Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/04/2018 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 | |
| HB398 | |
| HB129 | |
| HB277 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 398 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 399 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 277 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2018
1:38 p.m.
1:38:52 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 1:38 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
Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative Neal Foster; Brandon
S. Spanos, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; Martin Stepetin, Self, Juneau; Representative
Scott Kawasaki, Sponsor; Jacob Gerrish, Staff,
Representative Scott Kawasaki; Martin Stepetin, Self,
Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Major Bernard Chastain, Alaska Wildlife Troopers,
Department of Public Safety; Aaron Peterson, Criminal
Division, Office of Special Prosecution, Department of Law;
Bruce Dale, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage; Mike Robinson,
Alaska Library Association, Anchorage; Mary Jo Torgeson,
Anchorage Public Library, Anchorage; Evelyn Trefon, Self,
Newhalen; Leon Jaimes, Self, Anchorage; David Parrish,
Common Carrier Specialist IV, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska; Jonathan Clement, Attorney, Civil Division,
Department of Law.
SUMMARY
HB 129 FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
HB 129 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 277 BROADBAND INTERNET: NEUTRALITY/REGULATION
HB 277 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 398 CORP TAX:PUBLIC UTILITY INCOME ALLOCATION
HB 398 was REPORTED out of committee with a no
recommendation and with one zero fiscal note from
the Department of Revenue.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 398
"An Act relating to the allocation and apportionment
of income of a public utility for purposes of the
Alaska Net Income Tax Act; and providing for an
effective date."
1:40:12 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, relayed
that the bill addressed foregone revenue. He read from a
prepared statement:
HB 399 is accumulation of work to address foregone
revenue and provide the state with the ability to
potentially capture new revenue.
A brief history on how this piece of legislation was
introduced.
In 2014, legislation was passed that required a both
Department of Revenue and Legislative Finance to
create a report on Indirect Expenditures and the
amount forgone revenue not captured by the State.
The first Indirect Expenditure Report was submitted in
2015. In that report it identified a list of indirect
expenditures within Department of Revenue that should
be terminated.
Then last year during the FY18 budget process, the
House Finance Subcommittee for the Department of
Revenue reviewed these indirect expenditures and
recommended that House Finance Committee offer
legislation that eliminates these indirect
expenditures.
HB 399 repeals certain credits and exemptions from the
recommendations offered in both the Indirect
expenditure report and the Sub-committee.
The indirect expenditures repealed in HB 399 were
selected for repeal for following reasons: The
indirect expenditures did not meet legislative intent,
had limited benefit or wasn't used, or their
conforming purpose has changed.
House Bill 399 repeals the following indirect
expenditures:
? Federal Tax Credits
? Foreign Royalty Exclusions
? Reduced Rate for Capital Gains
? Credit associated with the Stranded Gas Act
The combined total of the potential new revenue is up
to an estimated $6.9 million dollars according to the
fiscal note in front of the committee.
1:43:15 PM
Mr. Anderson reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on
file):
Section 1 AS 43.20 Adds new section Sec. 43.20.146
Removes the exemption of multistate public utilities
from water's edge reporting within the Multistate Tax
Compact.
Section 2 Uncodified Law Adds new section
Applicability Section 1 does not take effect under AS
43.20 (Alaska Net Income Tax Act) until the effective
date.
Section 3 Uncodified Law Adds new section Transition:
Regulations shall change to implement the legislation
but not be adopted before January 1, 2019.
Section 4 Effective Date Sections 1 and 2 take effect
on January 1, 2019
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from the Department of
Revenue.
Representative Wilson asked if the bill included
nonprofits.
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, answered that the bill would not
apply to nonprofits.
Representative Wilson provided a scenario where a telephone
company operated in Alaska and New York. She asked whether
the taxes paid would be split between both states. Mr.
Spanos answered in the affirmative. He explained that the
amount Alaska would receive was based on property, payroll,
and sales.
1:46:14 PM
Representative Ortiz shared that he had a local utility in
his community owned by the city. He asked if the bill would
impact the utility. Mr. Spanos answered that utilities
owned by the municipality had a tax-exempt status. The bill
would not apply to those entities.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to utilities doing business in
multiple states. He stated that typically corporations
should follow the "three factor apportionment income
formula". The bill would eliminate the exemption from three
utilities that currently did not follow the formula
resulting in all utilities following the same formula. He
asked if his understanding was accurate.
Mr. Spanos answered that it was partially accurate. He
clarified that the statute allowed the utility to choose a
different formula and the bill standardized the same
formula for everyone.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
1:48:48 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed amendments would be due by 5:00
p.m.
1:49:06 PM
AT EASE
1:49:20 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster related that the committee was comfortable
with moving the bill out of committee.
Co-Chair Seaton noted the bill had a new zero fiscal note
from the Department of Revenue (DOR).
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HB 398 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for a clarification that the
fiscal note was indeterminate for state revenue.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 398 was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation
and with one zero fiscal note from the Department of
Revenue.
1:50:33 PM
AT EASE
1:51:07 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to
penalties for certain sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping license violations; relating to restrictions
on the issuance of sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping licenses; creating violations and amending
fines and restitution for certain fish and game
offenses; creating an exemption from payment of
restitution for certain unlawful takings of big game
animals; relating to commercial fishing violations;
allowing lost federal matching funds from the Pittman
- Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop - Breaux
programs to be included in an order of restitution;
adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and
providing for an effective date."
1:51:40 PM
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, ALASKA WILDLIFE TROOPERS,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), read from
prepared remarks. He read the sectional analysis.
Summary: This legislation will provide the Alaska
Wildlife Troopers the authority to issue
correctable citations, similar to those available for
driver's licenses. This bill will prohibit a person
from receiving a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping
license in Alaska if their privileges have been
suspended or revoked in this or another state. This
bill increased the restitution for animals harvested
illegally and provided an additional tool for the
Alaska Wildlife Troopers in charging wildlife,
fisheries, and habitat crimes by allowing for some
offenses to be reduced to violations. Finally, the
bill allows for the display of a license in an
electronic format to reflect modernization efforts
made to the fish and game licensing program.
Section 1 This section amends AS 16.05.330(a) to
include "permit" in addition to "license" and "tag"
for purposes of clarifying the proper types of
documentation a person must have in their actual
possession when engaging in certain activities and
reorders the activities of "trapping" and "fur
dealing" to exclude the latter from being a
correctable citation.
Under AS 16.05.330, a person engaged in the activities
listed in 1-5 in section one, must have in their
actual possession a license, tag or permit to legally
engage in that activity. Section one re-orders the
activities into two separate categories; 1 and 2 are
considered sport activities and 3, 4 and 5 are
considered commercial activities. The purpose for this
is contained in section three of this bill
1:54:55 PM
Major Chastain continued with Section 2.
Section 2 This section amends AS 16.05.330(d) to make
it unlawful for a person to obtain a sport fishing,
hunting, or trapping license if the person's rights to
engage in those activities is revoked or suspended in
Alaska.
Section 3 This section amends AS 16.05.330 by adding
three subsections:
(f) provides that a person charged with failing to
have the appropriate sport fishing, hunting or
trapping license in their actual possession may not be
convicted if the person produces a license previously
issued to the person that was valid at the time of the
offense not later than 30 days after the issuance of
the citation.
(g) allows that a license or permit may be in actual
possession in paper or electronic form.
(h)The third subsection specifically states any peace
officer presented with an electronic device under this
section shall be immune from any liability resulting
from damage to the device.
1:56:43 PM
Major Chastain moved to Section 4 that had been added in a
previous committee:
Section 4 This section amends AS 16.05.340 (a) (6) to
require a person paying the reduced fee for a low
income resident hunting, trapping, and sport fishing
license to provide proof of eligibility at the time of
purchase.
Section 5 Under AS 16.05.430 fish and game penalties,
this section increases the specific fines and
penalties associated with an unclassified misdemeanor
and replaces it with a class A misdemeanor.
Section 5 specifically exempts the correctable
citation section 16.05.330(f) from the penalties
portion of the statute. Additionally, it makes the
crimes listed a class A misdemeanor.
Major Chastain listed Sections 5, 12, 21, 25, and 27 and
explained that they were amended by a previous committee.
He read from a description of the amendment that altered
the sections. He delineated that the amendment was designed
to limit the fines on some of the offenses in Title 16
which was amended by HB 129. The amendment removed the
general reference to AS.12.55 in many places and reinstated
the specific incarceration penalties from current law. The
amendment left references to Class A misdemeanors in areas
where the specific penalties were reinstated. Class A
misdemeanors had a specific meaning in the law and the
penalties were contained in AS.12.55. The Department of
Public Safety (DPS) recommended removing the reference to
Class A and changing to non-classified misdemeanors. He
voiced that the change was consistent with current law. He
reported that the representative [Representative Ledoux]
who offered the amendment concurred with the recommended
change.
1:59:10 PM
Major Chastain addressed Sections 6 through 8:
Section 6 Related to section 5, this section adds a
new subsection and creates the ability to charge some
offenses as violations that are currently only allowed
to be charged as misdemeanors. It also addresses the
Pittman-Robertson act and federal matching dollars
lost by the State of Alaska when the state is
defrauded by a defendant who does not purchase the
proper license and/or tag as required by law to
participate in a given hunt or fishery.
Section 6 of this bill creates two new subsections
within AS 16.05.430:
Subsection (c) establishes that a person may be
charged with the violation offence if there is no
culpable mental state established.
Subsection (d) provides the court with the ability to
impose additional restitution to the state of Alaska
equal to the amount of lost federal matching funds
from the Pittman-Robertson / Johnson/Wallop-Breaux
programs when the state is defrauded by a defendant
who does not purchase the appropriate license or tag
or claims residency when they are not a resident. If
the court decides to implement the additional
restitution for the loss of federal funds, the court
will be instructed to deposit the restitution into the
fish and game fund.
Section 7 This section raises the strict liability
commercial fishing violation fines from the amounts
established in 1988, when this section was enacted, to
the same amount adjusted for inflation. The fine
increase will serve as both a deterrent and tool for
Alaska Wildlife Troopers to effectively enforce the
states most important fisheries.
Section 8 This section requires the court system to
transmit notice of all convictions under this section
to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC).
Commercial fishers are applied points similar to
driver's licenses when a person is convicted of
certain commercial fishing offenses.
2:00:16 PM
Major Chastain addressed Sections 9 and 10:
Section 9 Amends AS 16.05.782 and removes the penalty
section from (a) which cleans up the subsection and
makes it clearer. This section makes it clear that a
person may not take a brown or grizzly bear within
one-half mile of a solid waste disposal facility. The
penalties for this section will now be contained
within sections 10 and 11.
Sectional Analysis CSHB129 (JUD) FISH & GAME:
OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES Page 3 of 5
Section 10 Related to section 9, this section removes
the unnecessary reference to section (a) and maintains
the additional penalties of an additional fine for
failing to salvage the hide and skull of the Brown
Bear.
Major Chastain detailed that the sections cleaned up the
statutes and established Class A misdemeanors as a standard
for the offenses but also allowed charging for violation
offenses therefore, many sections contain a violation
offense and the standardized misdemeanor offense.
2:01:04 PM
Major Chastain read a summary of Sections 11 through 16:
Sections 11-16 generally standardize penalties in the
statutes listed by providing an additional option of
charging a person with a violation offense when
appropriate.
Major Chastain highlighted Sections 17 and 18:
Section 17 Under AS 16.05.901 a new subsection is
added in this section to provide for charging offenses
committed under AS 16.05.871-AS 16.05.896 as a
violation offence punishable as provided in AS 12.55.
Section 18 Under AS 16.05.925 "Penalty for
violations", subsection (a) is amended to provide
consistency in the penalties as provided under AS
12.55 and provides an exemption for a new subsection
added under (c).
Under AS 16.05.925 (b), this subsection provides for
restitution amounts that the court may impose for
illegally taken big game animals in Alaska. This
section increases the restitution amounts by at least
50% that a person convicted of unlawfully taking big
game may have to pay to the state if the court choses
to implement restitution. Alaska's game belongs to all
of us collectively. When a
big game animal is unlawfully taken, it defrauds the
state of the value of that animal to its citizens.
This value varies greatly depending on the species of
animal, the location of the take, the social value of
the animal, the economic value of the animal and the
food source value to the people of the state. These
restitution values may be imposed by the court if the
case warrants applying restitution. In most cases, it
does not make the state "whole" for the loss of the
animal but helps pay the state back for the illegal
take.
Current restitution amounts were enacted in 1984 and
have gone untouched since then.
This section adds a provision that refers to an
inflation adjustment provision added in section 19.
2:02:57 PM
Major Chastain moved to Section 19:
Section 19 Under AS 16.05.925 a new subsection was
added relating to subsection (b). Subsection (c)
establishes that a defendant may not be ordered to pay
restitution to the state under this section if:
(1) as soon as reasonably practicable, voluntarily
reports the taking to the department of a state law
enforcement officer engaged in fish and wildlife
protection; and
(2) Surrenders to the department all salvaged portions
of the animal including the horns, antlers, hide and
skull as applicable.
This subsection will provide an incentive for persons
who have unlawfully taken a big game animal and wish
to turn themselves in. This protects hunters who want
to do the right thing from paying additional
restitution amounts.
A new subsection (d) provides for restitution amounts
under this section to be adjusted for inflation every
5 years, beginning in 2023.
2:03:46 PM
Major Chastain reviewed Section 20 through 24:
Section 20 Under AS 16.05.940 (38) a new definition is
added. This paragraph defines "electronic form" as it
pertains to section 3 under AS 16.05.330(g). It
provides for display of [license] images on an
electronic device such as a mobile telephone, tablet
or computer that will satisfy the display of fishing
and hunting licenses.
Section 21 Under AS 16.10.030 "penalty for violations
of AS 16.10.010-AS 16.10.050" this subsection is
amended to provide that a person who violates AS
16.10.010 through AS 16.10.050 is guilty of a Class A
misdemeanor and increases the associated specific
penalty.
Section 22 Under AS 16.10.030 "penalties for
violations" and relating to section 20, this
subsection provides for a person who violates AS
16.10.030 through AS 16.10.050 without any culpable
mental state is guilty of a violation offense as
provided in AS 12.55.
Section 23 Under AS 16.10.090 "penalties for violation
of AS 16.10.070", this section is amended to reflect
that a person who violates AS 16.10.070 is guilty of a
Class A misdemeanor as provided in AS 12.55.
Section 24 Under AS 16.10.090 "penalties for violation
of AS 16.10.070", this section provides that a person,
who without any culpable mental state violates AS
16.10.070 is guilty of a violation offence as provided
in AS 12.55
2:04:58 PM
Major Chastain summarized that Sections 25 through 28
established violation offenses and standardized offenses
within the statute.
Major Chastain continued with Sections 29 and 30:
Section 29 This section amends the uncodified law of
Alaska to make it clear that the act applies to
offenses that occur on or after the effective date of
the Act.
Section 30 Provides an effect July 1, 2018.
2:05:34 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the Department of Public
Safety had concerns about the changes made in the previous
committee. Major Chastain answered that DPS favored most of
the changes but recommended modifying the penalties to
comply with AS.12.55. He deferred to the Department of Law
(DOL) to answer the question.
Representative Wilson asked to hear from DOL.
AARON PETERSON, CRIMINAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF SPECIAL
PROSECUTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference),
responded that some of the changes referred to Class A
misdemeanors, but the original bill took specific penalties
that were listed and changed the penalty to a standard
Class A misdemeanor. He exemplified Section 5 Under AS
16.05.430 of the bill that specified a non-classified
misdemeanor was a fine of not more than $1,000 or
imprisonment of not more than 6 months or both and changed
the penalty to a standard Class A misdemeanor. He
elaborated that the original bill changed the several non-
classified misdemeanors throughout Title 16 to achieve
uniformity with charging under Title 12 and the criminal
code in Title 11. The current version referred to Class A
misdemeanors but created certain fine amounts and maximum
incarceration periods that were not uniform with Class A
misdemeanors under Title 12, which could create confusion
regarding maximum sentencing. He related that he just
received an email that indicated the representative who
offered the amendment in the previous committee [House
Judiciary Committee] would not support changes to the
amendment.
2:09:32 PM
Co-Chair Seaton requested more background information. He
asked DOL to provide written information regarding a
spreadsheet defining Class A penalties in other sections of
statute and how they were related to sections in the bill.
He wanted to determine how the same penalties could be
applied across the board. He pointed to Section 21 of the
sectional analysis reading "a person is guilty of a Class A
misdemeanor and increases the associated specific penalty."
He was uncertain how the language worked. He requested an
explanation in writing from DOL. Mr. Peterson did not hear
the questions. Co-Chair Seaton restated his request and
questions.
2:13:25 PM
Mr. Peterson responded that under AS 12.55.355(b)(1) a
Class A misdemeanor was punishable by a fine of up to $25
thousand. The original version of HB 129 changed all the
non-classified misdemeanors in Title 16 and removed the
reference to specific penalties ( a fine of not less than
$100 or more than $500) and replaced it with "guilty of a
Class A misdemeanor punishable under AS 12.55". The goal
was to make Class A misdemeanors uniform throughout the
criminal code. He detailed that all the offenses in Title
11 referred to sentencing in Title 12. The previous
committee had added a new maximum crime of $1000 removing
the standardization that would have been in place. He
reiterated that the goal was to provide uniformity. Co-
Chair Seaton requested the information in writing. He
wanted to compare other Class A misdemeanors as well.
2:16:16 PM
Representative Tilton pointed to Section 18 that related to
penalties for a violation and heard that Mr. Peterson
stated that some penalties for violations increased by 50
percent. She wondered if a formula had been used to
determine the increases. Major Chastain answered that
Section 18 dealt with restitution for big game animals. He
explained that Section 18 was enacted in 1984 and had never
been adjusted for inflation. The original fine had been
$2,016 and the bill assessed a 50 percent increase across
the board. Some of the amounts were higher than 50 percent,
which reflected a previous committee's belief that the
animals were worth more. Representative Tilton asked about
the electronic license form. She wondered whether a person
would be required to have a license with them on their
device if electronic licensing was adopted. Major Chastain
answered in the affirmative. He clarified that the
electronic licensing format was under development. The bill
allowed for individuals to carry an electronic license. He
furthered that when the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
had the ability to create the electronic licensing the
provision in HB 120 would apply.
2:19:44 PM
Representative Wilson asked why she could not take a
picture of her license and count it as an electronic
version. Major Chastain answered that it may be an
acceptable option in the future. The problem was related to
hunting and fishing tags that needed to be written on the
back of licenses. The recording requirements determined
whether the individual complied with the law and changes
could be problematic. Representative Wilson asked if
recording requirements were not required would individuals
have to wait for regulations to be written to find out if
photographs of licenses were acceptable. Major Chastain
answered that licensing was developed by DFG and whatever
format was chosen was acceptable to DPS. If a photograph of
the license was acceptable for fishing without reporting
requirements it would be satisfactory for enforcement.
2:21:33 PM
Representative Tilton asked about the effective and
applicability date of July 1, 2018 in relation to the
increase in fines. Major Chastain answered that the July 1
timeframe was to get the provisions implemented. He offered
that many changes were simple and for the most part all
the changes could be implemented by the July 1 date except
for two pieces: Section 4 relating to proof of eligibility
for a Class 5a license. The other related to electronic
licensing. He restated that the bill provided a legal
mechanism for electronic licenses to be available once DFG
developed them.
Vice-Chair Gara appreciated the bill. He had two concerns.
He asked if the bill addressed subsistence permits. He
thought it could be a crime if a subsistence permit was
left at home. Major Chastain answered that a subsistence
permit was not a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping
license. He delineated that subsistence permits had
reporting requirements on the permit and must be reported
before leaving the fishing sight.
2:24:33 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated that a mistake was a mistake. He did
not like making something that was an honest mistake a
crime. He announced his other issue with the bill. He
recalled that a violation was recorded on a person's
record, whereas a fine was not. He wondered whether DPS
agreed with changing the violations to fines. He emphasized
that forgetting a permit at home was an honest mistake and
a violation made the mistake appear like a crime. Major
Chastain replied that violations were recorded as a
violation, like a speeding ticket. He commented that there
were a variety of items that could be seen and showed up on
Court View like a speeding ticket. Violations were distinct
from misdemeanors and had less penalties associated with
them. He mentioned that it would be a policy call whether
the legislature chose to change the category of offense
from a violation to a fine however, it was still a criminal
offense. He deferred to Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson elaborated that minor fishing offenses had
been described by Alaskan courts as "quasi-criminal
offenses to non-criminal violations". A violation was only
punishable by a fine under AS 12.53.505 of up to $500
unless the statute had a specified fine. Under 12.55.135
related to sentences of imprisonment the statute stated
that there was no term of imprisonment for a violation. He
noted that part of the bill's action created a second
level, lower-level offense so a person did not receive a
criminal conviction for a misdemeanor and received a minor
offense which was equivalent to a traffic infraction.
2:28:43 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not believe it was quasi-criminal to
forget a license at home. He asked whether an infraction or
fine was the term for an offense that was not quasi-
criminal. Mr. Peterson answered he was not familiar with a
term that would be used in criminal law other than
violation. He understood that a quasi-criminal offense
could carry a negative connotation because of the word
criminal, but, a speeding ticket was a criminal offense and
was a more accurate equivalent. He remarked that a "fix it
ticket" was a possibility. Vice-Chair Gara found the fix it
ticket idea more appealing. He asked for details and
whether the ticket disappears from records once proof of
the license was produced.
Major Chastain responded that the fix it ticket idea would
allow a person to present the license within 30 days and it
would not be on their record; there was no associated fine.
He delineated that there were requirements under regulation
that the Board of Fish had enacted for recording
requirements and varied among the different permits handed
out by DFG. There were 30,000 people participating in dip
netting across the state. Some of the individuals forgot
their permits. The fishers were required to carry the
license while fishing and record their fish prior to
leaving the fishing sight. Wildlife enforcement officer's
carryout enforcement according to regulation.
2:32:30 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if Section 3 allowed for the chance
to produce the license within 30 days and the record was
erased. Major Chastain answered that Section 3 provided a
mechanism for an Alaskan Wildlife Trooper to make a
correctable citation for not having a hunting, trapping, or
sport fishing license in one's possession and was erased
with proof and it became an officially correctable
citation. The troopers had been operating under the quasi-
legal mechanism of unofficially allowing correctible
citations over the years. He indicated that DOL advised
that the action was not legal. The section provided for a
legal mechanism for correctible citations for certain
offenses. Vice-Chair Gara had a problem with the 30-day
timeframe. He asked what constituted a violation. Major
Chastain responded that 30 days was the standard for other
correctible citations like motor vehicle insurance and if
proof was not presented after 30 days it was not
correctable.
2:35:26 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the offense became a violation if
the individual failed to provide proof within 30 days.
Major Chastain responded that it would be considered a
violation offense. Vice-Chair Gara appreciated Section 3,
but it did not address the subsistence problem. He related
that many people hunt or fish in the wilderness for more
than 30 days and the limit was burdensome for rural
residents. He believed that people were being punished.
2:37:16 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked what went on a person's
record that did not produce the license within 30 days.
Major Chastain responded that the record appeared as a
violation offense. He explained that the violation appeared
on the DPS record system, Alaska Public Safety Information
Network (APSIN) and showed up in the non-criminal section
as a violation offense. The DFG offenses was separate from
the criminal section and would not show up on a criminal
record. In addition, it would be portrayed on Court View as
a violation offense with the amount of the fine.
Representative Guttenberg indicated he had had an
experience when dip netting which he relayed. He relayed
that one of the people he was fishing with forgot his
wallet and his license could have been retrieved in 5
minutes. The enforcement officer wanted to write a
citation. He asked whether a ticket could be negated if a
person quickly produced the license after receiving a
ticket. Major Chastain replied that currently the law did
not allow for correctable citation for a few offenses like
not having a hunting, fishing, or trapping license in one's
possession. In the scenario that the representative
presented he reported that Board of Fish regulations
required possession, immediate record keeping, and cutting
the fish's tail for dip netting. He hoped a trooper would
use common sense and wait for the evidence and not issue a
citation.
2:41:16 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
2:41:43 PM
MARTIN STEPETIN, SELF, JUNEAU, reported that he had been
pulled over a couple of times where he did not have his
insurance card with him but was able to offer proof. He was
trying to become a member of the National Guard and a
violation would make his acceptance into the guard almost
impossible. He supported the fix it ticket provision.
2:43:46 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
2:43:54 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the bill related to a
$5 fee applied to low income residents and additional
reduced fee language in Section 4. He referenced language
regarding proof of eligibility before purchasing a low
income license in Section 5. He asked where individuals
purchased a license.
BRUCE DALE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), answered that currently a person merely
had to check a box on the form and provide a signature for
eligibility, which could be proven later by a trooper or
interested party. He explained that proof of eligibility
was added in a previous committee due to suspicions of
abuse. The department had discovered that the proportion of
purchases for the $5 license reflected the proportion of
the public receiving some type of assistance. The
department did not believe that wide spread abuse of the
low-income license was happening. Representative Kawasaki
asked whether a store like Fred Meyer selling the license
would need some proof of eligibility for the low-income
license. Mr. Dale answered that DFG also had the same
question regarding the amendment. He was uncertain what the
proof would look like and the amendment did not specify
what was acceptable proof.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline of 5:00 p.m. on
Friday.
HB 129 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to the regulation of broadband
Internet; and making certain actions by broadband
Internet service providers unlawful acts or practices
under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act."
2:47:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, SPONSOR, introduced the
bill. He stressed that technology had changed rapidly in
the past ten years. He explained that since 1996 the
internet was governed under a system called "net
neutrality". The bill required internet providers to engage
in the practice of net neutrality. He read from a sponsor
statement (copy on file):
HB 277 would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
who provide broadband Internet to Alaskan families
engage in the practice of net neutrality. The bill
would make sure all data on the Internet is treated
equally. It would protect small businesses from
uncompetitive practices and guarantee an open and free
internet for all users.
Without net neutrality, ISPs may legally speed up
certain sites, slow down others, block sites all
together, and require certain users to pay more for
Internet fast lanes. The elimination of net neutrality
gives ISPs the power to determine what websites
consumers could visit and what content website
creators could share. Allowing ISPs to discriminate
based on content undermines a free and open Internet
as well as a free and open society. Eliminating net
neutrality risks Alaskans First Amendment rights of
free speech, free press, and free association, the
right to privacy, and distorts the free market.
On multiple occasions, millions of Americans have
publicly commented in favor of protecting net
neutrality and have spoken out against the recent
Federal Communications Commission order to eliminate
net neutrality rules implemented in 2015. The internet
is a modern necessity for individuals and businesses.
Net neutrality is widely supported by consumer rights
groups, privacy groups, and businesses organizations.
This bill would ensure that the Internet remains a
platform for unrestricted economic competition and
free communication. I respectfully request your
support for HB 277.
Representative Kawasaki shared that net neutrality was
supported by millions of people in the United States (US)
and worldwide. He indicated that it was also a bipartisan
issue; 88 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Independents,
and 67 percent of Republicans supported net neutrality. He
believed that net neutrality should be protected. He listed
the support of various national groups from the political
spectrum that supported net neutrality and maintaining an
open and free internet.
2:52:11 PM
Representative Wilson needed more detail on the bill. She
wondered about the definition of net neutrality.
Representative Kawasaki characterized the internet as an
information highway and guaranteed the essential idea that
everybody had the same access as everybody else - no matter
what car one drove. Large corporations and small
independent businesses had access to the same internet
speed, accessibility, and rates as everyone else.
Representative Wilson spoke about computer games requiring
high speed internet and other users that only viewed
documents; she wondered whether both types of accessibility
would be charged the same amount of money.
JACOB GERRISH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI,
answered in the affirmative and furthered that it was more
complicated. He provided a scenario of a broadband company
who owned a video game company and could prioritize the
internet for their video games; it was about specific sites
and not only different types of services.
Mr. Gerrish reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: Adds a new Internet neutrality section to
AS 42.05, The Alaska Public Utilities Regulatory Act
that requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to:
? Disclose network management practices, performance,
and commercial terms so that consumers can make
informed decisions
? Not block, impair, prioritize, or interfere with
Internet access, website content, or Internet traffic
Provides for an exception to the restriction on
prioritization if the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
finds that such an action would benefit the public
interest.
Section 2: AS 45.50.471, adds violation of Internet
neutrality to the list of unlawful acts and practices
in the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act
Section 1: Applicability section for contracts entered
after the effective date of this bill. HB 277 does not
apply to contracts entered between ISPs and consumers
before that date.
2:55:35 PM
Co-Chair Seaton understood that consumers had the right to
buy a particular internet speed, which was not impacted by
the bill. The bill would safeguard that an individual who
purchased an internet speed of 10 GB (gigabyte) would be
the same speed for every website the individual viewed. It
would not be throttled down for a specific game site or
advertiser. He surmised the bill prevented the provider of
internet service from changing the speeds of the products
that could be received. He asked whether he was generally
correct. Mr. Gerrish replied that the remarks were very
close to accurate. He used the example of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) where a large corporation or a small
oil producer had the same access, which encouraged a
smaller company to possibly become a larger company via the
access. Co-Chair Seaton hypothesized that net neutrality
was comparable to all the producer's oil travelling in the
pipe at the same speed versus Alyeska choosing preferred
providers oil that would travel to Valdez faster than other
companies oil. He asked whether the example was correct.
Mr. Gerrish replied in the affirmative.
2:58:50 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
MIKE ROBINSON, ALASKA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of net neutrality. He
elaborated that libraries supported net neutrality for
equitable access and intellectual freedom reasons. The
library was often the gateway to the internet for community
members. Libraries offered access to subscription content
services such as e-books, newspapers, and academic
journals. The ability of internet providers to offer "fast
lane" service for content providers who were willing to pay
a premium price undermined the equitable access principle.
He acknowledged that some believed that market competition
would ensure equitable access and commented that market
competition for broadband did not exist in many places in
Alaska. He believed that net neutrality promoted
intellectual freedom by providing equal access to all
speech regardless of type or origin. He wanted to prohibit
broadband companies from the ability to make decisions
regarding what content was promoted or limited and remain
gateways and not gatekeepers.
3:01:22 PM
MARY JO TORGESON, ANCHORAGE PUBLIC LIBRARY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
informed committee members that libraries provided free and
open access to information and net neutrality allowed that
to happen. She cautioned that without the bill utility
companies would choose to limit access even though
providers would promise to abide by net neutrality. She
appreciated the proactive approach to protecting internet
access via the legislation. She voiced that the internet
was one of the primary ways information was delivered and
it was vital that providers were not able to control,
limit, or manipulate the content. Libraries offered freedom
of access and she supported the legislation.
Representative Wilson asked if there had been a change in
the internet at the library since the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) change. Ms. Torgeson replied that the
ruling took place later in April. She provided an example
related to a grocery store endcap shelf space offered at a
greater price to describe the impact if net neutrality was
lost. She related that she had not experienced any change
in internet service and remembered that GCI promised to
protect net neutrality. She commented that protecting net
neutrality should be up to the government, not a provider.
3:04:36 PM
EVELYN TREFON, SELF, NEWHALEN (via teleconference),
testified in favor of the bill. She believed that
maintaining net neutrality in Alaska was of the "utmost
importance." She worried what would happen to her home
internet if GCI decided to abandon net neutrality. She
shared that she currently paid $220 per month for only
60gb. She believed internet should be available for all
Alaskans at reasonable rates and speeds.
3:05:43 PM
MARTIN STEPETIN, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the
legislation. He believed that net neutrality was at the
forefront of the first amendment and free speech. He noted
that GCI was owned by a much larger non-Alaskan
corporation; Liberty Interactive. He shared that he had
written to Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan in
opposition to the FCC ruling and congresses actions to
repeal net neutrality laws. He voiced that the state was
currently not protected by any federal laws governing net
neutrality and believed the state must act to protect its
broadband. He believed that history demonstrated service
providers would "violate basic laws when left to their own
devices". He relayed that AT&T blocked iPhone users from
using SKYPE in 2007 and in 2005 a Canadian company blocked
users trying to organize a labor strike. He could provide
many other examples. He emphasized that the state must take
measures to protect its citizens from losing net
neutrality.
3:09:04 PM
LEON JAIMES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He had worked in the information
technology field for 20 years and worked as an information
security consultant. He believed net neutrality protected
businesses in the state from the "pay to play" practices.
He believed that without net neutrality, regulation, free
speech, and privacy were at risk. He elucidated that net
neutrality played a vital role in ensuring that service
providers did not engage in collecting large sets of data
that lead to individual's personal data. He pointed to
recent abuse of user privacy by Cambridge Analytica and
Facebook and did not want internet providers to access the
same information. He expressed concern about how an
individual's data content would be catalogued and recorded
in order to be billed under the ruling. He relayed that it
was challenging for business to protect the information it
collected, and the ruling would make it more difficult. He
supported implementing net neutrality in Alaska.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
3:11:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two members of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) online. He asked if
they had comments.
DAVID PARRISH, COMMON CARRIER SPECIALIST IV, REGULATORY
COMMISSION OF ALASKA (via teleconference), did not
currently have remarks. The commission did not yet know
what would be required of them to implement net neutrality.
He stated that the RCA was uncertain whether they would
have any jurisdiction in the matter considering the FCC's
recent ruling.
Representative Guttenberg stated that the FCC had taken
some of the authority away from the states. He asked, "what
authority the state had to control what the state does."
Mr. Parrish answered that New York and Montana had taken
executive action to ensure that any state contracts with
broadband service providers would have to comply with net
neutrality provisions. He thought that states could use
right-of-way permissions in the same manner. He determined
that there were other avenues the state could take that
would not "implicate" federal preemption.
3:15:10 PM
Representative Kawasaki stated the bill would specifically
prohibit decreasing, blocking, or interfering in internet
service. He reported that subsection (c) of the bill dealt
specifically with the RCA regarding telehealth and
telemedicine what would benefit the public interest. He
asked for the RCA's interpretation. Mr. Parrish believed
Representative Kawasaki was referencing to subsection (c)
and the language " The commission may waive the prohibition
in (b)(3). He guessed that it applied to the types of
services that had a public service aspect if a carrier felt
that they had to affect other users access to enable the
public service; it would allow carriers to make appropriate
network management decisions. The commission would have the
ability to waive prohibitions in the act when it was found
in the public's interest. Representative Kawasaki asked
whether the commission viewed services relating to health,
education, and public safety in the public interest versus
kids playing games on the internet. Mr. Parrish answered in
the affirmative. He elaborated that it would allow carriers
to make the decisions without running foul of the
prohibitions on the bill.
3:18:09 PM
Representative Wilson asked what complaints the commission
had that would fall under net neutrality. Mr. Parrish asked
for clarification. Representative Wilson referenced the
fiscal note analysis on page 2 that mentioned over 450
consumer complaints per year with the bill adding up to 85
more. She asked what type of complaints were received.
JONATHAN CLEMENT, ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), replied that the department had
not tried to decide on the type of complaints they may
receive regarding net neutrality. There was anticipation
that additional complaints may come in due to media
coverage of the bill and noted that the number was a rough
estimate.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline of 5:00 p.m. on
Friday.
HB 277 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:21:10 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 277 Opposition letter .pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |
| HB 277 ATT Opposition 4.2.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |
| HB 398 Additional Documents - 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report-Public Utility Exemption.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Sponsor Statement 4.3.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Additional Documents - Legisative Legal Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Sectional Analysis v.D 4.3.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Additional Documents - Dept. of Revenue Letter of Explaination 4.3.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 277 Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |
| HB277 Letter of Opposition - House Finance.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |