from Court View.
He suggested that a police department admitting to wrongful
arrest was unlikely. He stated that practical matters would
arise, but opposition to the bill came from one person who
was passionate about protecting victims.
10:24:42 AM
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, attempted to
alleviate Representative Holmes's concerns about the
legislation. He stated that the conservative approach of
Court View allowed for maximum details to remain on the
site, even when a plea was accepted in a misdemeanor case.
The bill addressed cases where all charges were acquitted
to restore the presumption of innocence to people who were
not tried or were acquitted. He recalled experiences as a
police officer when prosecutors questioned the system. He
opined that the standard of perfect innocence was not the
goal of the legislation. The bill obtained a balance
because it required all charges to be dismissed. He noted
the exceptions provided at the administration's request for
all health and social services agencies responsible for the
safety of children and vulnerable adults.
Mr. Kopp stressed that the original version of the bill
addressed the balance that the sponsor sought.
10:28:55 AM
Mr. Kopp stated quoted a trial before the Roman Senate.
Representative Holmes appreciated the effort to find the
right balance between protecting people who were falsely
arrested and the public's right to information. She asked
about the original version and whether restraining orders
and multiple charges of domestic violence where the victim
recanted would remain on the site.
10:30:16 AM
Senator Dyson replied that the court rule would remove the
cases because so many of them were spurious and often
related to custody matters. He shared a story about a
friend released from Goose Creek Correctional Center for
domestic violence charges.
10:31:17 AM
Representative Holmes asked the difference between Court
View and the paper records. She asked about the sponsor's
primary interest regarding the sealing of public records at
the courthouse.
Mr. Kopp replied that the concern was the technological
advances that allowed for maximum exposure via Court View.
He pointed to the legislative intent section at the
beginning of the bill stating "to the extent practicable
the court will state records confidential." He stated that
the fiscal note would be enormous if files were sealed. The
records from the date of enactment of the bill would be
deemed confidential upon passage of the legislation. He
emphasized that confidential and sealed were two very
different actions. He noted that any individual with a
written order from the court would allow a balancing test
to be outweighed by a legitimate interest in
confidentiality. He clarified that a judge was the only
person allowed to view a sealed record.
10:34:29 AM
Representative Holmes stated that the Alaska Court System
would look to the legislature for guidance on the issue.
She expressed some concern about Court View, but was most
concerned about the sealing of paper records. She expressed
concerns about some citizen's questionable histories and
the protection of herself and the public.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that there had been a robust
discussion on the bill. The bill would be heard again
later.
Representative Gara asked to address a concept that had
arisen. He would address his question at a later time.
CSSB 108(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:37:21 AM
RECESSED
4:28:05 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 140(FIN)
"An Act creating the Arctic infrastructure development
program and fund in the Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority; and relating to dividends from
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority."
4:28:23 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 140(FIN), Work Draft 28-LS1246\B,
(Martin, 4/19/14).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. He pointed to section 10,
page 7 related to qualified infrastructure development
powers and duties of the authority. He stated that a
section was removed regarding the financing of federally
managed fisheries in the arctic.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented about loans for large fishing
boats.
JESSE LOGAN, STAFF, SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, relayed that
there was no objection to the CS from the sponsor.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Mr. Logan discussed the legislation creating an arctic
infrastructure fund within AIDEA. The purpose of the fund
and its financing limitations was to create incentives to
attract private investments for infrastructure in the
arctic. He commented on changes in the arctic leading to
challenges and opportunities. He stated that the provision
of adequate infrastructure was imperative for positioning
the state in the new arctic paradigm. The sponsor did not
seek to capitalize the fund, but the creation of the fund
sent a signal to the international investment community
about business opportunities in Alaska.
4:32:24 PM
Co-Chair Austerman addressed the underlying premise of the
legislation. He supported the concept of expanding
fisheries in the arctic, but stressed that better
infrastructure was necessary to help development.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there were any amendments to the
bill.
Representative Munoz appreciated Representative Herron's
efforts on the bill.
Representative Costello addressed the previously published
fiscal impact note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED to REPORT HCSCSSB 140 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CSSB 140 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (CED).
4:35:12 PM
AT EASE
4:36:07 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 71(FIN)
"An Act relating to the fishery resource landing tax."
4:36:07 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 71(FIN), Work Draft 28-LS0594\H
(Bullard, 4/19/14).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. He pointed to language on
page one adding a provision for an effective date. He
pointed to page two, lines 21-28 including language changes
related to tax payers electing to use the method. He stated
that the sponsor and the Department of Revenue supported
the change. The change was specified related to the
notification by the taxpayer and the subsequent tax
liability. He continued with section 4, line 29 and the
addition of uncodified law pertaining to the transition and
implementation of the bill. Section 5 addressed
retroactivity to January 1, 2014. Section 6 included the
newly added effective date.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:38:40 PM
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 28-
LS0594\H.1, Bullard, 4/19/14, (copy on file).
Page 1, line 1, following "tax":
Insert "and cost recovery fisheries"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 16.10.455(c) is amended to read:
(c) As a condition of participation in a common
property salmon fishery in a terminal harvest area
under this section, a fisherman who participates in
the fishery is subject to the payment of the
assessment levied under (d) of this section on the
projected value of the salmon or on the pounds of
salmon harvested. The assessment is levied on the
[VALUE OF] salmon that the fisherman takes in the
terminal harvest area and sells to a licensed buyer.
The buyer of the salmon must be licensed under AS
43.75, and the buyer shall collect the assessment on
salmon taken in a terminal harvest area at the time of
purchase and remit the assessment to the Department of
Revenue in accordance with regulations adopted by the
Department of Revenue.
* Sec. 2. AS 16.10.455(d) is amended to read:
(d) The Department of Revenue may, by regulation,
annually, by March 1 of each year, set the [RATE OF
THE] assessment levied on salmon taken in a terminal
harvest area in consultation with the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, the
hatchery permit holder, and representatives of
affected commercial fishermen. The [RATE OF THE]
assessment shall provide sufficient revenue to cover
debt service to the state, reasonable operating
expenses, reasonable maintenance expenses, and
development or maintenance of a reserve fund up to 100
percent of annual operating costs of the hatchery
permit holder. In setting the [RATE OF THE]
assessment, the department shall consider the
estimated return and harvest of salmon in the terminal
harvest area, the projected price to be paid for
salmon in the region, the amount of the existing
reserve held by the hatchery permit holder, and the
amount by which the assessment collected in previous
years exceeded or fell short of the amount anticipated
to be collected. The [TOTAL RATE OF THE] assessment
may not exceed 50 percent of the value of the salmon.
The department may levy the assessment as a percentage
of the projected value of the salmon returning to the
terminal harvest area or as a flat rate on each pound
of salmon harvested in the area, to the nearest whole
cent."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "secs. 1 - 3"
Insert "secs. 3 - 5"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "Sections 1 - 3"
Insert "Sections 3 - 5"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz explained the amendment addressing the
method used by hatcheries to determine the assessment on
the revenues collected on fish returning to the hatchery
area. She stated that the assessment was set as a
percentage on the fish. The current assessment was 20
percent. She noted that the issues faced by the hatcheries
included the variety of payments for the fish. The 20
percent was set allowing for variation on hatchery
payments. She highlighted the option of percentage or flat
rate, which would be based on a projected value of salmon
returning to the hatchery area. The assessments were paid
to the Department of Revenue who appropriated the funds to
the hatchery for operations. The amendment was supported by
all state hatcheries along with the Southeast Saners
Association.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, SPONSOR, supported the amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Costello addressed the two fiscal notes
including one previously published indeterminate fiscal
note from the Department of Revenue and one previously
published zero fiscal note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 71(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
HCS CSSB 71(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN3 (CED) and one previously published
indeterminate fiscal note: FN4 (REV).
Senator Micciche thanked the committee for its work on the
bill.
4:43:59 PM
AT EASE
4:45:16 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 218(FIN)
"An Act relating to financing; relating to the Alaska
Municipal Bond Bank Authority; authorizing the
University of Alaska to issue bonds to finance the
design, construction, acquisition, and equipping costs
of the University of Alaska Fairbanks heat and power
plant; authorizing the University of Alaska to borrow
money from the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority to
finance the design, construction, acquisition, and
equipping costs of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
heat and power plant; and providing for an effective
date."
4:45:16 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 218(FIN), Work Draft 28-LS1567\P
(Wallace, 4/19/14).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. The first change was found
on page 4, line 17 related to the bonds or notes in
principal for the purpose of providing loans to the
University of Alaska that was changed from $150 million to
$87.5 million. Page 5, line 29 addressed the legislative
approval for loan authorization for the University of
Alaska Fairbanks Heat and Power Plant was previously stated
at $150 million and changed to $87.5 million. He stated
that the amendments were clarifying.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SUZANNE ARMSTRONG, STAFF, SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, thanked the
committee for its time and work on the CS.
Representative Gara asked what portion of the debt service
would be repaid by university receipts and what portion
would be paid by the state per the language in the bill.
PAT PITNEY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), replied that the university would pay $70
million, while the state would pay $87.5 million.
4:48:34 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze believed the bill had been vetted in the
past meeting.
Representative Costello addressed the two previously
published fiscal notes including one fiscal impact note
from the University of Alaska and one fiscal impact note
from the Department of Revenue.
Representative Costello referred to page 2 of the DOR
fiscal note and the lack of reflection of changes made in
the CS.
Ms. Armstrong replied that the original version of the bill
established the cap of $150 million, while the CS changed
the cap to $87.5 million. She directed members to page 6,
line 4 of the bill which enumerated the anticipated annual
payment amount of $7 million as reflected in the fiscal
note.
4:51:41 PM
Representative Costello replied that the bill allowed for
$87.5 million, while the fiscal note documentation
reflected the original bill's intent.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the issue would be debated in
conference committee.
Representative Thompson MOVED to REPORT HCSCSSB 218(FIN)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 218(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and with two previously published fiscal
notes: FN1 (UA) and FN4 (REV).
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the fiscal notes would be
updated in the conference committee.
4:53:47 PM
AT EASE
5:02:21 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(FIN)
"An Act relating to theft and property offenses;
relating to the definition of 'prior convictions' for
certain theft offenses; establishing the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission and providing an
expiration date; relating to the crime of custodial
interference; relating to the duties of the Alaska
Judicial Council; relating to jail-time credit for
offenders in court-ordered treatment programs;
relating to conditions of release, probation, and
parole; relating to duties of the commissioner of
corrections and board of parole; establishing a fund
for reducing recidivism in the Department of Health
and Social Services; requiring the commissioner of
health and social services to establish programs for
persons on conditions of release or probation that
require testing for controlled substances and
alcoholic beverages; requiring the board of parole to
establish programs for persons on parole that require
testing for controlled substances and alcoholic
beverages; relating to the duties of the Department of
Health and Social Services; and providing for an
effective date."
5:02:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the administration was largely
responsible for the CS.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 64(FIN), Work Draft 28-LS0116\Q
(Gardner, 4/19/14).
Representative Holmes OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that his staff would discuss the
changes in the CS.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, commented that his staff was
alert to any changes in the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze concurred.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. He discussed items that
had been removed from the bill including the reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court
ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of driving
under the influence relating to termination of a revocation
of a person's driver's license. Limitations of driver's
licenses and restoration of a driver's license were also
addressed in the CS. He added changes related to
confidentiality of certain records of criminal cases and
the reduced recidivism item, which was changed from a fund
to a program.
Mr. George noted that the former section 1 of the bill had
been removed. The section included a provision in SB 108.
He moved to former sections 28, 29, 30 and 31, which had
been removed.
Senator Coghill asked about the provisions that had been
removed.
Mr. George replied that the provisions related to the
limited licenses and confidentiality report records.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the changes were before the
committee as individual amendments.
Mr. George pointed to section 27, page 16, line 30
addressing electronic monitoring for individuals in a
private residence or community residential center. He
discussed the removal of a section related to driver's
license revocation. He pointed out section 31, page 21,
lines 13 and 14 addressing the report to the legislature by
electronic means. He continued with section 32, page 22
including the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's
membership and staff. Item 7 was changed to Commissioner of
Corrections or their designee. Item 8 was changed to
Commissioner of Public Safety or designee and item 9 was
changed to an active duty member of a municipal law
enforcement agency. The commission included 13 individuals
with 11 voting members and previously included 11
individuals with 9 voting members.
5:08:09 PM
Mr. George continued to address changes in the legislation.
He pointed to page 23, line 15 related to the powers and
duties of the commission. He pointed to item 7, which was
changed and new item 10.
Senator Coghill relayed that the item was under the powers
and duties of the commission. He expressed agreement with
the items.
Mr. George moved to page 24, items K and L on lines 25
through 28. He noted the removal of a previous item related
to the over-classification of prisoners. He stated that the
word efficacy replaced the word effects on line 26 of page
24. He pointed to section 33, page 25, lines 5-7 addressing
the criminal justice commission's establishment of date and
staffing from the judicial council.
5:11:27 PM
Mr. George moved to page 26, lines 10 through 20 and
language relating to the recidivism reduction program. He
noted that references to the creation of the fund were
removed. He stated that language that allowed the
commissioner to enter into contracts to provide for
programs in the section was added as seen on lines 17
through 20.
Senator Coghill provided comments on the changes. He stated
that he could understand the removal of the drivers
licenses provisions; it had been difficult to arrive at a
solution. He believed the policy was straightforward. He
stated that he liked the idea of a private attorney on the
commission. He understood the change to police force.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that a private attorney was
rarely a prosecutor.
Senator Coghill replied that he sought a candidate that was
not employed by the state. He agreed with the solution of
the police force.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he had considered a union
member because of the unfettered opinion.
Senator Coghill opted for a small commission.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he would not recommend a
larger commission.
Senator Coghill stated the difficulty increasing beyond the
$750 felony level.
5:15:07 PM
Representative Gara pointed to page 28, line 3 of the bill
and wondered if a typo was missed. He wished to verify that
"prosecutions" meant cases that were charged "on or after"
as interpreted by the Courts.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the language would be
clarified before the bill was moved.
Representative Gara pointed to another area where he
thought words may be missing.
Co-Chair Stoltze directed staff to review the language. He
commented that the committee was waiting on a draft CS of
the capital budget.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the Work Draft 28-LS0116\Q was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated that an alcohol provision had
been removed from the bill.
5:18:48 PM
RECESSED
8:43:02 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze brought the meeting back to order.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL offered to
detail the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the committee understood the
bill. He initiated the amendment process.
Representative Holmes MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
1.
Page 18, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 30. AS 28.15.201(d) is amended to read:
(d) A court revoking a driver's license, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license under AS
28.15.181(c), or the department when revoking a
driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to
obtain a license under AS 28.15.165(c), may grant
limited license privileges if
(1) the revocation was for a misdemeanor conviction
under AS 28.35.030 or a similar municipal ordinance
and not for a violation of AS 28.35.032;
(2) [THE PERSON
(A) HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED AND THE LIMITED
LICENSE IS NOT GRANTED DURING THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF THE
PERIOD OF REVOCATION; OR
(B) HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED AND THE LIMITED
LICENSE IS NOT GRANTED DURING THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF THE
PERIOD OF REVOCATION;
(3)] the court or department requires that the person
either
(A) [TO] use an ignition interlock device during the
period of the limited license whenever the person
operates a motor vehicle in a community not included
in the list published by the department under AS
28.22.011(b) and, when applicable, [(A)] the person
provides proof of installation of the ignition
interlock device on every vehicle the person operates;
or
(B) submit to daily testing as required under AS
47.38.020 in place of the use of the ignition
interlock device; use of daily testing in place of an
ignition interlock device under this subparagraph is
conditioned upon the person's not violating the
requirements of the program established in AS
47.38.020; if the person violates those requirements,
the court or the department shall
(i) revoke the person's limited license; or
(ii) require the use of an ignition interlock device
as provided in (A) of this paragraph and shall require
the person to continue to submit to daily testing as
required under AS 47.38.020 [THE PERSON SIGNS AN
AFFIDAVIT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
(i) OPERATION BY THE PERSON OF A VEHICLE THAT IS NOT
EQUIPPED WITH AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE IS SUBJECT
TO PENALTIES FOR DRIVING WITH A REVOKED LICENSE;
(ii) CIRCUMVENTING OR TAMPERING WITH THE IGNITION
INTERLOCK DEVICE IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR; AND
(iii) THE PERSON IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE IGNITION
INTERLOCK DEVICE THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF THE LIMITED
LICENSE, TO KEEP UP-TO-DATE RECORDS IN EACH VEHICLE
SHOWING THAT ANY REQUIRED SERVICE AND CALIBRATION IS
CURRENT, AND TO PRODUCE THOSE RECORDS IMMEDIATELY ON
REQUEST];
(3) [(4)] the person is enrolled in and is in
compliance with or has successfully completed the
alcoholism screening, evaluation, referral, and
program requirements of the Department of Health and
Social Services under AS 28.35.030(h);
(4) [(5)] the person provides proof of insurance as
required by AS 28.20.230 and 28.20.240; and
(5) [(6)] the person has not previously been convicted
of violating the limitations of an ignition interlock
limited license or been convicted of violating the
provisions of AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032 while on
probation for a violation of those sections."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 19, following line 30:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(i) A person granted a limited license and required
to use an ignition interlock device under (d)(2)(A) of
this section shall sign an affidavit acknowledging
that
(1) operation by the person of a vehicle that is not
equipped with an ignition interlock device is subject
to penalties for driving with a revoked license;
(2) circumventing or tampering with the ignition
interlock device is a class A misdemeanor; and
(3) the person is required to maintain the ignition
interlock device throughout the period of the limited
license, to keep up-to-date records in each vehicle
showing that any required service and calibration is
current, and to produce those records immediately on
request."
Page 22, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 35. AS 28.35.030(t) is amended to read:
(t) Notwithstanding (b) or (n) of this section, the
court
(1) shall waive the requirement of the use of an
ignition interlock device when a person operates a
motor vehicle in a community included on the list
published by the department under AS 28.22.011(b);
(2) may waive the requirement of the use of an
ignition interlock device when the person regains the
privilege to operate a motor vehicle if the court
requires that a person convicted under this section
submit to daily testing as required under AS 47.38.020
in place of the use of the ignition interlock device;
use of daily testing in place of an ignition interlock
device under this subsection is conditioned upon the
person's not violating the requirements of the program
established in AS 47.38.020; if the person violates
those requirements, the court shall
(i) revoke the person's license, privilege to drive,
or privilege to obtain a license for the remainder of
the period the person is required to use an ignition
interlock device as provided in (b) or (n) of this
section; or
(ii) require the use of an ignition interlock device
as provided in (A) of this paragraph and shall require
the person to continue to submit to daily testing as
required under AS 47.38.020."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 30, line 4:
Delete "or"
Following "probation":
Delete ","
Page 30, line 5, following "beverages":
Insert ", a person granted a limited license as
provided by AS 28.15.201(d), or a person required to
comply with this section as provided by AS
28.35.030(t)"
Page 30, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) If a person is required to comply with the
program provided in this section as a condition of a
limited license under AS 28.15.201(d) or when required
by AS 28.35.030(t), the commissioner shall adopt
regulations that provide a means to ensure that the
division of motor vehicles and the court receive
notice if the person fails to appear for an
appointment as required by the program or tests
positive for the use of controlled substances or
alcoholic beverages."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 32, lines 12 - 13:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Page 32, line 14, following "Act,":
Insert "AS 28.15.201(d), as amended by sec. 30 of this
Act,"
Page 32, line 15:
Delete "AS 28.15.201(g) and (h)"
Insert "AS 28.15.201(g) - (i)"
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 32, lines 15 - 16:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 32, line 16:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 32, line 17:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 32, line 17, following the first occurrence of
"Act,":
Insert "AS 28.35.030(t), as amended by sec. 35 of this
Act,"
Page 32, line 17:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 32, line 18:
Delete "sec. 35"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 32, lines 18 - 19:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 32, line 19:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 32, line 20:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Page 32, lines 21 - 22:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Page 33, line 23:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 33, line 25:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 33, line 30:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 34, line 2:
Delete "sec. 35"
Insert "sec. 37"
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 34, line 5:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 34, line 9:
Delete "Section 37"
Insert "Section 39"
Page 34, line 10:
Delete "Section 45"
Insert "Section 47"
Page 34, line 11:
Delete "29 - 36, and 38 - 44"
Insert "29 - 38, and 40 - 46"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Holmes explained that the amendment
addressed misdemeanor offenders for driving under the
influence (DUI) offenses. She stated that existing law
allowed reinstatement of the license over time with
enrollment in the ASAP program, obtaining of a high risk
insurance plan and utilizing an interlock device. The
amendment would allow the option of twice-a-day testing
versus the interlock device. She noted the efforts in both
bodies on the issue, but recognized that the proper balance
had not been achieved so she would withdraw the amendment.
Representative Holmes WITHDREW Amendment 1.
8:47:00 PM
AT EASE
8:50:56 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson had questions about the fiscal notes.
Representative Costello pointed to the fiscal notes
including previously published notes: zero impact from the
Department of Administration, zero impact from the
Department of Administration, fiscal impact note from the
Department of Corrections.
8:53:26 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the Department of
Corrections fiscal note. She thought that most of the
programs would be paid by the offender. She asked for
detailed information on the note.
RON TAYLOR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
replied that the PACE and risk assessment programs would
not be paid for by the offenders. He explained that the
24/7 program would be paid for by offenders. The PACE and
risk assessment programs added probation officer positions
to administer the programs.
Representative Wilson asked if the positions were all
filled and how difficult it would be to fill 14 more
positions.
Mr. Taylor replied that the positions were new. The PACE
program was operational with a couple of positions in
Anchorage, Palmer and Fairbanks. The goal was expansion to
a statewide basis.
Representative Wilson asked if the PACE pilot program's
positions were filled.
Mr. Taylor affirmed that the positions were filled.
Representative Wilson was unhappy with the cost listed in
the fiscal note.
Representative Edgmon believed that the fiscal impact would
be offset by the savings achieved by the electronic
monitoring program.
Mr. Taylor concurred.
Representative Wilson wondered if the offenders could be
placed on electronic monitoring without the 14 additional
positions.
Mr. Taylor explained that the PACE program did not involve
electronic monitoring.
8:56:53 PM
Representative Wilson asked for the savings resulting from
the PACE program.
Mr. Taylor answered that there was not a projected savings
for the PACE program. He explained that the program was
designed to target high-risk technical violators for
probation and parole that would revisit the system
repeatedly. The program would ensure expedited attention
and increased supervision monitoring through the program
and through the court.
Mr. Shilling clarified that the 27/7 sobriety program was
paid for by offenders, while the PACE program was an
intensive form of probation that would lead to fewer days
in jail. He agreed that the intent of the program was for
cost savings resulting from less jail time. He pointed out
that states enacting similar programs experienced cost
savings. He agreed that electronic monitoring was
significantly less expensive than housing prisoners, but
the PACE program required new personnel to achieve the
savings.
8:58:32 PM
Representative Wilson understood, but the program was
currently operating. She wondered if it was working.
Mr. Taylor answered that the program was very limited in
terms of the number of participants.
Representative Wilson noted that 120 people were
participating. She thought more documentation should be
provided regarding the program's success.
Mr. Shilling answered that the judicial council had
compiled a comprehensive study on the PACE pilot program.
He offered to provide the results to the representative's
office. He stated that the results mirrored those positive
savings seen in other state's participating in similar
programs.
Representative Wilson believed that more time was needed
before 25 additional people were hired.
Mr. Shilling answered that 14 personnel were required for
the PACE program and the additional requests were for the
risk needs assessments program.
Representative Edgmon believed that the bill spoke to the
state's high recidivism numbers. He spoke to the high cost
of housing inmates and believed that the initial spending
would save state money in the long run.
Mr. Shilling agreed. He stated that probationers were a
large cost driver for the department. He stated that PACE
was intended to repair the damaged system.
9:01:19 PM
Representative Costello continued to discuss the fiscal
notes. She clarified the Department of Corrections note
allowed for 25 positions. Additional fiscal notes included
a previously published fiscal impact note from Department
of Corrections and a previously published fiscal impact
note from the Department of Health and Social Services.
Representative Wilson asked about the Department of Health
and Social Services 24/7 program. She wondered where the
funds would be repaid by offenders.
Mr. Shilling noted that the fiscal impact was due to the
24/7 program's indigency waiver attached. If the offender
had an inability to pay, the state would pay for the cost
of testing. He explained that the fiscal note assumed that
one third of the people on 24/7 sobriety would be unable to
pay. He opined that the estimate was overly cautious and
provided a high estimate.
9:04:01 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered how high the estimate was.
Mr. Shilling deferred to an expert from another state
utilizing a similar program.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that the money would not be
returned to the general fund once the bill passed with the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Wilson replied that the question had been
asked earlier in the day. She thought the offenders would
pay for the program. She asked for a clarification on the
program.
Mr. Shilling replied that the fiscal note separated costs
for electronic monitoring and in-person testing. He
estimated that the in-person testing would cost $5 per day,
while the electronic monitoring would cost $10 per day. He
wished to hear more about the department's estimate.
Representative Wilson commented that the program was active
and vendors were already performing the service. She
believed that the estimates would be simple to obtain.
Co-Chair Stoltze welcomed a suggestion for a reduction. He
suggested a 25 percent reduction.
Representative Wilson suggested reducing the fiscal note to
$500,000, removing the portion for offenders that could not
pay.
9:06:54 PM
Mr. Shilling asked DOC to elaborate on a current program.
Mr. Taylor relayed that indigent people accounted for 20
percent of the people with electronic monitoring systems.
He clarified that the program was separate from the 24/7
program.
Representative Wilson had been informed by the department
that those criminals utilizing ankle bracelets could afford
to pay the cost.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if the department had the ability
to take Permanent Fund Dividends to cover the cost.
Mr. Taylor replied yes.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was an objection to
reducing the fiscal note to $500,000. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Gara OBJECTED and stated that the savings of
the jail bed cost was not reflected in the fiscal note. He
was worried that the savings would be unraveled.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Gara if he wished to
have a roll call.
Representative Gara responded that he did not wish to have
a roll call if he was alone in his opinion.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the fiscal note was reduced to
$500,000 and the revised fiscal note was ADOPTED.
Representative Costello discussed the remaining fiscal
notes including one fiscal impact note from Department of
Health and Social Services, one indeterminate note from the
Department of Law, one zero impact note from the Office of
the Governor, one zero impact note from the Alaska Court
System, and one fiscal impact note from the Alaska Court
System.
9:11:53 PM
AT EASE
9:12:18 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 28-LS0116\Q.7,
Gardner, 4/19/14, (copy on file).
Page 16, line 31, through page 17, line 3:
Delete "by electronic monitoring at a private
residence, or at a community residential center.
If electronic monitoring at a private residence
or [OR, IF] a community residential center:
Insert "at a community residential center or by
electronic monitoring at a private residence. If
[,IF] a community residential center or
electronic monitoring at a private residence"
Representative Holmes OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained that the amendment was brought to the committee
by the Department of Corrections. The language read that an
individual could serve their incarceration by electronic
monitoring at a private residence or a community
residential center, which might be confusing to a person
interpreting the law in the future. The intent was not that
electronic monitoring would be required at a community
residential center. By changing the language the
legislature would provide clear instruction.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the amendment applied to
the finance version of the bill rather than the judiciary.
Mr. Taylor agreed that the amendment provided
clarification.
Representative Holmes WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 64(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson expressed disappointment in the lack
of statistics available for the programs seeking funding
through the bill. She requested semiannual reports from the
department to help the legislature determine the best use
of funds in the future. She valued current statistics when
making large item budget decisions.
9:16:14 PM
Representative Holmes stated that recidivism was a large
problem and she did not wish to see another project akin to
Goose Creek Correctional Center. She credited the sponsor
and staff for their hard work on the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the section related to Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Representative Gara appreciated the section.
Representative Edgmon stressed that the legislation's
expense would grow if the strategies in the bill were not
employed. He supported the bill and posited that the
programs worked well in other states.
Representative Gara noted that one cost was not measured in
the legislation. He stated that fewer victims would suffer
if criminals were monitored 24 hours a day. He stated that
a price for the safety was impossible to calculate.
9:19:05 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman discussed victims in Alaska. He hoped
that a reduction in recidivism would result in fewer
victims. He mentioned the efforts in the Mat-Su valley to
educate community members about crime in the area. He spoke
about the troopers involved in investigations related to
low-level drug crimes and robberies. He stated that the
legislature must help ensure that the department reports on
the spending to determine which programs were most
effective.
9:20:50 PM
AT EASE
9:21:32 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara spoke to the PTSD component of the
bill. He appreciated Co-Chair Stoltze's support of the
item. He discussed that the disorder had increased due to
numerous wars. He explained that PTSD was triggered and
those people who could not escape their trigger endured
great suffering. He stated that incarcerated prisoners were
susceptible to inescapable triggers in their jail cells. He
pointed out the bill's sentence mitigator provided to the
accused if combat-related PTSD or traumatic brain injury
was a substantial cause for committing the crime. A similar
mitigator was allowed for fetal alcohol syndrome.
Representative Holmes addressed the 24/7 license
provisions. She understood the public's concerns about
drinking alcohol and driving. She argued in favor of a
limited license following a driving while intoxicated
infraction. She advocated for the ignition interlocks. She
stated that the 24/7 program allowed for testing every 12
hours, which she deemed optimal.
9:25:57 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the work done by Mr. Shilling.
He appreciated the work done by his staff Mr. George. He
spoke to the significant work done on the bill.
The committee applauded for the work done by Mr. Shilling
and Mr. George.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCSCSSB 64(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from
the Alaska Court System, one new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Law, one new fiscal impact note from
the Alaska Court System, one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Corrections, one new fiscal impact note
from the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Health and Social Services, three previously published zero
fiscal notes, FN8 (ADM), FN10 (ADM) and FN13 (GOV), two
previously published fiscal impact notes: FN14 (DHS) and
FN16 (COR).
9:28:31 PM
AT EASE
11:23:45 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 119(FIN) am
"An Act making and amending appropriations, including
capital appropriations, supplemental appropriations,
reappropriations, and other appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing for
an effective date."
CSSB 119 (FIN)am was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Stoltze decided to adjourn the meeting to begin
the delayed 6:00 p.m. meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
11:24:16 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFC CS SB 108 (FIN).pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 108 |
| CS WORKDRAFT FIN Y version.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 193 |
| SB 108 Court View Disclaimer.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 108 |
| SB 64 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS0116Q.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 140 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS1246B.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 140 |
| SB 71 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 28-LS0594H.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB 64 MADD Document.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 218 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN 28-LS1567-P.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 218 |
| SB 71 Amendment Munoz #1 HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB 64 Amendment #1 Holmes.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Amendment Replacement #1 Holmes.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |