Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Jim Nordlund
Rep. Cliff Davidson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Former-Rep. Tom Moyer
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 167 "An Act relating to air quality control and the
prevention, abatement, and control of air
pollution; relating to civil and criminal
penalties, damages, and other remedies for air
quality control violations; clarifying the
definition of `hazardous substance' to include
releases and threatened releases to the
atmosphere; amending the lien provisions relating
to the oil and hazardous substance release
response fund; relating to inspection and
enforcement powers of the Department of
Environmental Conservation; and providing for an
effective date."
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE PASSED OUT WITH A
DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 93 "An Act relating to the village public safety
officers program."
COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTE PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 119 "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a
sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of
imprisonment on a defendant convicted of a
misdemeanor; directing the Alaska Supreme Court to
develop and implement a day fine plan; requiring
the Department of Corrections to report to the
legislature on the use of day fines; amending
Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 32; and
providing for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
*HB 188 "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain
property; and providing for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
* First public hearing.
WITNESS REGISTER
RUSSELL HEATH
Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-3366
Position Statement: Opposed HB 167
RESA JERREL
National Federation of Independent Business
9159 Skywood Lane
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-4278
Position Statement: Supported HB 167
AIMEE BOULANGER
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 West Eighth Avenue, Suite 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 274-3621
Position Statement: Opposed HB 167
CLAUDIA ECHAVAMA
770 Manor Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 258-9753
Position Statement: Opposed HB 167
CHERYL RICHARDSON
1747 Lawrence Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 272-0738
Position Statement: Testimony previously heard
REP. MARK HANLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 515
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4939
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 167
TOM CHAPPLE
Project Manager
Air Quality Management Section
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-5102
Position Statement: Discussed HB 167
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Criminal Division
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Discussed HB 167
LARRY LABOLLE
Legislative Aide
Representative Richard Foster
Alaska State Legislature
Court Building, Room 611
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3789
Position Statement: Supported HB 93
CAPTAIN THOMAS STEARNS
"C" Detachment Commander
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Phone: 269-5530
Position Statement: Supported HB 93
MARGIE DERENOFF
Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA)/VPSO Program
P.O. Box 892
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-5725
Position Statement: Supported HB 93
CHARLES GREDIAGIN
Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)/VPSO Program
P.O. Box 565
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Phone: 842-2751
Position Statement: Supported HB 93
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 167
SHORT TITLE: AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY
TITLE: "An Act relating to air quality control and the
prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution;
relating to civil and criminal penalties, damages, and other
remedies for air quality control violations; clarifying the
definition of `hazardous substance' to include releases and
threatened releases to the atmosphere; amending the lien
provisions relating to the oil and hazardous substance
release response fund; relating to inspection and
enforcement powers of the Department of Environmental
Conservation; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/93 390 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/19/93 390 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/05/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/93 (H) JUD AT 07:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/93 (H) JUD AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/03/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE: VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PROGRAM
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FOSTER,Menard,Nicholia,Hoffman
TITLE: "An Act relating to the village public safety
officers program."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/01/03 (S) JUD AT 12:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/27/93 164 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/27/93 164 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/29/93 184 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MENARD
02/19/93 396 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NICHOLIA
03/25/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/26/93 781 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 7DP
03/26/93 782 (H) DP: SANDERS,BUNDE,DAVIES,WILLIS
03/26/93 782 (H) DP: WILLIAMS, TOOHEY, OLBERG
03/26/93 782 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 3/26/93
03/26/93 808 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HOFFMAN
04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 119
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE USE OF DAY FINES IN MISD. CASES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FOSTER,B.Davis,Davies,Brown
TITLE: "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a
sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of imprisonment
on a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor; directing the
Alaska Supreme Court to develop and implement a day fine
plan; requiring the Department of Corrections to report to
the legislature on the use of day fines; amending Alaska
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/93 214 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/03/93 215 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
03/11/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/93 611 (H) STA RPT 3DP 3NR
03/12/93 611 (H) DP: ULMER, B.DAVIS, KOTT
03/12/93 611 (H) NR: VEZEY, OLBERG, SANDERS
03/12/93 611 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 3/12/93
03/12/93 611 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 3/12/93
04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property;
and providing for aN effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/93 489 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/01/93 490 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/01/93 490 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS,
LAW) 3/1/93
03/01/93 490 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-53, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:12 p.m. on April 6, 1993. A quorum was present.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 167 first.
HB 167 AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
Number 048
RUSSELL HEATH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALASKA
ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY, testified that the Lobby was a
coalition of 20 environmental groups. Mr. Heath explained
that the Lobby had been asked to participate in a working
group to develop a proposal for the legislature to bring
Alaska into conformity with the 1990 amendments to the
federal Clean Air Act. Mr. Heath further explained that the
environmental community was offered one seat on a committee
comprised mostly of industry representatives and that
committee decisions were carried by a two-thirds vote.
MR. HEATH stated that the legislation written by the working
group, while not exactly what the Lobby would want, was
supported by the Lobby. Mr. Heath added that shortly after
HB 39 was introduced, HB 167 was introduced, apparently on
behalf of the timber industry. Both bills had been
discussed in detail by a Senate Resources subcommittee also
considering SB 103 in order to produce a single bill. Mr.
Heath added that a representative of the timber industry was
at the subcommittee's table when it discussed the bills.
The product of that subcommittee work had been incorporated
into HB 167.
MR. HEATH listed the following reasons that the Alaska
Environmental Lobby opposed HB 167:
1) The fee structure in HB 167 developed by the Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) working committee
subverted the key intent of the Clean Air Act, which
was to reduce emissions. The size of the fee should be
tied directly to the amount emitted, providing a
powerful incentive to reduce emissions. The fee
structure in HB 167 was instead based on the per-hour
cost to DEC to process the permits.
2) The "general permit" program was instituted to level
the playing field for small emitters since they would
have had to bear the burden of higher rates under the
fee structure as it stood. The general permit was a
blanket permit which applied to all emitters of a
similar type. The problem was that at the time a
general permit was developed, public review would be
solicited statewide, but the public would not have an
opportunity to comment when a specific business in a
specific neighborhood was granted a general permit.
This would close the public process.
3) Currently, if a business was an historical violator,
its permit was written for a shorter period of time so
that the public had a chance to comment more frequently
on its impact on the safety of the community. The
shorter permit period also provided the state with an
opportunity to incorporate the best permit stipulations
possible to assist the business to come into compliance
with its permit. The DEC working committee found this
system to be fair, but it was removed from HB 167 and
replaced with a fixed five-year permit which deleted
these safeguards.
4) Felony penalties had been removed from the permit
penalty section of HB 167. This meant that if someone
knowingly and maliciously caused a discharge which
killed someone, he or she could only be charged with a
misdemeanor.
5) There were provisions in HB 167 which made it
effectively impossible for state or local government to
require standards more stringent than those required by
the federal Clean Air Act.
Number 300
MR. HEATH stated that for the reasons listed above, the
Lobby believed that this legislation would spawn a rat's
nest of litigation and should be defeated.
Number 320
RESA JERREL, representing the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS (NFIB), spoke in favor of HB 167. She
stated that NFIB's main concern was that the DEC not go
beyond the federal standards.
Number 363
AIMEE BOULANGER, COMMUNITY COORDINATOR, ALASKA CENTER FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT, spoke via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 167. She stated that the DEC working group
did not represent all factions interested in clean air
issues. Missing from the group were representatives from
small business, public health and tourism. The group also
had as a rule that passage takes a two-thirds vote, which
meant that industry had the upper hand. Ms. Boulanger
stated that her group felt that industry came to the table
in good faith and with an attitude of compromise. Because
of the hard work and compromise, the product of the working
group was good and fair and the Alaska Center for the
Environment supported it.
MS. BOULANGER noted, however, that HB 167 was not what came
out of the working group. Ms. Boulanger also noted that the
timber industry was allowed to literally sit at the table
and help craft HB 167.
Number 483
CLAUDIA ECHAVAMA testified that HB 167 would not improve the
air quality problems in Alaska. Ms. Echavama believed that
HB 167 should encourage reduction of pollution from
businesses and motor vehicles. Two cities in Alaska were in
violation of the Clean Air Act, she said. Ms. Echavama
stated that HB 167 should be addressing not only how the
state could maintain current air quality in Alaska, but how
the state could go further than the status quo to clean up
some problems that had already been created.
MS. ECHAVAMA noted that HB 167 decreased the amount of
public participation instead of increasing it.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the next person to testify,
CHERYL RICHARDSON, had addressed the committee at a previous
hearing on HB 167 and, unless she had something to add, he
would reserve her testimony.
Number 529
MS. RICHARDSON stated that she was pleased that the
committee was hearing this bill via teleconference and that
she did not have anything to add at this time.
Number 542
REP. MARK HANLEY, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 167, testified that
the fee structure, the general permits, and the judicial
standing portion of HB 167 were a part of the working
group's package. Rep. Hanley expressed his opinion that
some of the statements heard from the previous speakers were
not entirely accurate.
Number 594
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked MS. MARGOT KNUTH, from the DEPARTMENT
OF LAW, and MR. TOM CHAPPLE, from the DEC, to join Rep.
Hanley and the Judiciary Committee at the table to discuss
the amendments forthcoming.
REP. PHILLIPS moved to adopt the draft Judiciary Committee
substitute dated April 2, 1993. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
Number 615
REP. NORDLUND asked that someone explain the difference
between that committee substitute and an earlier draft dated
April 1, 1993.
Number 618
MR. CHAPPLE explained the changes which the Senate Resources
subcommittee had made, and which were incorporated into the
April 2, 1993, draft.
Number 644
REP. DAVIDSON asked what effect these changes had.
MR. CHAPPLE explained that the effect would be that the
department could specify exactly what was required in
specific types of applications.
Number 650
REP. DAVIDSON asked if this could not be done by regulation.
MR. CHAPPLE commented that this bill provided for the
flexibility needed in preparing applications.
Number 691
REP. DAVIDSON asked for clarification on whether by taking
out the term "monitoring" the statutes would have more or
less flexibility.
Number 696
REP. HANLEY stated that the bill allowed the department to
ask for "other" information so that rather than utilizing
the term "monitoring," the department could ask for specific
information.
Number 707
CHAIRMAN PORTER added that this gave DEC the authority to
ask for additional information when the situation warranted.
Number 713
REP. DAVIDSON stated his belief that taking out this
particular section of statute, even with adding the
flexibility of asking for "other information," lessened the
overall standards, thus weakening the statute.
Number 734
MR. CHAPPLE directed the attention of the committee to
section 46.14.140 of the bill. Mr. Chapple stated his
belief that this section adequately met the federal
requirements.
Number 767
REP. HANLEY pointed out that this particular change was
asked for by the DEC working group and was subsequently
adopted by the Senate Resources subcommittee.
Number 772
MR. CHAPPLE noted the clarifying changes in section
46.14.015.
Number 788
REP. DAVIDSON asked what set the standard for justification
for the written requirement.
Number 792
MR. CHAPPLE answered that there were provisions in the bill
that stated that the regulations must be found reasonable
based upon the best scientific information available to
protect the public.
TAPE 93-53, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. CHAPPLE noted that the definition of "regulated air
contaminant," which appeared on page 32 of HB 167, had been
expanded in response to a comment by the Environmental
Protection Agency that the previous definition was under-
inclusive.
Number 041
REP. HANLEY pointed out that a definition regarding "lien
expenditures" was pulled out because it was deemed
unnecessary.
Number 063
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee now deal with
the amendments to HB 167.
REP. PHILLIPS moved Amendment 1. This amendment clarified
the types of findings which had to be made before adopting
regulations. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 093
REP. NORDLUND moved Amendment 2. This amendment would allow
for state or local governmental agencies other than the DEC
to collect fees under HB 167.
Number 142
MS. KNUTH stated that she thought that the amendment was
appropriate.
Number 147
REP. JAMES also supported the amendment but wondered about
the mechanics of implementing the amendment.
Number 172
MR. CHAPPLE answered that HB 167 was developed with the
concept that local governments would not issue separate
billings. The DEC would be the billing agency, but if a
local government was a partner in reviewing permit
applications, the cost incurred by it would be reflected in
the bill generated by the DEC and then refunded back to the
local government.
REP. JAMES stated that the language seemed confusing.
Number 192
REP. DAVIDSON noted that legal counsel had informed him that
the amendment was probably a good idea.
Number 203
MS. KNUTH suggested that the committee get some advice from
the Civil Division of the Department of Law.
Number 239
REP. NORDLUND inquired if this would create problems with
duplicative billings.
MR. CHAPPLE pointed out another section of the bill that
prohibited anyone but the DEC from billing.
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 274
REP. NORDLUND offered Amendment 3. This amendment would
prohibit a person from performing peer review for a
regulation that, if adopted, would set a requirement that
must be complied with by a facility owned or operated by the
person or by the person's employer.
Number 292
REP. PHILLIPS inquired if the peer review panel changed with
every permit.
REP. NORDLUND answered that he understood it to be a
different panel for each permit.
Number 303
MR. CHAPPLE noted that peer review would only be utilized
when something was done that went beyond federal law.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the panels would address a
particular problem in a particular circumstance or if they
would be looking at a more across-the-board type of scenario
which would, once decided, affect many different permits.
MR. CHAPPLE answered that the panels could review a
particular problem that would affect any number of
permittees, but that would be a rare occurrence.
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 368
REP. NORDLUND moved Amendment 4. This amendment would give
the DEC the flexibility to issue permits for any amount of
time up to five years. Rep. Nordlund suggested that the DEC
would then not be limited to giving five year permits to
those permittees which had not come into compliance with the
law.
Number 393
REP. HANLEY noted that this issue had been discussed at the
last hearing and the five year permits were thought to be
adequate.
MR. CHAPPLE explained in some detail the compliance section
of HB 167.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 4 with the following
result:
Nordlund yes Phillips no
Davidson yes Green no
Kott no
James no
Porter no
So, Amendment 4 failed.
Number 488
REP. NORDLUND moved Amendment 5 and explained that this
amendment would increase the interest charged for nonpayment
of penalties.
Number 515
REP. HANLEY stated that the percentage rate in the present
statute was meant to recoup actual costs, not to serve as a
penalty.
Number 532
REP. GREEN suggested a friendly amendment to Amendment 5 to
state that the interest would be the prime interest rate
plus two percent.
REP. NORDLUND concurred with the friendly amendment to
Amendment 5.
There being no objection, Amendment 5, as amended, was
adopted.
Number 564
REP. NORDLUND moved Amendment 6 and explained that the
amendment would delete the words "private, substantive" from
page 12, line 20.
REP. NORDLUND believed that the language as it now stood was
too narrow in scope and that standing to sue should be
opened up to others who might be aggrieved under the law.
REP. JAMES believed that it was important to define who
could take action and who could not.
Number 612
REP. HANLEY quoted an opinion by Assistant Attorney General
Robert Reges stating that he believed that the definition
should be tightened up.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 6 with the following
result:
Phillips no Davidson absent
Kott no Green absent
James no Nordlund yes
Porter no
So, Amendment 6 failed.
Number 651
REP. NORDLUND moved Amendment 7 and explained that this
would provide the public an opportunity to participate in
amending and modifying permits.
REP. PHILLIPS asked if a modification of a permit would go
through a peer review.
Number 680
MR. CHAPPLE answered that it would not.
REP. HANLEY asked for clarification on what the federal law
required regarding public participation.
Number 691
MR. CHAPPLE stated that he did not fully understand what was
intended with Amendment 7.
MR. CHAPPLE detailed what was currently required.
1. In all cases for new permits there was a public comment
period.
2. There currently was not a public comment period for
permit renewals but that would change under the new
federal law.
3. Permit amendments were reserved for minor changes such
as address, name of owner, etc.; things that did not
affect emissions did not require public comment.
4. Minor changes to permits that did raise emission levels
sometimes required public comment.
5. Significant changes to permits required public comment.
MR. CHAPPLE noted again that he was unsure of what Rep.
Nordlund's intentions were with Amendment 7.
TAPE 93-54, SIDE A
Number 000
REP. NORDLUND stated that the intent of Amendment 7 was to
give broad latitude to the DEC to decide what, if any, form
of public participation would be allowed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired if Rep. Nordlund intended this
amendment to apply only to subsection 3.
Number 022
REP. NORDLUND responded that, as the amendment was currently
drafted, it applied to subsections 1, 2 and 3, but that it
would be best if it only applied to subsection 3.
REP. PHILLIPS noted that under federal law, subsection 3
already required public comment.
MR. CHAPPLE responded that Rep. Phillips was correct in her
assessment, but added that there was some room for debate as
to what changes to the permits would fall under subsections
1, 2 and 3.
MR. CHAPPLE suggested that Amendment 7 not address
subsection 1 and that the committee limit its discussion to
subsections 2 and 3.
Number 057
REP. NORDLUND asked for clarification on subsection 2.
MR. CHAPPLE explained that subsection 2 was somewhat
ambiguous due to pending litigation on the federal level.
MR. CHAPPLE gave an example of the type of permit change
that would fall under this section.
Number 123
REP. NORDLUND moved to modify the amendment to apply only to
subsection 2.
MR. CHAPPLE suggested that applying the amendment to
subsection 3 would be redundant.
Number 137
REP. PHILLIPS asked what the reason was for needing this
amendment to subsection 2.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the amendment would require
public participation on some permit changes.
MR. CHAPPLE noted that there was litigation pending on the
federal level regarding this issue. The amendment would
give DEC the authority to possibly avoid some of these
problems.
Number 179
REP. JAMES stated that this section should not be amended to
include discretionary public review as the changes covered
in this section were minor.
Number 198
REP. NORDLUND noted that the changes might be minor, but the
amount of emissions could increase significantly.
REP. DAVIDSON stated that he was in favor of Amendment 7 to
encourage public participation and give DEC the discretion
to ask for it when it felt necessary.
Number 227
REP. GREEN suggested that the word "shall" be changed to
"may" in Amendment 7.
REP. NORDLUND noted that the word "shall" applied to whether
or not DEC would adopt regulations and not if they would
require public participation.
Number 246
REP. HANLEY discussed further the use of the words "shall"
and "may."
Number 273
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he believed that the amendment
would add more confusion.
REP. DAVIDSON wondered if, with or without the amendment,
this section encouraged or discouraged public participation.
Number 297
REP. NORDLUND moved that the amendment be amended to change
the word "shall" to "may" and the word "section" to
"paragraph" and delete "to implement this section."
There being no objection to the amendment to Amendment 7, it
was so amended.
There being no objection to the adoption of Amendment 7 as
amended, it was adopted.
Number 340
REP. NORDLUND moved Amendment 8 and stated that section
46.14.010 was more stringent than the federal regulations
except under certain regulations and that it tied the DEC's
hands.
REP. JAMES believed that the findings required under the
current proposal should stand.
Number 360
REP. NORDLUND stated that the state needed to be responsible
for its destiny and not simply rely on the federal
government to set the standards.
Number 425
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 8 with the following
result:
Green no Davidson yes
Kott no Nordlund yes
Phillips no
James no
Porter no
So, Amendment 8 failed.
Number 447
MS. KNUTH testified regarding the criminal penalties HB 167
would provide. She explained that the bill gave the
Department of Law all the flexibility it needed to prosecute
criminal violations. Ms. Knuth added that it was not true
that HB 167 would allow what otherwise would be a felony
under the law to be only prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
Number 477
REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move CSHB 167(JUD) as amended
out of committee. A roll call vote was taken, with the
following result:
Green yes Nordlund no
Kott yes Davidson no
Phillips yes
James yes
Porter yes
So, CSHB 167(JUD) was moved from committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 93 next.
HB 93 VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PROGRAM
Number 503
LARRY LABOLLE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REP. RICHARD FOSTER,
PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 93, testified in support of the bill.
Mr. Labolle stated that the bill put the Village Public
Safety Officer (VPSO) program into statute. He said that
the VPSO program had been in existence since 1980, but had
not been included in the state statutes.
MR. LABOLLE noted that the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs (DCRA) had a concern that this bill would
increase the state's liability exposure, but added that it
was the sponsor's contention that it actually would decrease
the exposure because it would enable the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) to set standards.
Number 535
CAPTAIN TOM STEARNS, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in support of the VPSO
program. Captain Stearns noted that part of his duties
involved supervising the VPSO program, and he believed that
the program was widely supported by all of the communities
it served. Captain Stearns added that passing this
legislation would help give the program some stabilization
and direction.
Number 550
MARGIE DERENOFF, REPRESENTING THE KODIAK AREA NATIVE
ASSOCIATION'S (KANA'S) VPSO PROGRAM, testified in support of
HB 93. She stated that the program had been a very positive
influence in the communities and she hoped that the
committee would support the legislation.
Number 572
CHARLES GREDIAGIN, A VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER FROM
DILLINGHAM, read a resolution dated March 24, 1993,
sponsored by 124 communities around the state in support of
HB 93.
MR. GREDIAGIN echoed Captain Stearns' testimony regarding
the need for the program to be recognized in statute.
Number 603
REP. GREEN asked if the program was funded by grants and if
that would continue to be the case.
Number 608
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered "yes," and added that it was his
understanding that it would continue in the same way.
Number 610
REP. GREEN expressed concern that with the passage of this
bill the VPSO employees would eventually become state
employees.
Number 620
MR. LABOLLE pointed out that section 18.65.670(b) of HB 93
specifically provided for the funding to be through "grants
to nonprofit regional corporations."
MR. LABOLLE added that by establishing the program in
statute, the commissioner of DPS would have regulatory power
to further define the program and its goals.
Number 646
REP. GREEN inquired who would be liable if a VPSO got hurt
under this legislation.
MR. LABOLLE answered that it would continue to be the
regional corporation, as was the case now.
Number 651
REP. KOTT noted that the relationship between DPS and the
nonprofit regional corporations had been a contractual one
and wondered if that would change.
MR. LABOLLE stated that the relationship would not change.
REP. JAMES stated that she supported the bill to protect the
program from disappearing due to deletion of the grant
money. She added that the state could not anticipate what
would be proper to do with this program in the future.
Number 681
REP. DAVIDSON stated that HB 93 lent legitimacy to the VPSO
program. He stated that he supported HB 93 because the VPSO
program offered a basic protection to rural Alaska.
Number 697
REP. NORDLUND added that he also supported the program but
noted that HB 93 did not offer complete protection to the
program as the governor and the commissioner of DPS had ways
to undercut the program through funding or the lack thereof.
Number 704
REP. KOTT supported HB 93 but expressed concerns that the
grant mechanism was faulty as the regional nonprofit
corporation that administered these grants answered to its
shareholders and did not necessarily serve the public's
interest.
Number 720
REP. JAMES made a motion to move CSHB 93(CRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note, and asked for unanimous consent.
No objections were heard, and the bill moved out of
committee.
Number 733
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee would hold over
HB 119 and HB 188 to a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|