Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/19/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| HB197 | |
| HB216 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 19, 2018
1:37 p.m.
1:37:33 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Marie Marx, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development; Paloma
Harbour, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Scott Jordan,
Director, Risk Management, Department of Administration;
Caroline Schultz, Office of Management and Budget, Office
of the Governor; Representative Jennifer Johnston, Sponsor;
Elizabeth Rexford, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston;
Representative Chuck Kopp, Sponsor; Erick Cordero-Giorgana,
Staff.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Rob Carter, Manager, Plant Materials Center, Division of
Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources.
SUMMARY
HB 79 OMNIBUS WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CSHB 79(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
three "do pass," two "do not pass," three "no
recommendation," and two "amend" recommendations;
and with two new fiscal impact notes from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development;
one new fiscal impact note from the Office of the
Governor; and one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Administration.
HB 197 COMMUNITY SEED LIBRARIES
HB 197 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 216 TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES
HB 216 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to workers' compensation; repealing
the second injury fund upon satisfaction of claims;
relating to service fees and civil penalties for the
workers' safety programs and the workers' compensation
program; relating to the liability of specified
officers and members of specified business entities
for payment of workers' compensation benefits and
civil penalties; relating to civil penalties for
underinsuring or failing to insure or provide security
for workers' compensation liability; relating to
preauthorization and timely payment for medical
treatment and services provided to injured employees;
relating to incorporation of reference materials in
workers' compensation regulations; relating to
proceedings before the Workers' Compensation Board;
providing for methods of payment for workers'
compensation benefits; relating to the workers'
compensation benefits guaranty fund authority to claim
a lien; excluding independent contractors from
workers' compensation coverage; establishing the
circumstances under which certain nonemployee
executive corporate officers and members of limited
liability companies may obtain workers' compensation
coverage; relating to the duties of injured employees
to report income or work; relating to
misclassification of employees and deceptive leasing;
defining 'employee'; relating to the Workers'
Compensation Board's approval of attorney fees in a
settlement agreement; and providing for an effective
date."
1:38:59 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had adopted committee
substitute (CS) version R and two amendments at the
previous meeting.
MARIE MARX, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, was
available for questions.
Co-Chair Foster referenced the two fiscal notes from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD).
PALOMA HARBOUR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
addressed the first fiscal note: OMB Component Number 344
for the Division of Worker' Compensation. The note
reflected a revenue change for the department of $1.8
million from general funds to the Workers' Safety and
Compensation Administration Account beginning in FY 19. The
note also reflected a savings of $59,800 beginning in FY 20
resulting from a switch to electronic filing.
Representative Wilson pointed to page two of the fiscal
note where it specified the state would mandate the
electronic filing of documents. She asked for verification
that mandate was no longer required as a result of an
amendment that had been passed by the committee.
Ms. Harbour believed the department had the option to set
the method for filing. She believed the division director
could set the method as electronic filing.
1:42:48 PM
Representative Wilson stated that perhaps she had
misunderstood the amendment. She asked whether the
commissioner or someone in the department could mandate the
filing method.
Ms. Harbour answered that it was pertaining to insurance
companies or self-insured employers filing reports of
injury. She recalled that Ms. Marx had specified that if an
individual working through their employer was not getting
their incident report filed, the division would work with
the individual to receive their report in whatever way they
could provide it.
Representative Wilson stated that the money had previously
come from general funds, which the bill would change to a
designated general fund (DGF) account. She asked for
verification that no savings would occur and that the
switching of accounts merely constituted a fund source
change.
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that the fiscal note maintained the 2.7 percent
premium tax; employers would not be paying any more than
they had been. He elaborated that a larger percentage or
$1.8 million of the 2.7 percent tax would go into the
Workers' Safety Fund. There was a loss of GF revenue of
$1.8 million because of the fund source change. The
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) questioned the reason
for the change - it did not see any spending of the fund,
only a change of revenue. He questioned what good it did to
merely put revenue into a fund. He asked where and how it
got spent. He turned to a table on page 3 of the fiscal
note [OMB Component Number 344] and referred to the bottom
row "revenue less appropriations (negative indicates
unsustainable spending)." He pointed out there were
numerous negative numbers in the row, which meant that
prior to FY 09 the Workers' Safety Fund had been building a
balance as high as $11 million. Through higher expenditures
than revenue, the balance had been spent down and it had
fallen to $3 million in FY 18. Roughly over a ten-year
period, the fund had been overspent by $8 million. He
pointed out that by FY 20 there would be no balance.
Mr. Teal explained that although there was no appropriation
of the money, Workers' Compensation would continue to spend
at approximately the current levels. The tables on page 3
and 4 of the fiscal note showed a slightly negative cash
flow. He explained that LFD had asked why only $1.8 million
would be taken because it looked like there was
overspending by $2 [million] to $2.1 [million]. The answer
from DLWD had been that it anticipated additional
efficiencies. He noted that the only efficiencies shown on
the fiscal note were on page 1 in the amount of $59,800
[annually) due to the elimination of one staff position. He
did not know how additional savings would be shown; they
should occur, but they were not on the fiscal note. He
explained the division was already spending money and it
was an awkward fiscal note to prepare.
Mr. Teal summarized that the direct answer to
Representative Wilson's question was yes - $1.8 million
previously classified as GF would flow to the Workers'
Safety Fund.
1:47:27 PM
Representative Wilson referenced the deficit shown in the
fiscal note tables and asked if committee members could
assume that undesignated general funds (UGF) would be
utilized. She reasoned that it was not possible to spend in
the negative; therefore, she wondered if a growth in UGF
would occur to make up the difference.
Mr. Teal replied that the table on page 4 of the fiscal
note showed several options including the governor's
budget. He pointed out that the FY 23 beginning balance was
highly negative [$5.4 million], which was not possible.
Under the second option [column 2] that included the
governor's budget with the Appeals Commission (HB 69), the
account went negative as well. Under HB 79, the balance
would remain positive. If both HB 69 and HB 79 passed, the
balance would hold up well. He anticipated a $2 million
request for GF if HB 79 did not pass.
Representative Wilson surmised the $2 million request would
be the same - instead of putting the money in the GF, it
would go to "what it's being paid on behalf of."
Mr. Teal answered in the affirmative. He detailed $1.8
million would be diverted from GF into the Workers' Safety
Fund, which would spend as a designated fund; or the GF
could be spent - it came out the same.
1:49:24 PM
Ms. Harbour addressed DLWD fiscal note OMB Component Number
2342 related to the elimination of the Second Injury Fund.
The note reflected savings anticipated in the future
related to eliminating the Second Injury Fund program. She
reported it would take time to realize savings because many
of the injuries were permanent, partial disabilities;
therefore, benefits to individuals lasted the recipient's
lifetime. She explained that the eventual savings would be
realized by employers - their premium costs would decrease.
Self-insured employers (e.g. State of Alaska) would
experience savings as savings occur.
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from the Department of
Administration (DOA) and the Office of the Governor in
relation to their fiscal notes.
SCOTT JORDAN, DIRECTOR, RISK MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, addressed the DOA fiscal note, OMB
Component Number 71. The costs in the note reflected the
requirement to electronically file reports of injury. The
cost in FY 19 would be $40,000 to cover forms that were
billed out at $1.25 by a third-party administrator as well
as the programming for the first year. The outyears were
$12,900 that would cover $1.25 per form - the department
anticipated about 1,900 forms per year submitted to the
Division of Workers' Compensation.
Representative Wilson remarked that the electronic filing
would cost more. She asked if the electronic filing savings
would be reflected on the Division of Workers' Compensation
fiscal notes.
Mr. Jordan answered that he could not comment on savings on
the Division of Workers' Compensation side. Currently,
doing the work manually was not costing DOA any more. Doing
the work electronically would cost the department $1.25 per
form to submit to the Division of Workers' Compensation
1:52:54 PM
Representative Wilson wondered if it would cost the state
more money to do the process electronically. She wondered
if there would be savings as the committee had been told in
one of the other fiscal notes. She surmised that DOA was
fast at the forms and could do them manually just as
quickly as it could electronically.
Mr. Jordan answered that the process would not cost the
department any more, but the third-party administrator
submitting the forms to the Division of Workers'
Compensation charged a $1.25 fee per form. It would cost
DOA more to process the forms, but it would not require
additional personnel.
Representative Wilson asked which department would be
paying interagency receipts.
Mr. Jordan deferred to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
Co-Chair Foster asked OMB to address fiscal note OMB
Component Number 0.
CAROLINE SCHULTZ, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR, relayed that the interagency receipt funds
that would go to the Division of Risk Management would come
from all executive branch agencies. The Division of Risk
Management was the state's self-insured workers'
compensation manager. The division charged rates for all
personal service budgets for all agencies. The rates were
calculated annually; therefore, OMB had elected to reflect
the costs in an OMB various note.
1:54:49 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if overall, electronic filing would
cost the state more or less.
Mr. Teal answered that Risk Management would be spending an
additional $12,900 per year to pay a third-party to handle
the forms. The charge did not go only to the Division of
Workers' Compensation - it went to every allocation in
every agency. The change would mean a small percentage
increase in the working reserve rate. The legislature could
fund the fiscal note (the money would go to OMB to spread
out to various agencies). He explained that the Division of
Risk Management would incur costs that would be passed to
other agencies (it reflected the nature of interagency
receipts). He elaborated there had to be cash backing the
payments to Risk Management - each agency would pay a small
portion. Even if the legislature did not fund the fiscal
note in FY 19, the rates would be built into personal
service costs beginning in FY 20. The rates would go into
the adjusted base - the committee really would not see them
- it would see the transactions, but the committee would
not discuss them because they were automatically assumed to
be approved and each agency would receive a small amount of
money to pay the costs. He reiterated it would cost an
additional $12,900 to process the forms.
Representative Wilson surmised that the increase was due to
the third-party. She thought the purpose of the bill was to
save money. She was trying to determine where the savings
would come in. She wondered why the bill should be passed
if there were no savings.
Mr. Teal believed the question was probably better answered
by DLWD. He stated that the Division of Workers'
Compensation anticipated savings and the elimination of one
position. Based on a table attached to DLWD fiscal note,
OMB Component Number 344, anticipated savings were around
$200,000 per year. Additionally, there was the elimination
of the Second Injury Fund, which would save money for all
employers including the state. Putting it all together was
more difficult than one may think. He explained that every
fiscal note was prepared by a single allocation and there
had been some coordination problems trying to make them
match.
1:59:19 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 79(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She supported portions of
the bill that she thought were needed. She was concerned
about the representation of the person. She stated the
representation of who it could be was based on the same
committee the person would be in front of. She thought it
was a conflict of interest. She thought it was better but
had hoped an amendment would address the issue in a
different way.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified his motion pertained to version R
as amended.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Kawasaki, Foster,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
Vice-Chair Gara was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6/4).
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 79(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with three "do pass," two "do not pass,"
three "no recommendation," and two "amend" recommendations;
and with two new fiscal impact notes from the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development; one new fiscal impact note
from the Office of the Governor; and one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Administration.
2:01:51 PM
AT EASE
2:03:21 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of
natural resources; relating to agriculture; and
relating to community seed libraries."
2:03:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON, SPONSOR, provided an
explanation of the bill:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Finance committee
thank you for taking the time in your busy schedule to
hear HB 197, a bill relating to Community Seed
Libraries.
This bill came from members of my community, as a way
to legalize the sharing of small amounts of seeds.
Currently, a seed cannot be sold, shared, or exchanged
without going through costly testing and labeling.
Seed sharing and libraries have the potential to
contribute significant value to the health and
heritage in our communities by providing a place to
share regionally-adapted and heirloom seeds as an
alternative to outside genetically modified seeds, and
will help to increase biodiversity and plant
resilience in our state.
Seed libraries have been sprouting up throughout
Alaska and this bill will allow them to operate
legally without burdensome and unnecessary government
regulation.
This bill will help grow an organic sense of community
and increase Alaskan food security.
ELIZABETH REXFORD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON,
read from prepared remarks:
Thank you, chairmen and members of the house finance
committee, for hearing HB 197.
HB 197 reduces onerous labeling and testing
regulations for small batches of noncommercial seeds.
Currently, all seeds in Alaska fall under commercial
regulations, including the seeds that are traded
amongst friends or saved from the prior year's
harvest. This bill will change this, allowing the
Alaskan gardening and farming communities the
opportunity to continue expanding seed sharing without
breaking the law.
The new labeling guidelines would require 5 sections:
• the seeds' species and variety,
• name and address of seed library
• year the seed was packaged
• the weight of the packaged contents
• and the statement, "Not authorized for commercial
use and not classified, graded, or inspected by
the State of Alaska."
While this may seem like overkill for a small local
seed exchange, five requirements for labeling is less
than the two pages of requirements we currently have.
Because of the way the current statute is written, any
seed that is used at any capacity in the state has to
go through the commercial process of extensive
testing, germinating percentages and labeling. In the
scale of things, the new requirements would be pretty
limited.
This bill also broadens the duties of the DNR
Commissioner to allow the department to administer and
promote the creation of community seed libraries. A
community seed library is not currently defined in
statute, so this bill carves out a space in statute
and says that seed libraries can exist and provides
guidelines. Alaska has been experiencing a severe food
security challenge, where residents now spend close to
$2 billion each year buying food produced from outside
of the state. Community seed libraries encourage
self-sufficiency and preserve agricultural knowledge.
Now that we have planted the seed, please join us in
supporting HB 197. Rob Carter, whom is the state's
plant materials center manager, is on the line to
answer any questions. Thank you for taking the time
to hear the bill.
2:06:39 PM
Representative Kawasaki stated there were letters in
members' packets from individuals who were currently part
of the seed library in Alaska. He asked if the bill sponsor
was saying the individuals were running illegal operations.
Representative Johnston answered "quietly." The bill would
help the individuals do the work on a more orderly and
legal basis.
Representative Kawasaki stated that based on conversations
with individuals with seed libraries, the bill looked
onerous for people with noncommercial seed libraries. He
asked for detail.
Representative Johnston deferred the question to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Representative Kawasaki repeated his question. He was
trying to determine whether it was not acceptable for
individuals to operate seed libraries without enabling
legislation.
ROB CARTER, MANAGER, PLANT MATERIALS CENTER, DIVISION OF
AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), answered that current regulations
prohibited all seed sales and transportation being offered
for sale in Alaska. The operations had to meet a very
defined set of testing and labeling requirements. Currently
all of the individuals operating seed libraries, including
anyone sharing or transporting seed, for personal
noncommercial use, were breaking current regulations. He
explained that if DNR went to a seed library to issue a
notice of violation or an order and the seed library failed
to follow through, under AS 03.05.090 a person violating
one of the provisions was guilty of a Class A misdemeanor
and a fine of up to $500 for each violation. He noted
violations could get expensive if a library contained a
couple hundred packets of seed.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the requirements were
statutory or regulatory.
2:10:58 PM
Mr. Carter responded that the requirement was currently in
regulation under the duties of the commissioner. Statute
currently allowed DNR's Division of Agriculture to regulate
the sale, transport, importation, or exportation of seed
within the state.
Representative Kawasaki remarked on current regulation that
gave DNR and the commissioner the ability to regulate. He
asked if it was possible to amend regulation to allow DNR
to regulate seed libraries or transfers of seed grown and
traded in the state.
Mr. Carter replied it could be effective to change
regulation to allow for personal use, noncommercial seed
distributions or transportations around the state. He
observed that regulations could be changed much easier than
statute. To protect the industry in perpetuity having the
requirement in statute was beneficial because of the
protection it would provide to Alaska's small and larger
personal use seed exchanges or transportations. Currently
it was not in the best interest of the division or the
state for food security and biodiversity reasons for DNR to
issue notices of violation for non-commercial seed use, but
that was because it was the way he operated the division.
Knowing that regulations could be changed by whoever was
sitting in his position (with a lengthy process of public
scoping and through the Department of Law (DOL)), he
believed for long-term food security and sustainability,
establishing statute would protect seed libraries and
noncommercial seed trading.
2:13:54 PM
Representative Grenn pointed to page 3 of the legislation
pertaining to community seed libraries [subsection (c) at
the bottom of the page] "Seed given, exchanged, or offered
for giving or exchange under (b) of this section must be
packaged for sale and labeled." He noted the subsection
listed several things that needed to be on the label. He
asked for verification that someone still needed to label
their seeds if they were giving them away versus selling
them.
Representative Johnston replied, "currently yes." She noted
that the labeling could be merely having a label on the
table or next to the seeds suggesting what the seeds were;
it did not have to be for each individual packaging.
Representative Grenn asked for verification that the
requirement to package and label was not per package.
Representative Johnston replied in the affirmative.
Representative Grenn referenced page 4 of the bill and
asked why there was a one-pound limitation.
Representative Johnston deferred to DNR.
Mr. Carter replied that the issue had been discussed at
length - it had initially been a smaller weight. He
reported that the industry had reached out and communicated
that the weight was too small. He did not believe it was a
benefit or hurdle for anyone sharing seed. He used
cauliflower as an example and specified there were 70,000
seeds per pound. He believed it was plenty for
noncommercial use. He thought that if people started
noncommercial sharing of cereal grains or larger seed, it
may become a burden, but he believed the weight limit in
the bill was per package. He elaborated that a person could
easily write "not authorized for commercial use in the
state of Alaska" on the packages and could follow the other
labeling requirements to overcome the hurdle.
Representative Grenn asked for verification that he would
need five separate, one-pound bags if he wanted five pounds
of one type of seed. He thought a limitation sounded
strange for community sharing.
Mr. Carter answered there was a reasonable way to work
around the issue. The intent behind the bill was to make
sure the use was noncommercial. He elaborated that seed
laws existed to protect individuals who based their
livelihood on the quality of the seed. Federal and state
seed laws regulated the quality of seeds farmers needed or
purchased because their business operations depended on it
- that was where labeling requirements for germination and
purity came into play as a protection for farmers. There
were many workarounds to ensure individuals sharing seeds
could do so easily.
2:18:38 PM
Representative Guttenberg referenced two emails in members'
packets sent to his staff the previous year [email of
opposition from P.S. Holloway sent on April 7, 2017 (copy
on file)]. He detailed that the author of the email, Dr.
Holloway was the retired director of the University of
Alaska experimental farm. He emphasized that no one had
been more active in promoting agriculture in Alaska than
Dr. Holloway. He explained that in addition to her
cynicism, Dr. Holloway did not get the bill. He detailed
that Dr. Holloway was in the middle of the commercial and
free trade of seeds and plants and was still active at the
University's experimental farm. He asked if the bill
addressed the concerns. He referred to DNR's zero fiscal
note. He commented that DNR's budget was strapped and he
questioned where the money would come from to oversee the
changes made by the bill.
Representative Johnston answered that the email had been
sent on April 7 [2017]. The concerns had been addressed by
the House Resources Committee in an amendment process on
April 28 [2017].
Representative Guttenberg referenced the one-pound
limitation and the fact that noncommercial seed libraries
would still be regulated. He mentioned the ability for
people to swap seeds. He thought it appeared the bill did a
substantial amount without a fiscal note. He saw the bill
as a tamping down of people's ability to sell seeds at a
farmer's market or other. He stressed the state did not
have enough agriculture at present to dictate that people
could not experiment and if they did experiment they had to
label and have accurate accounting for what they were
doing. He was concerned the bill would do the opposite of
enhancing.
2:22:16 PM
Representative Johnston replied that Alaska would be the
fifth or sixth state to do the work. She stated that it
appeared to be making things more difficult; however, it
would bring the business of seed exchange into a place of
respect and biodiversity, where it would be possible to buy
seeds from local people at a farmer's market. She stated
that while it seemed cumbersome to some, she believed it
would be better to legitimize the activity by passing
statute.
Representative Guttenberg asked how DNR expected to
implement the bill without a fiscal note. He stated that
normally there was a fiscal note when writing regulation
was required.
2:23:49 PM
Mr. Carter replied that nowhere in the bill was there
language specifying someone "shall" do something, whereas,
there were numerous provisions specifying that the
department "may" do something if it chose. The division was
currently reviewing its seed regulations. If the statute
moved forward during its next regulation process, DNR would
make sure it addressed the community seed libraries and the
personal noncommercial transfer of seed within the
regulations. He noted that DNR's current purview was
commercial only. He cited the department's belief it would
not have to regulate the issue as its reason for the zero
fiscal note. He elaborated there would not be a need for
another staff. There may be some education and the bill
provided the opportunity for DNR to create an additional
webpage; however, the department already had a website. He
did not believe the additional work in the bill would place
an undue burden on the division or department. At present,
if the bill passed, DNR would not have to police the
noncommercial seed sharing activities; it would reduce any
work hours, trips, or inspections the department would
currently have to do if someone brought noncommercial use
to its attention via a complaint.
Representative Guttenberg believed there were too many
contradictions associated with the bill.
Representative Wilson asked if Mr. Carter had participated
in the House Resources Committee meetings the past April.
Mr. Carter answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked if Mr. Carter had told the
House Resources Committee that the issue was in regulation
and DNR could choose to make changes.
Mr. Carter replied that he believed so. He believed the
concerns could be addressed through a regulation change. He
was uncertain it would provide longevity and protection to
the noncommercial seed sharing activities in Alaska, but it
very well could be done.
Representative Wilson asked why the department had not done
anything in regulation. She surmised that the department
could have elected to implement regulation and the
legislature could have changed it via statute if it did not
like the outcome.
2:27:00 PM
Mr. Carter replied that the duties of the commissioner of
DNR under AS 03.05.010 pertained to the development of a
commercial agriculture industry. The department did not see
the noncommercial seed sharing activities as commercial;
therefore, it did not see the noncommercial activity as
falling under its purview at present.
Representative Wilson stated that Mr. Carter had testified
that DNR wrote regulations and could change them if it
chose to. She thought he was now saying that DNR had no
legal authority to write regulations for noncommercial seed
sales or trade.
Mr. Carter confirmed that DNR did not have the purview of
noncommercial use, but it did have purview to protect and
enhance an agricultural industry in the state. The
regulations that were likely last updated in the 1980s
oversaw and regulated all seed throughout the state, which
included personal use.
Representative Wilson asked how DNR was enhancing if it was
not allowing.
Mr. Carter clarified the department was enhancing
commercial industry. He detailed the department was
providing seed testing and sampling and was regulating the
control, transport, and seeds being offered for sale to the
commercial industry within the state. The department was
not enhancing noncommercial use at present.
Representative Wilson pointed to page 5, lines 18, 19, 23,
and 24 pertaining to the duties of the department with
respect to agriculture. She asked if the language read "the
Department of Natural Resources shall not control and
regulate the entry and transportation of noncommercial
seeds, plants, and other horticulture products," whether it
would take care of the problem that DNR would not be
regulating the noncommercial industry.
Mr. Carter asked for clarification on the line numbers.
Representative Wilson replied that page 5, lines 18 and 19
designated that DNR shall do certain things. Lines 23 and
24 currently read "control and regulate the entry and
transportation of seeds, plants, and other horticulture
products." She believed Mr. Carter was saying that the
language pertained to commercial activity only and that DNR
should not be regulating noncommercial. She asked if the
legislature wanted to ensure DNR was not regulating
noncommercial activity, it should be clarified in statute.
Mr. Carter believed it would be a way to address
noncommercial seed distribution within the state.
2:31:02 PM
Representative Johnston thought Representative Wilson had
an excellent point. The mission of the division was a
commercial one. She spoke to the discussion about the
weight limit discussion (i.e. one to five pounds) and
reasoned it brought up what constituted commercial versus
noncommercial. She believed it was important to keep in
mind the intent of the division to protect commercial while
not standing in the way of the exchanges.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed out that one of DNR's duties listed
on page 5, line 25, was to control and eradicate pests
injurious to plants. He believed allowing individuals to
import anything they wanted would be in opposition to
efforts to control invasive plants. He thought getting too
broad would create problems. He noted that Section 4 (page
3) was new to the legislation and included language about
giving or exchanging seeds. He pointed language on lines 23
and 24 "...from a plant grown (1) outside the state, and
imported into the state in compliance with AS
03.05.010(a)(5)." He remarked that the bill would change
language on page 2 from "into" the state, to "in" the
state. He wondered why the provision on page 3 would be
necessary, which would allow for importation from outside
the state, if page 2 specified the bill applied only to
seed from within the state.
Representative Johnston answered that House Resources
Committee had discussed there were occasional chances for
seed libraries to exchange seeds with commercial entities.
She did not want to prevent seeds from being available to
seed libraries.
2:34:17 PM
Mr. Carter agreed. For example, if he placed a seed order
for his garden and ordered one ounce of broccoli seed (any
remaining seed would have met the requirements within AS
03.05.010(a)(5)) he could leave the seed in its commercial
package or repackage it and label it accordingly and could
noncommercially share it with individuals in his community
or in other regions around the state. There were numerous
individuals throughout Alaska who had relatives outside the
state who bought and shared commercial seeds that met DNR's
current regulations to contain no noxious weeds and have
high purity and good germination. There were also numerous
crop varieties that were not great producers within the
state (e.g. some could not be overwintered); therefore, as
long as the materials met the state's labeling requirements
in their original container, the seed could be disseminated
in Alaska.
Co-Chair Seaton referenced page 2, line 12 that read
"regulate and control the entry in the state" instead of
the previous "regulate and control entry into the state."
He asked if the language change did not change the
regulation of importing seed or distributing within the
state.
Mr. Carter agreed. He viewed it as a language change that
would still allow DNR to regulate seed being brought into
the state to ensure it met the needs of commercial users
and to prevent invasive species from being brought in. The
language would still allow seeds that could not be viably
produced in Alaska to be noncommercially traded or
distributed around the state.
2:37:35 PM
Representative Pruitt stated that his concerns about
ensuring the state maintained its control over any type of
invasive or noxious seeds. He pointed to language intending
to protect from the issue on page 4 under applicability of
other laws. He noted the language specified that nothing
authorized a person to possess or exchange [invasive or
toxic] seeds. He asked how to maintain the control. He had
no problem with individuals sharing heirloom or other seeds
with no issues; however, he reasoned that individuals may
think that something looked pretty or had a value, but
ultimately it could have a negative impact on the [non-
native] environment it was brought to. He used Hawaii as an
example and noted that much of the plants on the islands
were invasive. He asked how to maintain controls through
the new exchange even if there was good intention involved.
Mr. Carter remarked on the importance of the question about
not allowing invasives to include non-native species into
the state. He referred to earlier testimony that people
were going under the radar. He believed the intent of the
language to provide some guidelines to follow for
noncommercial use, gave the state the ability to try to cut
off any invasive species from being brought into the state.
He remarked on the difficulty of the task because vehicles,
planes, boats, lawn mowers from out-of-state, and other
could have seeds attached when brought in. He referenced
Alaska's large size and remoteness. The department would
continue to utilize its current invasive and restrictive
noxious weed list, which it planned on enhancing to include
other species of concern it was hearing about from other
state and federal agencies. The goal was to stop the seeds
preferably before they reached the state's border or if
they made it into the state and were brought to the
department's attention.
Representative Pruitt asked if there was language to
include that would enable DNR to shut down a seed library
or act to prevent someone from bringing in invasive species
or other. He did not see specific language in the bill and
asked if the department was able to take action.
2:42:07 PM
Mr. Carter answered that DNR would take all of the
assistance it could get controlling non-native invasive
species in Alaska. He referenced page 4, lines 16
pertaining to the applicability of other laws, which did
not allow a person to violate the PVP Act [Plant Variety
Protection Act], distribute or exchange seeds classified as
controlled substances, and anything considered noxious,
invasive, or toxic under AS 03 or a regulation adopted
under those chapters. He believed the bill left all tools
the department currently had in place to go in, issue
notice of violations and stop sales to have the seeds
destroyed in a manner at the discretion of the director of
the Division of Agriculture. He did not believe the bill
hindered the department's ability to continue to control
the entry into the state of invasive or non-native plant
species of concern.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson was disturbed the bill had been
around since the past May. She stated the Division of
Agriculture was supposed to be helping agriculture. She
referenced a letter from a person in Homer related to
growing pumpkins. She hoped there would be more discussion
about how the bill was enhancing agriculture. She believed
there was currently a huge loss occurring.
Co-Chair Foster asked members to provide any amendments by
the coming Wednesday.
HB 197 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to transfers from the dividend fund;
creating the restorative justice account; relating to
appropriations from the restorative justice account
for payments for and services to crime victims,
operating costs of the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board, operation of domestic violence and sexual
assault programs, mental health services and substance
abuse treatment for offenders, and incarceration
costs; and providing for an effective date."
2:45:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 216, Work Draft 30-LS0572\M (Martin,
2/12/18).
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP,
read the changes in a prepared statement (copy on file):
• Section 3 - Clarified that the Attorney General's
office can commence assisting a crime victim with
collecting restitution when the victim accepts
assistance or at the end of the 90-day opt-out
period, whichever is earlier.
• Section 4 - Clarified language regarding the
priorities for the Office of Victims' Rights when
helping crime victims with restitution payments
through the Restorative Justice Account.
• Section 6 - Switched priorities 3 and 4, making
"organizations to provide grants for services for
crime victims and domestic violence and sexual
assault programs" the higher priority over
"nonprofit organizations to provide grants for
mental health services and substance abuse treatment
for offenders". The blank CS adds percentage ranges
for appropriations to each priority.
• Sections 8, 9, & 10 - Added the ability for Alaskans
to donate to the crime victim compensation fund that
resides within the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Representative Wilson requested to hear additional detail
from bill sponsor about the changes. She wondered if he
supported or opposed the changes and why.
Representative Kopp explained that the changes were all
policy calls. He believed all of the changes advanced the
intent of the bill.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 30-LS0572\M was ADOPTED.
2:49:19 PM
Representative Kopp thanked the committee for hearing the
legislation. He believed many thousands of Alaskans in an
unrestored condition after being the victim of a crime were
tracking the bill. He reported that currently more than 70
percent of all court ordered restitution for crime victims
remained unpaid since 1980. He added that in 2017 the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission had found the number to
be closer to 76 percent. A 2013 Legislative Research
Services report was included in members' packets (copy on
file) that had been written in response to a question
asking why the state's restitution collection system was
broken. The report determined the system was broken due to
broken communication. He elaborated there were so many
entities involved with restitution, the state had drifted
from the fund that had been implemented to address
restitution and it had not insisted in the criminal justice
process that restitution be paid.
Representative Kopp continued that HB 216 sought to improve
the percentage of restitution and compensation paid to
victims in two ways. First, it prioritized compensation and
restitution for victims from the Restorative Justice
Account, which was part of the original Crime Victim
Compensation Fund established by the legislature in 1988.
Members' packets included a background document of HB 245
passed by the legislature in 1988 to get restitution for
victims. Second, the bill would increase opportunities for
victim restitution from the fund. The original HB 245 was
important because the legislature had declared people who
were incarcerated or convicted during the qualifying year
as ineligible for a Permanent Fund Dividend and the money
was deposited into a Crime Victim Compensation Fund. He
remarked on how memory could fade and explained he had been
speaking with members of the current executive and judicial
branches and they had told him it had never been the Crime
Victim Compensation Fund. He had directed the individuals
to HB 245.
Representative Kopp explained that since the passage of HB
245 the legislature had added worthy recipients such as the
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR), domestic violence and
sexual assault shelters, other crime victim service
agencies, and the Department of Corrections (DOC) for the
costs of incarceration and probation. He did not believe
the legislature had ever envisioned that by adding certain
eligible recipients, that the intent of the fund would be
decimated and would turn into something that it would turn
into something it was never intended to be. He explained
that HB 216 was about process and getting back to helping
to restore victims to a pre-offense condition.
2:53:26 PM
Representative Kop introduced a presentation titled "House
Bill 216: Establishing the Restorative Justice Account and
Prioritizing Help for Victims of Crimes." He began with
slide 1:
Restoring crime victims to a pre-offense condition
through the Criminal Fund established in 1988.
Representative Kopp moved to slide 2:
• 59% of adult women in Alaska have experienced domestic
violence or sexual violence throughout their lifetime.
(CDVSA Report)
• Compensation claims continue to increase yearly. (VCCB
Report) and in 2017, the majority of victims were
women and children.
• The outstanding balance of restitution orders is over
$129 million.
Representative Kopp pointed out that members' packets
included a court system breakdown starting at 1980 going
forward ["Restitution Data - Including both State and
Municipal prosecutions as of 12/31/2017" (copy on file)].
The document showed the amount collected and still owed;
the collection rate was 27.9 percent or over 70 percent
uncollected. He added if the Alyeska Pipeline shooting
incident was removed, which had resulted in a claim of
about $20 million, the amount owed was still about $100
million. He addressed the difference between compensation
and restitution. He detailed that compensation included
bridging/emergency funds. For example, the funds helped a
person pay medical bills and recover lost wages from work
immediately after a DUI accident or serious assault. The
Violent Crimes Compensation Board could award up to $40,000
for a person, but it may not help a person with a property
loss. Whereas, restitution was a court ordered payment that
went to victims, post-conviction. He detailed that
sometimes it took five to six years to get a felony
prosecution through the system and get the court order for
restitution issued. He stated the funds were very
different. He explained that HB 216 would help with both
measures [compensation and restitution].
2:55:26 PM
Representative Kopp continued to a bar graph showing the
criminal fund over the years and how funds had been
distributed (slide 4). The left side of the graph showed a
parallel distribution between DOC for cost of incarceration
and probation (shown in red) and crime victim services
(shown in green). In FY 12 the lines diverged dramatically
and even more sharply in FY 15 - the fund completely became
oriented toward the cost of inmate healthcare and victim
services remained at the very bottom.
Representative Kopp moved to a bar graph on slide 5 that
showed how the funds had previously been shared more
equally [up to FY 11] between DOC and victims' services
(shown in yellow and blue respectively). More recently, 94
percent of the funds went to inmate healthcare and 6
percent went to victims' services.
Representative Kopp explained that the bill would return to
a priority in a way that would not unfairly impact
financially other agencies eligible for the funds. He was
sensitive to the fact that inmate healthcare needed to be
paid for; however, the bill focused on improving the
process of getting restitution to victims of crime in a
timely way. He believed that by introducing some key pieces
into the bill, one being OVR, which had never taken an
active role in helping victims get restitution orders
filled, would improve the service dramatically.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana highlighted that compensation was an
emergency bridging fund that could be obtained immediately
by crime victims. He turned to slide 6 and reported that
the number of new claims had increased steadily from 2000
to 2017 - the number usually correlated with how much money
was available to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board. He
turned to slide 7 and reported the majority of claims were
for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child
abuse. He detailed that child abuse was one of the highest
percentages at 34 percent, the majority of which involved
some type of sexual assault.
2:58:20 PM
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana moved to slide 8 and addressed annual
outstanding restitution balances. He explained that
restitution was ordered by the court and could take a long
time for someone to receive. The annual outstanding balance
had steadily increased; a major spike in the balance in FY
14 was related to the Alyeska Pipeline shooting.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana turned to slide 9 and specified that
approximately 40 to 50 percent of restitution orders were
for individuals. He detailed that about 50 percent of the
individuals were owed less than $1,000. The average
restitution payment to a person ranged between $500 and
$700. The remaining 50 percent of the individuals were
usually owed less than $10,000. The bill would put a
$10,000 cap on the amount OVR could assist victims with. He
added that the sponsor had reviewed what other states were
doing and Vermont's system was close to the same as the
bill proposal.
Representative Kopp noted that the $10,000 applied on a per
restitution order basis.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana turned to slide 11 and provided
highlights of the bill compared to current law. The bill
created a mechanism for the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division to set aside an amount calculated annually for the
Restorative Justice Account. The legislature would have the
ability to appropriate money to entities and state
agencies, which would be prioritized with a percentage. He
explained that OVR would have the ability to assist victims
with restitution payments. He clarified that compensation
would remain paramount because victims needed immediate
help with bridging funds. The bill would allow direct
appropriations to nonprofit agencies to assist victims of
crimes including domestic violence and sexual assault. The
sponsor realized that compensation and restitution would
not make a victim whole; therefore, some nonprofits
provided other services a victim may need. The bill also
authorized funds for mental health and substance abuse
treatment for offenders.
3:01:31 PM
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana moved to slide 12 and continued to
address highlights of current law and changes under HB 216.
The bill would require the court system to share
restitution orders with OVR. Currently DOL received the
orders and notified victims about their rights and that
they may qualify for restitution. Currently a victim could
notify DOL if they want assistance or assistance was
automatic unless they opted out within 30 days. He noted it
was rare for a person to opt-out; opt-out reasons could be
that a person did not want to deal with it, they moved and
could not be located by the state, or they wanted to hire a
private company to assist with financial collection. For
many years the DOL Restitution Unit had been the entity
helping victims with collecting restitution; however, it
had lost funding. He furthered that DOL had never helped
victims of crimes through a criminal fund established 30
years back; it only assisted victims with restitution,
things that could be garnishable, volunteer payments by the
offender, or prepayments. The bill would allow use of the
funds through OVR as well.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana reported the bill would expand the
opt-out period from 30 to 90 days to give victims more time
to make a decision. He detailed that crime could be
traumatizing and individuals could need more time to make a
decision on the assistance. Lastly, the bill allowed
Alaskans to donate to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund
though the Pick.Click.Give program when filing for their
Permanent Fund Dividend.
3:03:41 PM
Representative Kopp expounded that under current law and
the bill, the offenders were liable to pay back any payout
made from the Restorative Justice Account for restitution
and any payout made by the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board for compensation. He specified that offenders would
not be off the hook just because a bridging fund had
offered compensation or restitution.
Representative Guttenberg asked about language on the
bottom left of slide 11 [under current law] that addressed
appropriation of funds without priority. He referenced a
bullet point designating the use of funds by percentages
[under HB 216, lower right side of slide 11]. He asked for
further detail.
Representative Kopp answered there was currently no
priority or law designating what the legislature wanted the
state to look at first when distributing funds. Currently,
there was nothing to guide OMB, when establishing the
governor's budget, on determining the highest priority. He
reported there had been years the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board had fallen off dramatically and when the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and OVR had
not been entirely funded. The bill made a policy call that
would direct OMB to prioritize inmate healthcare and look
at what may be left over for the other victims' service
agencies.
3:06:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked what the bill would change
the priority to.
Representative Kopp answered that the priority order was in
the bill.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana directed attention to Section 6, page
6 of the bill [version M].
Representative Kopp continued the bill established the
Crime Victim Compensation Fund as the highest priority,
then OVR for payments to crime victims and operating costs
of the program, then nonprofit organizations to provide
grants for services for crime victims and domestic violence
and sexual assault programs, then nonprofits for mental
health and substance abuse treatment, and then DOC. He
pointed out the priority order included a percentage range,
which was based on historical needs drawn from the fund.
The numbers were all policy calls. He highlighted that in
review of the bill draft, he realized DOC should have been
65 to 78 percent to accommodate the scenario of all four of
the higher agencies either getting the low end of the range
or the high end of the range. A substantial majority of the
funds would still go to inmate healthcare. The bill would
give victims services agencies - that had been [previously]
removed entirely - more budget certainty out of the fund.
Most importantly, the bill introduced OVR as a recipient.
He explained that OVR was the most aggressive advocate in
state government for victims. He believed the state would
start turning the curve of getting victims back on their
feet if OVR followed up with restitution orders and saw
that they received the money.
3:09:08 PM
Representative Grenn thanked Representative Kopp for
introducing the bill. He believed prioritizing for victims
was a great thing for the fund. He asked about Sections 8
through 10, which he believed had come from the House
Judiciary Committee. He remarked that the Pick.Click.Give
program was a new mechanism for giving to the fund. He
noted that the provisions would mean new duties for the
Department of Revenue (DOR) as the administrator and he
wondered if the sponsor had spoken with the department
about the new work the provisions would entail.
Representative Kopp replied in the affirmative. He reported
that DOR "loved" the idea. He detailed that the House
Judiciary Committee had exempted the normal 7 percent
administrative fee that would be deducted. He elaborated
that the only other exempt fund was the Peace Officer and
Firefighter Survivor's Fund.
Representative Kawasaki spoke the historical restitution
data handout. He asked why the restitution percentage had
dropped significantly after 2008.
Representative Kopp replied that the 2013 report from
Legislative Research Services did the best job summarizing
that information. The report specified the breakdown was
occurring because there was not a good mechanism between
the courts and DOC. He elaborated that when the court
issued an order for restitution it was sent to DOC where
probation officers were supposed to make the restitution
order part of successfully completing probation and parole,
which was often not happening. In some cases there was not
a high level of insistence that it happen for successful
completion and in other cases the money was collected but
not passed on to the victim. He explained that perhaps the
victim could not be located to give the money to. He
addressed restitution orders on people who were not
incarcerated and conjectured that it could be more
difficult to locate people. He believed the biggest reason
was the absence of a recovery unit - a team of attorneys at
DOL, which had existed in the past. He did not claim the
recovery unit had ever done a fantastic job - the DOL unit
had recently been defunded in 2016.
Representative Kopp continued that for various reasons
there had been a lack of communication between state
agencies and a lack of follow through, which had made it
very difficult for victims to get compensation. He
underscored that victim compensation was a constitutional
right under Article I, Section 24. He remarked that
legislators had all seen the lack of follow through on
other things such as Medicaid issues and justice issues.
The bill aimed to put a process in the law reestablishing
the highest priority and introducing OVR to help facilitate
the restitution payments. He elaborated that OVR was made
up of a skilled team of attorneys who attended sentencing
hearings and advocated for victims. He added that Taylor
Winston [OVR director] had been extraordinarily helpful and
ready to engage in helping victims access restitution
orders from the court and working with DOR.
3:13:46 PM
Representative Kopp continued to answer the question. He
had worked with aforementioned agencies on the bill to
refine the process and prevent another breakdown from
occurring.
Representative Kawasaki referenced the restitution data and
observed that prior to 2008 it appeared an average of 40 to
50 percent up to 60 percent had been recovered. He observed
that beginning in 2008 going forward the restitution
percentage dropped to single digits. He wondered if a
systemic issue had occurred after 2008.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana answered that the decline in
[restitution] recovery rates was a national trend - all
states were challenged in finding new ways to increase
recovery rates. Some states created independent collection
units to recover the money.
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the intent of the
legislation. He asked how to ensure the department and OMB
adhere to the legislation and appropriate money the way
intended.
Representative Kopp answered that the question struck at
the heart of the bill. He believed the answer was to
establish a priority order in statute. He pointed to
language on page 6, lines 1 and 2 of the bill:
The legislature may appropriate amounts from the
account to the following recipients in the priority
order and percentages listed
Representative Kopp believed the departments would have to
be knowingly circumventing the legislative will [if they
did not comply with the bill's intent]. He detailed that
the legislature had never spelled out the information so
clearly in terms of a priority order. Legislative Legal
Services had specified that the bill did not unduly tie the
administration's hands or violate dedicated funds.
Legislative Legal Services had stated there could be no
successful claim that perhaps a lower priority was filled
and maybe not every higher priority need was. He explained
there was still some discretion built in, but the
legislation made it very clear the legislature wanted the
top priority to be considered first. He elaborated that it
would involve calling the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
to enquire about outstanding claims for the coming year.
Second, OVR would be called to determine the number of
restitution orders ready to go. The average restitution
order was between $500 and $700. He added he was not
talking about large numbers, but about immediately moving
the needle on helping victims get back on their feet.
3:17:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki believed in the importance of
restitution. He found fiscal note 5 was troubling. He
pointed to the last sentence on page 2 [OMB Component
Number 2952]: "As such, the fund change in the Department
of Corrections may shift to the "Restorative Justice
Account" rather than the general fund." He stated that the
note talked about that in practice in FY 11, funding had
been used that was either in crime victim compensation or
DOC. He was trying to determine ways to ensure restitution
was the top priority. He surmised it was for the
legislature to dedicate itself to during the budget process
as well.
Representative Kopp answered that new fiscal notes would
accompany the CS. He added that the fiscal notes had
evolved. He appreciated the comments and relayed
[restitution] was a constitutional right and should be a
priority. He believed the legislative body had not followed
through and insisted on the law. He noted the bill would
not remove the liability of the offender to pay the money
back. He concluded the legislature was in a position to
improve it, which was the goal of the legislation.
Representative Wilson stated that Permanent Fund Dividends
would go to a person if they had not committed a crime. She
wondered if the state was paid back if it paid restitution
on behalf of a person.
Representative Kopp answered that when restitution was paid
on behalf on an incarcerated individual, the individual
would be liable to pay the money back. The individual would
be eligible for a PFD once released, which could be
garnished directly. He noted PFD garnishment was the
highest return on any recovery effort.
3:20:45 PM
Representative Wilson asked if it included personal injury
on behalf of or restitution only.
Representative Kopp answered that individuals were also
liable to pay violent crimes compensation claims to the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board. Restitution was also
repaid to the General Fund - the legislature would have to
reappropriate the funds. The liability for compensation and
restitution did not go away merely because a claim had been
paid.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana added that currently if a victim
received compensation funds, the court took it into
consideration and sent any restitution to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board. The offender was liable to pay
the money back through the violent crime compensation fund.
Representative Wilson provided a scenario where a person
was incarcerated for several weeks, meaning they were
ineligible for a PFD. She asked if an individual's duty to
pay back DOC was tracked and by whom.
Representative Kopp replied that the duty to return the
restitution orders was always with the person, even if
incarcerated for a short time. He stated that current law
specified if a person was incarcerated and became
ineligible. He elaborated it was a policy call (e.g. law
could be changed where a person would become ineligible if
they were incarcerated more than 30 days). The pros would
be that more people were eligible to receive their PFD,
which was the fastest way to get recoveries back.
Additionally, the criminal fund was growing because under
SB 54 [crime reform legislation passed in 2017] the state
was putting many more people back in prison. He remarked
that the state's jails were filling up again. The criminal
fund was replenished annually with new people incarcerated.
If the goal was to have the dividend be more accessible,
the legislature could look at the length of stay [in jail]
versus taking a person's PFD if they were incarcerated for
any length of time.
3:23:41 PM
Representative Wilson countered that jails were not
growing. On the contrary, she believed prison populations
were decreasing. She remarked that the populations would go
down even more if halfway houses and electronic monitoring
were utilized more. She was trying to understand when a
person went to jail and had hurt someone or took property,
whether the state was utilizing a large fund with pooled
money where no one got credited or if the state tried to
recoup as much cost as possible when people left prison.
She understood much of the money could not be recouped
because two out of three individuals released from prison
went back to prison. She stated the bill was telling the
administration and the legislature the priorities. She
remarked that the bill did not require the legislature to
appropriate funds. She stated that corrections was one of
the fastest growing costs in the state. She wanted to have
a better understanding of how the fund worked to start
with. She furthered that if someone paid restitution on
their own it went to the General Fund, not the Restorative
Justice Account. She wanted to know how it all worked
together. She was fine with the bill, but she wanted to
know how the state was tracking all of the components
involved.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana answered that currently the court
system tracked the information. When the court worked with
DOL they would track whether an offender paid restitution.
He detailed that DOC had a priority on the type of fines
and costs that an incarcerated offender had to pay. He
relayed that child support restitution, cost of
incarceration, and other fines was typically the priority.
When an individual was released from jail they still owed
the money to the state through DOC. The bill allowed for
the legislature to appropriate back any repayment of
restitution funds from one account into the Restorative
Justice Account to continue helping victims. He deferred to
DOC for further detail.
3:26:32 PM
Representative Wilson was hoping to receive something in
writing. She believed the things could all be done without
the bill. She clarified her support for the bill. She
stated that as the appropriator, the legislature could use
designated general funds, undesignated, or make up its own
funds to decide where to put or pay out money. She asked
why the funds were not put back into the Restorative
Justice Account versus the General Fund when recouped. She
believed it would be helpful in order to have an
understanding on how much money got paid back. She thought
putting the money into the General Fund meant it got bogged
up with all the other funds. She reasoned the state did not
know whether people released from jail were not being held
responsible to pay restitution to people or property they
damaged.
Representative Kopp responded there was a precise
accounting of every restitution order paid back. The money
returned each year came to the attention of the budget
director, so they knew what was available for
reappropriation. He explained that Legislative Legal
Services had advised that if the funds went automatically
to the Restorative Justice Account it would be a violation
of dedicated funds and would be subject to challenge.
Therefore, the bill specified the funds would go to the
General Fund for reappropriation by the legislature.
3:28:13 PM
Co-Chair Foster remarked that many policy calls needed to
be made. Additionally, the committee needed to hear from
the departments and have an in-depth conversation about the
fiscal notes.
Representative Kopp shared that the effective date of the
bill should be amended to 2019. He explained there were
processes involved that needed time to implement. He
furthered that a 2019 effective date (January or July)
would allow time for the departments to forecast the amount
of money available for distribution associated with persons
deemed ineligible.
HB 216 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:29:46 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:29 p.m.