Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/12/2003 01:44 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 12, 2003
1:44 P.M.
TAPE HFC 03 - 33, Side A
TAPE HFC 03 - 33, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:44 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Stoltze
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Whitaker
ALSO PRESENT
Representative James Holm; Senator Gretchen Guess; Larry
Dietrick, Director, Spill Prevention and Response,
Department of Environmental Conservation; Josh Govaars,
Staff, Representative James Holm
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ed Bryant, Detective, Anchorage Police Department Metro Drug
Unit, Anchorage; Tim Rogers, Legislative Program Director,
Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage; Tim Biggane, Director,
Emergency Operations, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
Fairbanks; Elise Hsieh, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 23 An Act relating to court-ordered restitution and
compensation following a criminal conviction.
HB 23 was WAIVED from the House Finance Committee.
HB 59 An Act relating to the evaluation and cleanup of
sites where certain controlled substances may have
been manufactured or stored; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 59 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1
by the Department of Public Safety and fiscal note
#2 by the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
HB 75 An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government, for
certain programs, and to capitalize funds; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing
for an effective date.
HB 75 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 76 An Act making appropriations for the operating
expenses of the state's integrated comprehensive
mental health program; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 76 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 150 An Act making capital appropriations and
reappropriations; capitalizing a fund; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing
for an effective date.
HB 150 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
An Act relating to court-ordered restitution and
compensation following a criminal conviction.
Co-Chair Williams stated that HB 23 would be WAIVED from the
House Finance Committee. He noted that a zero fiscal note
had been attached in the House Judiciary Committee. The
bill and the zero note were waived from Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
An Act relating to the evaluation and cleanup of sites
where certain controlled substances may have been
manufactured or stored; and providing for an effective
date.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM requested that the work draft be
brought before the Committee.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT work draft #23-
LS0341\S, Lauterbach, 3/18/03, as the version of the bill
before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, the work
draft was adopted.
Representative Holm explained the functions of the bill.
Alaska currently does not have basic standards for the
cleanup of illegal drug labs. HB 59 would establish basic
standards and requirements for the cleanup of the sites to
guarantee safety for future residents.
Over the past four years, over ninety meth amphetamine
(meth) labs were discovered in Alaska. The labs were found
in apartments, hotels, cabins, mobile homes, and even on
boats. If left untreated, chemicals from "cooking meth" can
be extremely hazardous and pose a serious threat for future
residents, particularly children.
Representative Holm stated that HB 59 would require that
once law enforcement agencies discover an illegal lab, the
property owner would be responsible to clean up the
hazardous materials. A complete cleanup of the site would
be needed before the structure could again be utilized. In
order to demonstrate that the property was fit for
habitation, the owner must provide test results showing the
levels of contamination below the Department of
Environmental Conservation limits.
HB 59 stipulates that the Department or a law enforcement
entity would provide information to the owner on required
testing procedures and guidelines for cleanup.
Additionally, a list of laboratories that may be used for
determining whether the property is fit for use would be
provided to the property owner. He pointed out that HB 59
stipulates full disclosure to future buyers if the property
was used as an illegal drug site and was not properly
cleaned to the Department's standards.
Representative Chenault asked if that requirement would hold
true if the premise had been sufficiently cleaned to the
standards.
Representative Holm replied that would not happen. It would
only occur if it had not been adequately cleaned.
Co-Chair Harris asked if a tenant in a facility was fronting
a meth lab and it was raided, would the owner then be
responsible for the clean up activity. Representative Holm
acknowledged that was correct.
Co-Chair Harris inquired if that owner would have the
authority to sue the tenants who were illegally using the
property. Representative Holm explained that the bill
addresses the owners of the property and that the property
owner does carry the liability for the property. He pointed
out that a risk analysis indicates tort law. If there is a
civil action, the owner would then place the action back to
the renter who offended the property. In many cases, the
resources to go after the guilty party are not available.
He acknowledged that was the risk.
Representative Holm stated that he and Senator Guess believe
that it is more important to error on the side of protecting
children living in these buildings. Without adequately
cleaning the premises, there could be risks for the children
living there. He added that the adults could address their
concerns through the civil process.
Co-Chair Harris asked why the legislation had not passed
last year.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS emphasized that the bill had passed
the House Floor, Senate Resources Committee, Senate
Judiciary Committee and had been scheduled for the Senate
Floor on that difficult last day.
Representative Stoltze inquired the average costs for these
types of clean-ups. Representative Holm did not know the
per site cost.
JOSH GOVAARS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JAMES HOLM, explained
that the cost would depend on how big the meth lab was.
Representative Stoltze requested information on the types of
responsibilities that are being passed to the landlords and
property owners.
LARRY DIETRICK, DIRECTOR, SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, observed that the
characterization of the clean-up extent was accurate.
Senator Guess interjected that from testimony last year, it
was indicated that the average cost clean up cost would be
between $2,000 - $5,000 dollars. Property owners are
responsible for paying those costs.
Co-Chair Williams asked if the owner could go after the
guilty party. Senator Guess explained that in any property
situation, the owner is always responsible for their
property. The owner could go through restitution on the
criminal side and civil law could then go after the expenses
for the tenant responsible for creating the lab. Through HB
59, the owner remains responsible; however, the owner only
must address the items listed in the legislation if they
want to have the property reoccupied.
Representative Stoltze asked if the current landlord/tenant
laws contain enough protection for the landlords.
Representative Croft pointed out that A.S. 34.03.120
Landlord/Residential/Tenant Act already clarifies that
concern. He added that it was unfair to characterize HB 59
as changing who is responsible to pay. The landlord has
always had the obligation to rent out a safe place and the
tenants have the obligation to keep the rental as a clean
and safe environment and not do to do illegal activities.
The practical solution is not waiting to do the clean up but
rather to fine those tenants participating in illegal
activities.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked clarification that if he owned a
rental space, would it be his obligation to make sure that
the unit was cleaned-up after the meth lab tenants were
evicted. He questioned if he would be held liable if the
new tenant's children got sick.
Representative Croft replied that was true in current law.
Without this bill, the owner would still be liable; however,
the bill establishes the structure for doing what needs to
be done. Without HB 59, there would not be a standard for
cleaning and then re-renting.
Vice-Chair Meyer suggested that the bill could put an
"extra" burden of responsibility on the owner of the rental.
Senator Guess clarified that the bill only becomes effective
when there has been a "bust" by law enforcement. The bill
does set guidelines if someone thinks that there was illegal
drug use and wanted to properly clean it up. The bill does
not require a clean up unless law enforcement has actually
certified that there was a bust. An appeal process does
exists if that party wanted to appeal the law enforcement
decision. Senator Guess noted the two types of property
owners:
· The one who does not care and re-rents, and
· The type that is diligently concerned about these types
of concerns and truly wants to do the right thing.
Senator Guess emphasized that to date, there have not been
guidelines for people that want to do the "right" thing.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked if it was essential that there was a
bust or conviction. Senator Guess replied that there must
be.
Vice Chair Meyer noted that he supported the bill but voiced
concern with the unintended consequences. He thought that
it would impact the homeowners liability insurance.
Senator Guess pointed out that contained in the homeowners
mortgage statement, there is an obligation to the homeowner
for the bank to clean up.
Representative Hawker pointed out that he did not see
anything that specifically endorses or clarifies the
landowner's recourse against the perpetrator who has caused
the damage against the property. Additionally, the
legislation asks the landowner to assume all the potential
liability against a renter. He asked if it would be
appropriate to include a sidebar indicating that cleaning
would be the responsibility of a cleaning contractor.
Senator Guess noted that had been discussed in the Senate
Judiciary Committee last year. Senator Taylor inserted the
language "unknowingly, which has specific meaning in
statute. The owner would have to "knowingly" re-rent to be
liable. She reminded members that the bill would be passed
along to the Senate Judiciary Committee for discussion.
Representative Hawker inquired where the "knowingly"
provision was located in the bill. Representative Joule
pointed out it could be found on Page 4, Subsection ©.
Representative Croft advised that "knowingly" is a criminal
and high standard. He pointed out that it was a reference
to the criminal code given the context in which it is used.
Representative Croft asked if Representative Hawker would be
more comfortable if the language stated that: "Nothing in
the act precludes any recourse that you have under contract
in the landlord/tenant act against the tenant for the costs
of cleaning up".
Representative Hawker agreed he would be comfortable with
the inclusion of language clarifying that the owner was not
prejudice toward any of those rights. He referenced
"knowingly" and asked what would happen in a landlord
situation in which definitely dangerous chemicals were
present that required a professional contractor to clean up.
Representative Croft explained that without "knowingly",
they could use other language such as "knew" or "should have
known". The knowingly modifies the transfer and violation.
The owner must know that they are in violation. If the
owner believes that the unit was sufficiently cleaned, then
they did not "knowingly" transfer in violation of that
section.
Representative Hawker asked what recourses would the owner
have.
ELISE HSIEH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, explained
that they could attempt to make a case under the definition
of "knowingly". The person would have to argue against the
knowingly. If that person thought that the owner of the
property knew that it had been a meth lab or had some role
in it, the same action would be taken. The proposed
language would clarify it.
Co-Chair Williams reminded Committee members that there had
been five attorneys on the House Judiciary Committee who had
examined these concerns.
Representative Stoltze suggested that the bill would be
costly to implement. He believed that there would need to
be some changes to the landlord/tenant law to help negate
some of the liabilities. He encouraged providing some
protections to the landlord.
Representative Holm acknowledged that he was concerned about
putting owners at risk through no fault of their own. He
pointed out that people, who rent, do have protections.
Representative Holm responded that he and Senator Guess
concern lay with protecting those who cannot protect
themselves. Under these circumstances, renting property
makes it inherent as a responsible landlord to keep an eye
on the properties. He reiterated that the bill does address
a dangerous concern.
Representative Stoltze agreed that meth labs are dangerous,
however, he was concerned about the fringe issues.
Representative Hawker questioned the rights of the lien
holders and how the bill could affect them, particularly
when they cannot sell or transfer a lease. He asked if
there was any limitation being imposed on a lien holder or
their ability to foreclose on a property or to sell.
Mr. Govaars understood that the property could not be sold
until the clean up had occurred. He did not know what would
happen for the lien holders.
Ms. Hsieh interjected that the bill does not define the
person that owns or sells, but she did note that it could
broadly include the lien holder. She added that it appears
that the person could not transfer, sell, or rent the
property until it was cleaned up. The bill was not meant to
stop a lien holder that does know and wants to foreclose and
take possession.
Representative Hawker asked if the bill would provide notice
to the lien holder regarding the situation. Senator Guess
responded that HB 59 does not provide that notice, however,
the Senate version does. She added that work was being done
with the Department of Public Safety to determine the cost
associated with alerting the lien holder.
Mr. Govaars advised that the adding of the lien holder to
the legislation as a requirement of notification would add a
fiscal note. Someone would have to be hired to do a title
search and pay for it. He projected that it would cost
nearly a full time position and acknowledged that had been a
concern. As the owner of a house and having a lien holder,
it would be required to let the lien holder know if there
had been significant damage to the property.
Representative Hawker disagreed. He stressed that this
legislation was broad and encompassing. He voiced great
concern with the unintended consequences that would result.
Co-Chair Williams advised that if Representative Hawker had
concerns, he would hold the bill in Committee.
Senator Guess interjected that a property could still be
sold if the information had been disclosed. If both the
buyer and seller are in agreement, then the situation could
be okayed. She agreed that the concern was valid.
Co-Chair Williams argued that these concerns had been fully
discussed in the House Judiciary Committee. Representative
Hawker reiterated that it was his interest to protect the
financial interests of the lien holders.
Ms. Hsieh advised that as long as full disclosure is made
under this bill, the interest for the lien holder would not
change the situation. She believed that there probably was
some sort of obligation of the owner to give notice to any
lien holder.
Co-Chair Williams MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. (Copy on
File). He noted that the sponsor, Representative Holm, had
distributed the amendment. Co-Chair Harris OBJECTED to
Amendment #1.
Representative Holm explained the amendment, noting that it
had been brought forth by the Department of Public Safety
and the Department of Environmental Conservation.
· Page 5, Lines l7-l9: Delete "one of the following
substances above the limit set by the department for
that substance: lead, mercury, met amphetamines,
volatile organic compounds, and other";
· Page 5, Line 2l: Insert "The Department of Public
Safety shall annually submit a list of substances to
the Department of Environmental Conservation."
· Page 5, Line 22: Delete "specifically listed in (a)
of this section" and insert "specified by the
Department of Public Safety".
Senator Guess explained the changes between the legislation
from last year and the one currently before the Committee.
She advised that the State Trooper's had come forward
informing the Legislature of situations that had changed.
They support the current language, as does the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
TAPE HFC 03 - 33, Side B
Senator Guess reiterated that the purpose for those two
departments encouraged the changes affected.
Representative Holm interjected that there are other hazard
materials which should be added such as iodine, red
phosphorous, lye, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid,
hydraulic acid, lithium methyl, sodium methyl, mercury,
lead, meth residues and certain organic compounds.
Representative Foster commented that Nome is highly
mineralized and that the gravel in Nome shows approximately
levels 20 times higher in saturated mercury. He asked if a
person in Nome would be able to sell their house with the
legislation in place.
Senator Guess stressed that mercury was one of the compounds
which had been removed from the list. She added that many
of the compounds that would be of concern to Representative
Foster are now off the list.
Representative Holm acknowledged that mercury, lead, and
volatile organic compounds need to be excluded.
Co-Chair Harris maintained that the only items that should
be included on the list should be "illegal substances".
Mr. Dietrick advised that the original lists were common
compounds. He added that today was the first time that
Department of Environmental Conservation had seen the list.
Some items on the list are straightforward and he did not
know if any of them were illegal to possess.
Co-Chair Harris stated that the only time the concern would
come into effect was when the person was busted for illegal
use.
Co-Chair Harris WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #1.
There being NO further OBJECTIONS, Amendment #1 was adopted.
ED BRYANT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DETECTIVE,
ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT METRO DRUG UNIT, ANCHORAGE,
testified in support of the legislation. He informed
members that the chemicals being discussed were listed under
AS 11.71 under "listed chemicals". The intent to
manufacture must be present for a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2
substance and be in possession of them. Mere possession of
these in your home would not be a problem. It is a problem
if you have the intent to manufacture meth amphitimane. Mr.
Bryant pointed out an additional concern on Page 7, Line 19:
".... Controlled substance listed on schedule I or II
as A.S. 11.71 or a precursor chemical for the
substances has occurred; or.."
Mr. Bryant stated that a precursor is an item, which becomes
the final product. In order to evade detection, some of the
manufactures are manufacturing the necessary chemicals. He
recommended adding the language "necessary chemical" to that
line. He warned that there is new information out "on the
street".
Co-Chair Harris asked if Mr. Bryant was recommending that to
Line 19, adding the definition "necessary chemical". Mr.
Bryant said yes.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED Amendment #2, to Page 7, Line 20
inserting "or necessary chemical" after the language
"precursor chemical".
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
TIM ROGERS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAM DIRECTOR, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE,
voiced support for the legislation. He spoke to the hazards
involved with meth labs and the additional costs to the
property owners. He stated that the safety concerns far out
weigh the additional costs. He reiterated his strong
support for HB 59.
TIM BIGGANE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH,
FAIRBANKS, voiced full support for the proposed legislation.
Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase
of meth labs in that area. Mr. Biggane stressed how
destructive these drugs are and the impact they are having
in the local community health. He listed the irritants from
the drugs and noted that in many of these situations, when
the party involved is evicted, nothing is being changed and
there is no clean up.
Representative Foster applauded the work done on the bill,
however, he pointed out that if there was a problem in his
area, it would be very costly to thoroughly clean any place.
He stressed that most people in those areas could not
support the action required by the legislation.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 59 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 59 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Public Safety and fiscal note #2 by the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Representative Foster elaborated that he was uncomfortable
holding the third party responsible for cleaning up the work
resulting from the renter.
HOUSE BILL NO. 75
An Act making appropriations for the operating and loan
program expenses of state government, for certain
programs, and to capitalize funds; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution
of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget
reserve fund; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Harris stated that SS HB 75 was the new amended
version, which the Governor had proposed for the operating
budget. He advised that it would now be available for the
subcommittees to discuss in full detail.
SS HB 75 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
An Act making appropriations for the operating expenses
of the state's integrated comprehensive mental health
program; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Harris stated that SS HB 76 was the new amended
version, which the Governor had proposed for the operating
expenses for the State's comprehensive mental health
program. He advised that it was now available for the
subcommittees to discuss in full detail.
SS HB 76 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 150
An Act making capital appropriations and
reappropriations; capitalizing a fund; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution
of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget
reserve fund; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Harris noted that HB 150 was the Governor's
proposed capital appropriations bill. The bill is now
available for further consideration.
HB 150 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|