02/22/2002 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 2002
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act relating to civil liability for providing alcoholic
beverages to a person under 21 years of age; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 281(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 384
"An Act relating to submission of civil litigation information;
and amending Rules 41(a) and 58, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 511(c) and (e), Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and Rule 503(d), Alaska Rules of Evidence."
- MOVED HB 384 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 396
"An Act relating to a surcharge on certain offenses for law
enforcement equipment."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to limiting the rate of state individual income
taxes and sales taxes.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 281
SHORT TITLE:CIVIL LIABILITY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1948 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1948 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1948 (H) L&C, JUD
02/11/02 2209 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/11/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/11/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/11/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/13/02 2222 (H) L&C RPT 5DP 1NR
02/13/02 2222 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, MEYER, KOTT,
HALCRO,
02/13/02 2222 (H) MURKOWSKI; NR: CRAWFORD
02/13/02 2222 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.L&C)
02/20/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/20/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/02 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/02 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/22/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 384
SHORT TITLE:DISCLOSE RESOLUTION OF CIVIL LITIGATION
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/06/02 2164 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/06/02 2164 (H) JUD
02/11/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/11/02 (H) <Bill Postponed to 2/13/02>
02/13/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/13/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/22/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 396
SHORT TITLE:ALCOHOL OFFENSE SURCHARGE/EQUIPMENT FUND
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/08/02 2183 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/08/02 2183 (H) JUD, FIN
02/08/02 2183 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/22/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 36
SHORT TITLE:CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT : TAX CAPS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/02 2115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/02 2115 (H) JUD, FIN
02/19/02 2306 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/19/02 2306 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2306 (H) JUD, FIN
02/19/02 2306 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/22/02 2368 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HALCRO
02/22/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Counsel
Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Terry Miller Building, Room 329
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter of HB 281 and
responded to questions.
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 384 and HB 396 on behalf of
the House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor.
LARRY COHN, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
Alaska Court System (ACS)
1029 West Third Avenue, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1981
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 384.
MATT WILLIAMS, Officer
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
4501 South Bragaw Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
WALT MONEGAN, Chief
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
4501 South Bragaw Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 396.
MARTI GREESON, Executive Director
Anchorage Chapter
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
3600 Arctic Boulevard, Suite 3
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
CINDY CASHEN
Juneau Chapter
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
211 4th Street, Suite 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
ROYCE WELLER, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 396, provided
comments on behalf of the department and responded to questions.
IRL STAMBAUGH, Executive Director
Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 396.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
820 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 396.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHJR 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, Ogan, Coghill, Meyer, Berkowitz, and Kookesh were
present at the call to order.
HB 281 - CIVIL LIABILITY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL
Number 0028
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 281, "An Act relating to civil liability for
providing alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0202
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 281, version 22-LS1064\C, Ford, 2/20/02,
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version C was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained that Version C incorporates some
of the ideas discussed at the prior hearing such as retaining
strict liability for licensees and instituting civil liability
for the general public. He also noted that Version C retains
the term "knowingly" and provides a definition of "civil
liability" as it relates to this section of statute. In
response to a question, he said he has not yet had a chance to
find out whether homeowner's insurance would protect the host of
a social gathering from civil liability.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is a distinction
between someone being civilly liable and someone being liable.
Number 0401
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legal and Research
Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency, said no, not in
this context.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether, by retaining the term "knowingly",
negligence no longer has to be proven.
MR. FORD said that is correct. He said that "knowingly" is the
standard established by Version C; therefore, since "knowingly"
is defined in Title 4, if someone "knowingly" furnishes alcohol,
that person will be civilly liable. In response to further
questions, he offered that "knowingly" is a pretty high
standard. Therefore, simply having alcohol available in a punch
bowl at a party, for example, would not automatically cause the
host to be civilly liable; he indicated that it would depend on
the facts of each particular case.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that his intention is to address
situations in which it is obvious that the adult knows he/she is
providing alcohol to underage drinkers; for example, when a
person is approached outside of a liquor store and asked to buy
alcohol by a youthful looking person.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if bootleggers could be held
civilly liable under Version C.
MR. FORD said no. A bootlegger is someone who sells alcohol, he
noted, whereas Version C addresses the issue of people providing
alcohol to underage drinkers. He assured the committee that the
nonlicensee bootlegger is still held to the strict liability
standard.
Number 0701
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to report HB 281, version 22-LS1064\C,
Ford, 2/20/02, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, CSHB 281(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 1:20 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.
HB 384 - DISCLOSE RESOLUTION OF CIVIL LITIGATION
[Contains brief mention that HB 384 would satisfy the intent of
SB 211.]
Number 0734
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 384, "An Act relating to submission of civil
litigation information; and amending Rules 41(a) and 58, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 511(c) and (e), Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and Rule 503(d), Alaska Rules of Evidence."
Number 0736
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg,
House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, on
behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor,
explained that HB 384 responds to issues that have arisen as a
result of the legislature's interest in tort reform. At the
time, the legislature decided that it did not have enough
information about what was really happening with civil cases,
jury decisions, amounts of damages, and other issues. The
legislature decided to require attorneys, once a case is closed,
to report [certain] information about those cases in order to
determine whether a tort-reform problem really exists. To this
end, the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) created a civil-case
data-reporting form titled "Information About the Resolution of
Civil Cases" from which the AJC could compile information for
its report to the legislature.
MS. NOBREGA noted that unfortunately, the response to this form
has been rather dismal. According to an estimate by the AJC,
less than half the attorneys are actually filling these forms
out. Therefore, in an effort to increase reporting, HB 384
provides for the form to be changed so that it is clearer and
easier to fill out, alters some of the court rules to clarify
when the forms are supposed to be filled out, and lets the court
system know how and when attorneys are to close cases and report
on them. She pointed out that HB 384 does not create any new
law; it merely alters existing laws in an effort to encourage
attorneys to report their information in a timely manner. Ms.
Nobrega informed the committee that the May 2001 report from the
AJC is included in members' packets, as is a copy of the new
reporting form proposed by the AJC.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the question of attorney-
client privileges being invoked in some instances has been
resolved.
MS. NOBREGA confirmed that some attorneys have claimed that the
information requested on the form is privileged, but noted that
there is a section in HB 384 which clarifies that the
information on the forms is kept confidential by the AJC and so
is not considered privileged for the purposes of reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether all the members of the AJC are
attorneys.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that on the inside page of the
AJC's report, there is a listing of both attorney members and
non-attorney members.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, after surmising that the attorney members
are bound by "attorney-confidentiality restrictions," asked
whether the non-attorney members are precluded from looking at
the forms.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether information about
insurance settlements would also be included in the reporting.
Number 1085
LARRY COHN, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council (AJC),
Alaska Court System (ACS), testified via teleconference. After
noting that Teresa Carns, Senior Staff Associate, is present
with him, he said that there is a proposal to address the
attorney-client privilege issue. The AJC did receive a number
of responses from attorneys, pursuant to the reporting
requirement, in which the attorneys claimed that the information
- usually pertaining to their fees - is protected by attorney-
client privilege. In those cases, the AJC usually responded via
letter, pointing out that this privilege did not apply to the
situation, that the attorneys were under a legal obligation to
provide the information to the AJC, and that the AJC is under
strict confidentiality standards to protect the information. He
added that in almost all instances, the attorneys who responded
to that letter did provide the required information; however,
there are still a few attorneys who have insisted that the
attorney-client privilege applies. He explained that HB 384
adds a provision in the evidentiary rules that makes it
expressly clear that the attorney-client privilege doesn't apply
to the provision of providing this information to the AJC.
MR. COHN, in response to the question regarding the makeup of
the AJC's membership, relayed that the AJC is [composed] of six
people, three who are attorneys and three who are not. He added
that the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court serves as the
ex officio chairperson, that there are two attorneys on the
AJC's staff, and that the remainder are not attorneys. He also
explained that applicability of the attorney-client privilege
would not turn on whether a member of the AJC is attorney. He
went on to say that when the legislature passed the tort reform
legislation in 1997, it included this requirement that attorneys
and pro se litigants provide information to the AJC concerning
the resolution of civil cases. The purpose of the requirement
was to make available information necessary for an informed
public discussion of tort reform. Since that requirement was
enacted, the AJC has issued two reports; the most recent report
was issued in May 2001 and contains information on nearly 3,000
civil case that were closed between June 1999 and December 2000.
Number 1301
MR. COHN explained that in that report, the AJC discussed the
problem it had getting attorneys to comply with the reporting
requirement. He said that in an effort to monitor attorney
compliance, the AJC's staff randomly researched about 875 civil
case files from around the state. In 31 percent of those files,
he noted, neither attorney submitted any civil-case data, and
there were many other cases in which only one attorney submitted
a form. As a result, the AJC sent letters and occasionally made
phone calls to all the attorneys identified in that review, as
well as to noncompliant attorneys who were identified through
the AJC's routine collection of data-compliant attorneys,
informing them that they had not sent in the required data. He
noted that this additional step produced moderately successful
results.
MR. COHN pointed out that the most recent report from the AJC
provides particular information pertaining to attorney
compliance. In the period of time covered by the report,
plaintiffs or their attorneys were more likely to file reports
with the AJC than defendants or their attorneys; overall, 55
percent of the forms that the AJC received were filed by
plaintiffs. Of the cases that the AJC analyzed, about 71
percent had information from plaintiffs while only 54 percent
had information from defendants. He noted, however, that in
tort cases, significantly more defendant's attorneys than
plaintiff's attorneys filed forms with the AJC.
MR. COHN relayed that currently the AJC is sending one or more
letters to attorneys identified by the routine collection of
data as being noncompliant. He added that the AJC is advising
attorneys, in appropriate instances, that their willful failure
to abide by the reporting requirement will be reported to the
[Alaska Bar Association]. He also noted that the AJC's current
statistics suggest a moderately higher compliance rate since the
May 2001 report. He pointed out that this last report
recommended that the automatic reporting requirement be
eliminated and substituted with legislation that would enable
the AJC to obtain information responding to specific needs
identified by the legislature.
Number 1399
MR. COHN said that the AJC is in favor of HB 384 because it is
intended to enhance attorneys' compliance - it does so by
clarifying the duty of attorneys to report civil-case
information - and it also enables the AJC to more accurately
track the reporting of cases. He also pointed out that HB 384
eliminates three additional types of cases from the reporting
requirement: [delinquent tax cases, tax foreclosure cases, and
quiet title cases].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that to his recollection, in
requiring the collection of settlement information, there is
also an insurance component. He asked if the AJC has any
responsibility to acquire or to use the data collected by the
Division of Insurance regarding insurance costs.
MR. COHN said yes. He noted that there is a provision in AS
21.06.087 that requires the director of the Division of
Insurance to report annually to the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee, and the
Governor, information pertaining to the availability and cost of
insurance in Alaska. He noted that one of the express
intentions of that legislation was to ensure that liability
insurance would be affordable and available to all Alaskans. He
explained that in November, he wrote a letter to the director of
the Division of Insurance requesting a copy of the reports filed
with the legislature and the governor, because that information
would assist the AJC in its reporting. He noted, however, that
the Division of Insurance has not responded to this request. He
pointed out that the statute authorizes the Division of
Insurance to consult with the AJC with respect to implementing
those responsibilities, but added that he is unaware of any such
efforts by the Division of Insurance.
CHAIR ROKEBERG assured Mr. Cohn that he would research that
issue as soon as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that he has "something" from Mr.
Lorh dated 1999, and he surmised that the Division of Insurance
complies at a much lower rate even than the attorneys to which
Mr. Cohn referred. He remarked that perhaps something could be
done to remediate the Division of Insurance's delinquency.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he would look into this issue.
MR. COHN, in response to a question, reiterated that the
proposed additional exemptions are: delinquent tax cases, tax
foreclosure cases, and quiet title cases. He noted that should
HB 384 pass, it would satisfy the intent of legislation proposed
by Senator Leman - SB 211 - which refers to excluding municipal
tax cases.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in response to questions directed at
Mr. Cohn, pointed out that the form in members' packets is a
sample of what the AJC would like to start using.
Number 1732
CHAIR ROKEBERG closed the public hearing on HB 384.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether there is still a need for this
information.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that according to his recollection, at the
time tort reform legislation was passed, the central argument
for gathering this information was to see what impact the reform
bills had on awards, settlements, and insurance rates. He
surmised that because proponents suggested that tort reform
would lower insurance rates, it is still important to gather the
information in order to ensure that the insurance industry is
following the spirit of the law.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said:
That's why I would hope that before we move this bill,
we find a way of checking it out, because the
preliminary information I have, also from that 1999
survey from the Division of Insurance, indicated that
the initial response [was] ... that there had either
been no change in insurance rates, or that the insurer
had been unable to assess the affect of tort reform on
the cost and availability of insurance in Alaska.
And, thus, if we had information from [a] subsequent
couple of years, we might be able to craft that into
the legislation.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he is in quite a bit of contact with
the Division of Insurance regarding other legislation; he knew
that "they are always under the gun to be able to do that," so
he did not see any need to delay reporting HB 384 from
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested that some people would argue that
because the trial lawyers watered the bills down so much, they
didn't have much effect. He asked whether they should consider
putting a sunset date on HB 384 so that they could take another
look at the issue "in a couple of years" and analyze whether
gathering this information is useful.
Number 1857
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that it was the Speaker of
the House who launched "this legislation," which, he opined,
"was closing the barn door after the horse has already fled."
He said he thought it was a good idea both then and now; "if
we're trying to assess the impact of tort reform, we ought to
have some hard data to do it." "Having been through the tort
reform battle with only anecdotal information at our disposal,"
he opined that "that was wholly inadequate." And "as for the
trial lawyers watering this thing down," he said that "this was
a garden planted, grown, and sowed by the insurance agencies."
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he would not support a sunset date,
but added that he did think they should get the information from
the Division of Insurance as soon as possible; therefore, in
order to determine whether any other legislation is needed, he
would ask the director to come before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that the committee also has
the ability to change the title [in order to add any necessary
provisions to HB 384].
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he would prefer to move HB 384 out of
committee and move on to the rest of items on the calendar.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to report HB 384 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 384 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 396 - ALCOHOL OFFENSE SURCHARGE/EQUIPMENT FUND
Number 1971
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 396, "An Act relating to a surcharge on
certain offenses for law enforcement equipment." He then called
an at-ease from 1:45 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.
Number 1972
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg,
House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, on
behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor, noted
that HB 396 is referred to as the Justin Wollam Act. She
explained that HB 396 would create a $100 surcharge on any
offense listed under Title 4, which pertains to alcoholic
beverages; under Title 28, which pertains to motor vehicles and
ingestion or possession of alcohol as an element of the offense;
or under any regulation or municipal ordinance authorized by
Title 28 that has to do with ingestion or possession of alcohol
as an element of the offense. She noted that this surcharge
money would go into the general fund (GF) and then be
appropriated by the legislature to the Alaska alcohol offense
equipment fund ("the fund"), which would then be used by
municipalities and the Department of Public Safety to purchase
law enforcement equipment that would assist in enforcement and
prevention of alcohol-related offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how much money would be raised.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there is a fiscal note attached to
HB 396.
MS. NOBREGA said that there is an indeterminate fiscal note from
the Public Defender Agency and a zero fiscal note from the
Alaska Court System. She remarked that she could only estimate
how much money has been collected under the existing surcharge
statute, not how much would be collected under HB 396.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that getting money from
indigent offenders could prove difficult.
MS. NOBREGA remarked that both HB 396 and the current surcharge
statute have a provision that allows an individual to perform
community work service (CWS) in lieu of paying the surcharge.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether minors who commit offenses under
Title 4 would be entitled to a jury trial before being sentenced
to [CWS].
MS. NOBREGA reminded members that according to the [1995 Alaska
Court of Appeals] Booth decision, as long as performing [CWS] is
not mandatory and is merely an option, a jury trial would not be
required.
Number 2235
MATT WILLIAMS, Officer, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), testified via teleconference in
support of HB 396. He elaborated:
This bill is one that we believe has been needed for
some time. The people of Alaska ... deserve the best
possible enforcement of their law, and this
legislation will help in that. One thing that this
bill will help with is that on the passage of this
bill and the conviction of somebody under Title 4 and
Title 28, a person most responsible for the crime -
the defendant - will help pay for the cost of the
equipment used in combating the very crimes that
they've [been] committing. This type of equipment
most likely will be, but is not limited to, in-car
video recording systems, portable breath testers
[PBTs], intoximeters, radars, and lasers; all these
devices play different roles in dealing with criminal
behavior involving alcohol, [and] all are important.
... The purpose of in-car video systems ... will be
evidentiary; a picture is worth a thousand words. I
could describe the incident to a jury in great detail
until I'm blue in the face, but [with] them being able
to see it on video, it's possible for the jury to
really see the incident as it's happening, for
themselves, and for them to make their own decision
accordingly. Another major purpose of in-car video is
officer safety; this video allows us to see what the
vehicle that's stopped looks like, what the license
plate [number] is, [and] possibly what the driver or
the occupants of the car look like, [so that] if
something happens to the officer, we'd be able to have
a starting point to track down suspects based on the
information gleaned from the video. And also the
incidents that are captured on video could possibly be
used for training in the future.
MR. WILLIAMS continued:
Another device that would possibly be purchased with
these funds are the [PBTs]. Portable breath testers
are miniature intoximeters that officers are able to
carry in their patrol cars for immediate uses when
they're needed. Portable breath testers allow
officers to check the sobriety of minors ... at large
parties or school functions when police are called to
those functions; they also allow us to check the
sobriety of people [who are on] probation when we come
in contact with them. And [PBTs] are always available
because they are always in an officer's car for
whatever situation may arise.
Number 2387
And some other equipment, the radars and lasers --
greater uses of these devices along our highways allow
for greater traffic enforcement, which in turn allows
us to deal with other crimes that are discovered after
the initial traffic stop ... through the contact of
the officer with the driver [or] the occupants of the
car, [and] their observations of what they're seeing
inside the car. ... All these pieces of equipment are
expensive and budgets are tight, and this law would
help us to begin to cover some of the funding gaps.
So, as a police officer myself, and from all the other
police officers in the [APD], we urge you to work on
this bill - make it as effective as possible so that
we can begin to purchase these equipment items and
become more effective for our own safety and citizens'
safety, and be more efficient.
MR. WILLIAMS concluded:
To answer one of the questions that you had before
about how much money we could possibly expect to bring
in: the only figures that I have are [from] arrests
that were made in the municipality between July 1st,
2000, and June 30th, 2001. There were a total of
1,773 DWI [Driving While Intoxicated] arrests in the
municipality during that time; that comes out to 4.8
[arrests] a day. Now, how many of those were state
charges, I do not know, and how many were municipal, I
don't know that either, but more than likely, mostly
municipal. ... Those are the only figures I have, but
based on those, it has a very big possibility of being
a pretty decent amount of money.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked: What other alcohol offenses are there
besides DWI and impairment and minor in possession?
MR. WILLIAMS noted that Title 4 also covers offenses such as
being intoxicated in a bar and "drunk on premises."
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked: What about licensure provisions in Title
4?
TAPE 02-21, SIDE B
Number 2496
CHAIR ROKEBERG continued: Aren't there license offenses that
might rise to the level of a crime?
Number 2489
WALT MONEGAN, Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), testified via teleconference,
explaining that on a fairly regular basis, the APD assists the
Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board in doing premises checks,
and these premises can be monitored for license and code
violations with the use of the [PBTs]. Use of the [PBTs] in
this manner aids the APD in keeping the community safe.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked the APD representatives whether,
over time, the number of DWI offenses is being reduced.
MR. MONEGAN said that as the population grows, the APD is
actually seeing more violations, although not in proportion to
the population growth because there are a lot of agencies that
have helped heighten awareness and mitigate the growth of DWIs.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Monegan whether he thinks the
APD has adequate resources, in terms of "material" and officers,
to handle the problem to his satisfaction.
MR. MONEGAN replied that he would have to say no. He added that
the reason for that response relates to the fact that although
the "in-car video" is such a [valuable] tool, as relayed by Mr.
Williams, the APD does not have enough of this type of equipment
to be able to put one in every patrol car. If the in-car video
could become standard issue for all patrol cars, it would have a
significant impact on the conviction rate.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many more in-car videos and
how many more officers would be needed, and what would be the
total cost. He said that his frustration with the way the
DWI/alcohol problem is currently approached is that it tends to
be "with little band-aids, one piece at a time, instead of
getting aggressive and going after it completely."
MR. MONEGAN relayed that he has about 200 uniformed officers on
patrol, each with his/her own car, but only about a half dozen
if those cars are equipped with in-car video. "It would
certainly aid me to have a significant portion of [those] 200
[cars] ... equipped," he said, adding that adoption of HB 396
would help defray the costs of such equipment. They are not
cheap, he noted, costing approximately $5,500 apiece.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there were an adequate
number of officers.
Number 2304
MR. MONEGAN replied that although [adequate] staffing is always
an issue, DWI offenses are a priority and are something that
"we'll find regardless of how many or how few officers we do
have."
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked what the cost of a PBT is.
MR. MONEGAN said it is about $500.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked what cost is for a new intoximeter.
MR. MONEGAN said that the APD is utilizing DataMaster machines,
but he'd not brought figures relating to cost with him. In
response to questions, he confirmed that a PBT result is not
satisfactory for use in court, and that those results are not
used for DWI arrests; PBTs are used in situations pertaining to
minor consuming and liqueur license violations. He said that in
some instances, an officer will use the PBT simply as an aid in
determining whether there is probable cause, particularly now
that the blood alcohol concentration [BAC] limit has been
lowered to .08. In response to further questions, he said that
the APD is very much in support of the .08 BAC limit, and that
it has been an aid to the community; "we do not want to see
people hurt or killed because of drunk driving." He noted,
however, that he did not have the current statistics with him
regarding arrests for DWI at the .08 BAC level, but would be
happy to research that information for the committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Monegan whether he had any suggestions
regarding the collection and allocation of surcharge monies.
MR. MONEGAN indicated that the deputy commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety had mentioned to him that perhaps
the monies could go to the Alaska Police Standards Council
(APSC), which would then grant the monies to various [police]
departments.
Number 2056
MARTI GREESON, Executive Director, Anchorage Chapter, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD), testified via teleconference, and
said that MADD supports HB 396, which would provide a
consistent, ongoing source of funding for public safety and
current enforcement technology. Offenders would be contributing
directly to enforcement, and enforcement contributes directly to
prevention. Public safety should never be compromised because
of budgetary shortfalls, she opined, adding that HB 396 is a
perfect example of restorative justice.
Number 1995
CINDY CASHEN, Juneau Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD), reiterated that MADD Alaska chapters support HB 396.
She added that as [the family member of] a victim [of a drunk
driver], she will always wonder whether such a fund would have
made a difference in catching the man who killed her father,
before he rammed his truck into the car her father was in. She
opined that HB 396 will make a difference [for others in the
future], and encouraged its passage.
Number 1947
ROYCE WELLER, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), indicated that the DPS
recognizes and appreciates the ultimate sacrifice made by APD
officer Justin Wollam. In answer to the question of how much
money HB 396 might generate, he said that although the DPS is
still waiting for a complete Alaska Public Safety Information
Network (APSIN) report, his estimate is that the proposed $100
surcharge could perhaps generate up to $350,000. He mentioned,
however, that there is a concern that because monies generated
under the current surcharge statute fund the APSC for activities
such as in-service training and academy training, and because
there may be overlapping offenders, funds currently generated
for regular APSC purposes might be reallocated to the Alaska
alcohol offense equipment fund.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Weller to explain the current surcharge
statute - AS 12.55.039.
MR. WELLER replied that the surcharges listed under AS 12.55.039
are the only ones that fund the APSC and have a graduated rate
depending on the offense.
Number 1736
IRL STAMBAUGH, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards
Council (APSC), Department of Public Safety (DPS), added that
under AS 12.55.039, there is a $10 surcharge for citations, a
$50 surcharge for most misdemeanors, a $75 surcharge for DWI
offenses, and a $100 surcharge for felony offenses, all of which
currently go to the APSC. He mentioned that last year these
surcharges generated about $960,000 for the APSC, with about
one-third each going to administrative costs, academy funding,
and in-service advanced training.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what the fine was for a DWI offense.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it depends. There is an initial fine
of $250, and the first two offenses are misdemeanors.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what the rate of collection is and
whether offenders' permanent fund dividends (PFDs) could be used
as "collateral" if they don't pay.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the DPS is probably not the correct
department to get that type of information from.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied that his point is that if fines are
not currently being collected, adding another surcharge will not
improve matters, although he did acknowledge that "anything is
better than nothing."
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that other legislation the committee
has heard would raise the fines for DWI offenses. He noted that
"a surcharge is always on top of the statutory fines." With
regard to the question of whether PFDs can be used to pay monies
owed, he said that the Department of Law (DOL) is responsible
for collecting all fines and assessments, other than ones that
are initially collected by the courts.
Number 1598
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System
(ACS), in response to a question, said:
The trouble right now is [that] fines do go to the
Department of Law for collection - fines, of course,
[are] not the same as surcharges - but our accounting
system, as it is, can't transmit the surcharge itself
for collection. Now, as you know, we're getting a new
computer system, [at] which time they will be able to.
But as of right now, although technically you could go
after a [PFD] for a surcharge, we don't have the
technical capability to do that, but we will....
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the courts collect bail and fines
that are paid right then and there.
MR. WOOLIVER said that is correct, and confirmed that any unpaid
fines or assessments get forwarded onto the DOL for collections.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the ACS collects any surcharges.
MR. WOOLIVER said that the ACS does collect surcharges, but any
that aren't paid to the court system are not subsequently
transferred to the DOL for collection due to a lack of technical
capability.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the ten-day timeframe in
which the surcharge must be paid is sufficient for the ACS.
MR. WOOLIVER indicated that the ten-day timeframe proposed by HB
396 does not affect the ACS one way or the other.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, returning to the issue of how much money would
be generated by the surcharge proposed by HB 396, surmised that
approximately half of the DPS's estimate would come in through
APD DWI arrests. He noted that HB 396 does not outline a
specific mechanism for collecting and distributing the proposed
surcharge, although the DPS has suggested that the mechanism for
current surcharges be used.
MR. STAMBAUGH confirmed that the suggestion is to have the
surcharges proposed by HB 396 appropriated to the APSC, the
board of which would then determine which communities should
receive those funds. In response to a question, he relayed that
the APSC has 11 members, including several police chiefs; a
deputy police chief; the commissioners from the Department of
Public Safety and the Department of Corrections; the director of
Community Corrections in Anchorage; and "civilian" members from
several communities.
Number 1396
CHAIR ROKEBERG voiced some reluctance to turn over the
allocation process to the APSC, and suggested that that aspect
of HB 396 should be discussed further. He asked whether it
would be possible to, in effect, return surcharges to the
communities from which they were generated.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that HB 396 states that the money
from surcharges shall go directly into the general fund, and
opined that the current discussion appears to be seriously
treading into the realm of dedicated funds, which are not
allowed under the Alaska State Constitution. He added that
although perhaps legally "it" isn't a dedicated fund, the
legislature often sets up "quasi dedicated funds" to which
general funds are appropriated.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Weller to explain where the money would
go according to HB 396.
MR. WELLER said that as proposed by HB 396, the money would be
deposited into the general fund - separately accounted for - and
then appropriated to the Alaska alcohol offense equipment fund,
from which the legislature would then appropriate money out of
for the DPS and municipalities. So there would really be two
appropriations as proposed by HB 396, he remarked: one into the
fund and one out of the fund.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that although he understands the
constitutional argument regarding dedicated funds, the
legislature often sets up similar mechanisms as need requires;
it is up to the legislature to decide whether there is a need to
do so for this particular purpose. "The surcharges ... are
controversial, and right now I'm concerned because they are kind
of stepping on other things," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that legislation reported out of
committee earlier - HB 281 - provides for a less
constitutionally suspect manner by which the state and
municipalities can recover costs pertaining to convictions, and
suggested that perhaps funds for the purchase of alcohol-
offense-related equipment could be acquired via that legislation
instead of HB 396.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, referring to the APSC's administrative
costs, asked what those entail.
MR. STAMBAUGH said that those costs include the cost of the
instructors who provide training, and salaries for himself, his
secretary, an administrative clerk, and a training coordinator;
those costs do not, however, include the cost of officers'
attendance at such training.
Number 1040
CHAIR ROKEBERG again asked whether it would be feasible to
return surcharges directly to the communities from which they
came, and suggested that perhaps the state could pay a small fee
to the APSC to cover the administrative cost of collecting and
allocating those surcharge monies.
MR. STAMBAUGH said he would have to consult with "our finance
people [and] the court"; a lot of planning would have to go into
that because of the need to track the collection of surcharges
in each jurisdiction, and that would be difficult right now
without the ACS having a new [tracking] system online.
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that perhaps the legislation could
provide "that the municipality could do it - could make the
collection."
MR. STAMBAUGH said that "on municipal charges, they can do
that," but not for state charges.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that perhaps 90 percent of the
surcharge proposed by HB 396 could be given back to the
community that collects it, and the remaining 10 percent could
go into the general fund.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that that suggestion has merit; "we
could even make it a local-option deal," which would provide an
incentive to municipalities that actually use their own
ordinances to prosecute.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that he has concerns with that idea
because it would give law enforcement agencies an incentive "to
make their quota."
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that it would also take the heat off
the state to pay for the judicial system. He likened the
suggestion to: "revenue sharing with a twist." In response to
a question from Representative Meyer, Chair Rokeberg mentioned
that he would not be comfortable moving HB 396 out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee without knowing that the funds from
the surcharges would "find the proper home."
MR. WELLER said that regardless of how the committee decides to
allocate funds generated by HB 396, the committee may want to
consider a new fund source because essentially HB 396 would
collect money for a specific purpose and allocate it back. In
conclusion he noted that the DPS supports the intent of HB 396.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that HB 396 would be held over.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:37 p.m. to 2:39 p.m.
HJR 36 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT : TAX CAPS
Number 0736
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the last order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36,
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to limiting the rate of state individual income
taxes and sales taxes.
Number 0641
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
opined that [SSHJR 36] is a bipartisan bill that everybody could
and should support regardless of how they feel about any pending
tax proposals. He said that [SSHJR 36] should give everyone
confidence that neither a state income tax nor a state sales tax
will "grow above a certain rate." He explained that the main
difference between the original version and the sponsor
substitute of HJR 36 is that SSHJR 36 specifies that it pertain
to an individual income tax rather than a corporate income tax.
In addition, SSHJR 36 eliminates language stating how an income
tax would be levied and focuses instead on the fact that a tax,
regardless of how it is calculated, shall not exceed a certain
rate.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that in members' packets is a handout
highlighting that a tax cap is not a spending cap, although they
are compatible and may aim for similar results - restraining
state spending. He offered that a tax cap and a spending cap
could be done together because there is nothing contradictory
about them. He mentioned that Anchorage chose to adopt a tax
cap on its "municipal tax levy" while still allowing for new
construction and new property improvements. This combination
provides an incentive to encourage new economic development,
because new construction - new property additions - adds to the
tax base and allows the municipality to provide police, fire
[protection], roads, schools, and infrastructure for the
population growth resulting from economic development.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, again referring to members' packets, said
that it also includes charts detailing "where the 5 percent cap"
proposed by SSHJR 36 would fall with regard to the sales tax
rates and the income tax rates for various states, and a
legislative research report by the Legal and Research Division
of the Legislative Affairs Agency. He noted that the last page
of this report states that the median U.S. sales tax rate is 5
percent, which is "our information as well about the high end of
the income tax bracket; that is, if you impose this as a an
income tax measure, you would be at about the median level in
the U.S. currently for your top income tax bracket." Put
another way, he said, SSHJR 36 would ensure that neither a sales
tax nor an income tax would rise above the current U.S. average.
Number 0230
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT relayed that he developed the concept
encompassed in HJR 36 after talking to a neighbor/constituent
whose main concern did not pertain the initial rate of a tax,
but rather on the fact that "they never seem to stop there: ...
they grow and grow, and he did not want to see anything that had
that unlimited nature to it." He mentioned that the main
support, both in-state and nationally, for tax caps of various
types typically comes from conservative groups, many of which
have resources on the Internet. In conclusion he said that he
hopes that people will support the idea of a tax cap regardless
of how they feel about the various tax proposals currently going
through the legislative process.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked: "Isn't it true that you are an advocate
of having a, what I call, 'bundled fiscal plan?'" "How does
this, because it has to be acted on by the voters and acted upon
separately, fit into a bundle?"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said:
I think, personally, that we should enact a fiscal
plan this session, and I'd prefer to do it in some
whole way that comes close to filling, for now and the
foreseeable future, the close to a $1 billion gap that
we have. I think it's only responsible that we do
that though I know as well as anyone the political
pain that will come with it. I think it's part of our
responsibility, and for me it's worth that political
pain - or even not getting elected the next election -
to secure our future.
CHAIR ROKEBERG clarified that his question was whether
Representative Croft felt that SSHJR 36 should be part of the
bundle.
TAPE 02-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks that for those opposed to a
fiscal plan, SSHJR 36 can be viewed on its own merits; the tax
cap or the spending cap, individually or together, can be viewed
as measures that allow people to feel more comfortable about any
future tax proposals.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked: "Doesn't this have to come to the floor
as a separate matter and not be part of a bundle?"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that according to his understanding,
SSHJR 36 has to be considered separately, and no particular tax
proposal could be tied to it, because of a provision in the
Alaska State Constitution that prohibits "putting taxes up for a
vote." "And if you say, 'These taxes only come in if a certain
constitutional amendment comes in,' you're in effect having the
people vote on a tax," he noted. In response to a question, he
said that the legislature is constitutionally prohibited from
delegating its "taxing power."
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if there were any [Alaska] Supreme Court
cases that specify whether a tax could be instituted via the
initiative process.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he did not know, only that he thought
there was a constitutional provision that states that the
legislature cannot delegate its taxing power.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that his point is that SSHJR 36 "can't be
bundled."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he disagrees. He elaborated:
Of course you can bundle it; the same way we bundle
things all the time. But I think [that] properly it
should be a separate subject than what we're doing for
putting together a fiscal plan. ... It's my
understanding, actually, that you can bundle passage
of the resolution through both chambers, without
requiring passage of the electorate. Nonetheless, I
think that's a bad idea.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in response to a question, said that
when a resolution to amend the constitution passes through both
bodies, it then goes to the public. He explained that this is
different from passing the resolution and having the resolution
be adopted and become an amendment; instead, it has to pass out
of both houses - both bodies - before the people get a chance to
vote on it.
Number 0292
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN recalled that a past proposed constitutional
amendment regarding subsistence was tied to whether the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was altered in
specific ways. "So, I suppose we could bundle it," he
acknowledged, noting, however, that Article IX, Section 1, of
the Alaska State Constitution states: "The power of taxation
shall never be surrendered. This power shall not be suspended
or contracted away except as provided in this article."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised that this constitutional provision
would not prohibit an amendment instituting a tax cap such as is
proposed by SSHJR 36, which doesn't impose a new tax but only
specifies when it stops. Additionally, he offered his belief
that a new tax could not be instituted via the initiative
process.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER opined that although Representative Croft
has compared SSHJR 36 to Anchorage's tax cap, it is not the same
because property taxes are basically the only source of income
for the Anchorage municipality; the tax cap in Anchorage ensures
that property taxes will not "get out of hand," and thus also
serves to limit spending. On the other hand, since [oil
revenues] provide 80 percent of the state's revenue, even if a
tax cap is instituted, revenues from other sources would not be
restricted. He relayed that U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski has
stated that either an income tax or a sales tax would hurt
Alaska's economy, but has acknowledged that perhaps a seasonal
sales tax might be acceptable. Representative Meyer asked
Representative Croft how a seasonal sales tax would fit into
SSHJR 36.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT first clarified that he did not think that
the Anchorage tax cap and the tax cap proposed by SSHJR 36 are
identical. And although a lot of Anchorage's revenue comes from
property tax, he noted, according to his information, about 40
percent of Anchorage's revenue is "nontax" revenue: fees,
fines, grants, and forfeitures. Therefore, Anchorage's tax cap
is not a spending cap; it is merely a tax cap on the most
significant tax that Anchorage imposes. He also clarified that
he is not portraying SSHJR 36 as a spending cap; "I said they do
similar things, they do not do identical things." [A tax cap]
has a generally constraining effect on spending but does not cap
it; there could still be spending increases. A tax cap says to
taxpayers that only a certain amount of revenue will be sought
from their pockets. And although a spending cap has a generally
depressing effect on tax increases, there could still be a
spending cap in conjunction with very high tax rates.
Number 0737
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT again stated that although a tax cap and a
spending cap can complement each other and have generally
similar effects, they are not identical. He indicated that he
would like to see SSHJR 36 advance to the House Finance
Committee so that it can be compared with a proposed spending
cap to see which makes more sense: to see whether people are
more worried, in general, about the absolute level of state
spending or about how much a tax is and how far it goes. He
reiterated his belief that everybody should be able to support
SSHJR 36 regardless of how they feel about the implementation of
statewide taxes. In response to Representative Meyer's question
regarding a seasonal sales tax, Representative Croft said that
SSHJR 36 would apply to that as well; "you're rate could not get
any higher" than what is stipulated in SSHJR 36.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the cap on the sales tax would
allow payment to vendors for collection fees, "which would be
above the cap - or outside the cap" and which is common in a lot
of states.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, after acknowledging that "it" is common in
a lot of states, posited that the rate of sales tax levied by
the state is the amount that the state gets and thus "would be
after those deductions to the vendor." He added, though, that
the committee may wish to clarify that issue further via an
amendment or committee substitute.
CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that he wanted to be sure that the
language accommodated "those kind of surcharges."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that is would be best to clarify
that issue.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, referring to both SSHJR 36 and a 2001 1040 tax
form, asked why "federal adjusted gross income" is used in the
calculation, instead of "taxable income." He noted that the
difference between those two figures includes itemized
deductions from Schedule A [or] a standard deduction, and any
exemptions allowed under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax
code. This means that exemptions for large families or home
ownership would not be included in the calculation of a person's
state income tax. He opined that this might result in some
people paying between 6 percent and 30 percent, depending on
deductions and exemptions.
Number 1024
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the vast majority of other
states choose from among three different lines on the federal
form upon which to base their state income tax. Some states use
line 33, federally adjusted gross income; some states use line
39, taxable income after deductions and exemptions; and some
states use line 58, the total tax owed. He indicated that
although each option has "various good arguments," his intention
was to leave open for debate the issue of which option to use,
and to this end, he simply chose the use of line 33 as a
starting point for the discussion.
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that that option also allows for
changes to the IRS code.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT went on to point out that language in SSHJR
36, starting on line 8, provides for an option other than use of
line 33 on the federal form: "If the individual income tax is
levied on any basis other than federal adjusted gross income,
the total amount of tax collected statewide may not exceed what
would have been collected if the tax rate had been five percent
of federal adjusted gross income." He indicated that had the
state collected an individual income tax this year, it would
have raised about $600 million based on line 33 of the federal
form or about $450 million based on line 39. He added that
SSHJR 36, while still providing a tax cap, allows for changes to
the IRS form and for the use of different lines on that form for
calculation purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Croft whether he
had "numbers that attach to 1 percent of adjusted gross, or what
each percentage of adjusted gross [is] versus taxable income
versus total tax?"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that the deputy commissioner of the
Department of Revenue, Larry Persily, gave him numbers that
indicate that in order to raise about $400 million, the income
tax rate would have to be 3.13 percent if it were based on gross
income, 4.34 percent if it were based on taxable income, and
just under 22 percent if it were based on federal tax liability.
Adding that he would have to research whether "on higher ends
these ratios still work out," he explained that these ratios
indicate roughly that 1 percent of adjusted gross income equals
either 1.4 percent of taxable income or 7 percent of tax
liability. In response to a question he said that 5 percent of
adjusted gross income would equal [7] percent of taxable income.
Number 1247
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative Croft why he picked a tax
cap of 5 percent instead of 4 percent, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that the idea of using 5 percent
originally occurred to him because of discussions on another
constitutional amendment pertaining to using 5 percent of the
market value of the permanent fund. He said that he then
learned that the national median sales tax rate is 5 percent, as
is "the median top rate of income tax in the states that have
income tax." He said that from a couple of different angles, 5
percent works as a number above which he didn't want the tax
rate to rise.
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that a concept proposed by
Representative Carl Moses for several years regarding tax
credits for property taxes paid within the state shows enormous
value. He asked Representative Croft whether SSHJR 36 would
allow such a tax credit.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that SSHJR 36 would allow for such a
tax credit, adding that the only limitation would be that "it
could not raise more money than one that was 5 percent and based
solely on federal adjusted gross income." He mentioned that as
long as the calculation used does not exceed the tax cap, it
would be acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that according to a conversation
he had with [economist] Scott Goldsmith:
Raising $1 in sales tax, 93 cents comes from Alaskans;
raising $1 from the permanent fund dividend, 86 cents
comes from Alaskans - and you get federal tax linkage;
and raising income tax dollars, 75 cents comes from
Alaskans, because it's an efficient way of getting
nonresident workers, plus we're allowed to deduct it
from our federal taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that he'd heard this same
information just the other day.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would provide those specific
numbers to members for future debates.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that SSHJR 36 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1502
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|