Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/14/1993 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 14, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gail Phillips
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gene Therriault
Representative Cynthia Toohey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 28 "An Act relating to the penalty for providing
alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of
21; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 28 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 92 "An Act relating to notaries; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 92 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 188 "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain
property; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
HB 211 "An Act relating to the municipal tax exemption
for inventories intended for export."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 195 "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to
provide for peer adjudication of minors who have
allegedly committed violations of state or
municipal laws, renaming the community legal
assistance grant fund and amending the purposes
for which grants may be made from that fund in
order to provide financial assistance for
organization and initial operation of youth
courts, and relating to young adult advisory
panels in the superior court."
NOT HEARD
HB 222 "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to
termination of tenancies and recovery of rental
premises, to tenant responsibilities, to the civil
remedies of forcible entry and detainer and
nuisance abatement, and to the duties of peace
officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Reviewed changes in CSHB 28 (JUD) and
CSHB 92 (JUD)
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-4797
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 92; supported
CSHB 92 (JUD)
CHARLIE COLE
Attorney General
Department of Law
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3600
Position Statement: Supported HB 188
DEAN GUANELI
Assistant Attorney General
and Criminal Division Administrator
Department of Law
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 188
RAY BROWN
Alaska Academy of Trial Lawyers
P. O. Box 102323
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: 277-5400
Position Statement: Voiced concerns about HB 188; urged
changes be made to HB 188
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4919
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 211
MITCH GRAVO
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation
2550 Denali, 17th Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 272-6474
Position Statement: Supported HB 211
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: PENALTY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS,Phillips,B.Davis,
Nicholia,Olberg,Bunde,Kott
TITLE: "An Act relating to the penalty for providing
alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 31 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 31 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 31 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/13/93 54 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG
01/14/93 62 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/10/93 312 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/04/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/93 539 (H) HES RPT 3DP 3NR
03/05/93 539 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, NICHOLIA
03/05/93 540 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY, BRICE
03/05/93 540 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (CORR, ADM)
3/5/93
03/05/93 540 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (LAW, DPS, ADM)
3/5/93
03/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/24/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 92
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
BILL VERSION: CSSSHB 92(JUD) AM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
TITLE: "An Act relating to notaries; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/93 163 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/27/93 164 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/01/93 198 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-
REFERRALS
02/01/93 198 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/02/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/02/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/03/93 210 (H) L&C RPT CSSS(L&C) 1DP 3NR
02/03/93 211 (H) DP: HUDSON
02/03/93 211 (H) NR: PORTER, WILLIMS, GREEN
02/03/93 211 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/3/93
02/03/93 224 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/05/93 241 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: JAMES
03/31/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/93 (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
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 211
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL INVENTORY TAX EXEMPTION:EXPORTS
BILL VERSION: HB 211 AM S
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY,Brown,Menard;
TITLE: "An Act relating to the municipal tax exemption for
inventories intended for export."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/93 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/10/93 590 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
03/12/93 629 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BROWN
03/25/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/01/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/02/93 931 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 2NR
04/02/93 931 (H) DP:SANDERS,DAVIES,TOOHEY,
OLBERG, WILLIAMS
04/02/93 931 (H) NR: BUNDE, WILLIS
04/02/93 931 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCRA)
4/2/93
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 195
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SITTON,Ulmer,Willis,Foster,
Brown,B.Davis,Olberg,Porter
TITLE: "An Act authorizing youth courts by which to provide
for peer adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed
violations of state or municipal laws, renaming the
community legal assistance grant fund and amending the
purposes for which grants may be made from that fund in
order to provide financial assistance for organization and
initial operation of youth courts, and relating to young
adult advisory panels in the superior court."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/93 519 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/03/93 519 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/93 628 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIS, FOSTER,
BROWN
03/12/93 628 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS, OLBERG
03/19/93 716 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER
03/24/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/31/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/02/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/93 974 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 5DP
2NR 1AM
04/05/93 974 (H) DP:BUNDE,G.DAVIS,TOOHEY,
B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA
04/05/93 974 (H) NR: VEZEY, OLBERG
04/05/93 974 (H) AM: KOTT
04/05/93 974 (H) -2 ZERO FNS(DCRA, DHSS) 4/5/93
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 222
SHORT TITLE: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Porter
TITLE: "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to
termination of tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to
tenant responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible
entry and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties
of peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/12/93 619 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/12/93 619 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/01/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/93 932 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 4NR
04/02/93 932 (H) DP: WILLIAMS, MULDER, PORTER
04/02/93 932 (H) NR: GREEN, MACKIE, SITTON,
HUDSON
04/02/93 932 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (DPS, LAW)
4/2/93
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/13/93 1188 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/14/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-60, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:17 p.m., on April 14, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would
take up HB 28 first.
HB 28: PENALTY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR
Number 023
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to a draft
committee substitute for HB 28, dated April 1, 1993. She
noted that a subcommittee, chaired by Representative Kott,
had met to discuss HB 28, and stated that the sponsor,
Representative Bill Williams, concurred with the
subcommittee's recommendations incorporated in the draft
committee substitute.
MS. HORETSKI stated that new language appeared on page 1,
lines 6-10 of the draft committee substitute. She mentioned
that under existing law, it was a misdemeanor crime to
provide alcohol to a minor. The original HB 28 made all
such offenses class C felonies, she noted. However, the
draft committee substitute made providing alcohol to a minor
a class C felony only if the provider had been previously
convicted of that same offense within the preceding five
years.
MS. HORETSKI commented that new language also appeared on
page 2, in sections 3 and 4. Under existing law, she said,
liquor establishments had to post warning signs regarding
drinking alcohol during pregnancy. New language in HB 28
required liquor licensees to post a second sign, citing the
penalties for providing alcohol to minors. Those penalties
included imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up
to $50,000. She mentioned that those penalties would apply
to second and subsequent offenses, but not to first
offenses.
Number 098
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Ms. Horetski to describe the
penalties for first offenses.
Number 106
MS. HORETSKI replied that a first offender would be guilty
of a class A misdemeanor.
Number 123
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND stated that he was a member of
the subcommittee, although he had not been notified that the
subcommittee was meeting. But, he said, he was happy with
the product which the subcommittee had created. He called
the draft committee substitute an improvement to a bill
about which he still had concerns.
Number 135
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT indicated that the subcommittee had
met, and had notified Representative Nordlund's office of
the meeting. He mentioned that it had been almost
impossible to get all of the subcommittee members to agree
on a time at which to meet. He added that the subcommittee
had attempted to address the committee's concerns in the
draft committee substitute for HB 28.
Number 156
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT the
draft committee substitute for HB 28, dated April 1, 1993.
There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON commented that our society was
becoming a society of signs. He asked the Chairman to
comment, from his perspective as a former police officer, on
the deterrent effect of signs.
Number 173
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER responded that during his career as a
police officer, he had spent a great deal of time in bars.
It was his impression that as long as there were some liquor
handlers interested in providing alcohol to minors and some
minors who were intent on purchasing alcohol, it would
happen, regardless of whatever signs might be present. He
stated that posting signs would not hurt, however.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON indicated that the committee would
be filling up the statute books with language that might or
might not have an impact on the behavior of individuals. He
stated his opposition to moving HB 28 out of committee.
Number 231
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it was difficult to
measure the effect of signs. She said that people often did
not notice that a particular sign was posted, but when a
person saw a sign, he or she knew that he or she had seen
the sign before. That, she said, counted for something.
She supported posting signs.
Number 252
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT echoed some of Representative Davidson's
comments. But, he said that if one sign saved one life,
then it would be worth posting them in bars and liquor
stores throughout the state.
Number 276
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND reiterated his earlier statement
that the committee substitute was a vast improvement over
the original HB 28. He indicated his belief that the
legislature should fashion penalties appropriate to crimes.
He did not know if a person would be any more deterred by
the notion of spending five years in prison than he or she
would be by the notion of spending one year in jail.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked rhetorically what penalty would
he deem appropriate in the event that an adult provided
alcohol to a minor, and that intoxicated minor went out and
killed himself? She said that she would like to give judges
the option of imposing a stiffer penalty in such a
situation.
Number 305
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that society owed its
children the opportunity to learn for themselves about self-
discipline and personal responsibility. He stated that
instead of micro-managing Alaska's businesses, the
legislature should focus its efforts on the children. He
commented that, as a parent, he found the more he said no,
the more he had to say no. He drew a parallel by asserting
that the more signs society posted, the more signs society
would have to post.
Number 337
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative Davidson's
comments, except to say that some people would not respond
to education and positive reinforcement, and therefore
required criminal sanctions. He mentioned the evolving role
of smoking in our society. Smoking became unpopular not
because it was criminalized, he said, but because of a
combination of elements which made smoking "uncool." He
noted that HB 28 might help prevent adults from providing
alcohol to minors.
Number 382
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE the Judiciary
Committee substitute for HB 28 out of committee, with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, IT
WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 92 next.
HB 92: REGULATION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
Number 399
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 92,
called the members' attention to a draft committee
substitute dated April 9, 1993. He said that the committee
substitute dealt with issues on which the committee had
expressed the desire for clarification and change. He
supported the draft committee substitute, as did Ms. Patty
Trott from the Lieutenant Governor's Office.
Number 417
MS. HORETSKI commented that at the previous hearing on
HB 92, the committee had a committee substitute before it.
The April 9, 1993 draft committee substitute was a change
from the previous committee substitute, she added. She said
that new language appeared on page 2, lines 7-9. The phrase
"applying for" was added, in order to clarify timetables
within the bill. She commented that new language clarified
the types of crimes which would make a person ineligible to
be a notary.
MS. HORETSKI stated that language requiring notaries to
notarize all items presented to them, on page 3, line 13,
was deleted from HB 92. Additionally, she said, on lines
17-18 of page 3, the language was reworded to allow notaries
to promote or endorse products, but not to use their
notarial seals or titles to do so. On page 3, lines 20-21,
the words "notarial certificate" were substituted for
"document," she said, based on language in the Model Notary
Act. The last change was located on page 4, lines 30-31,
and established who should notify the Lieutenant Governor's
Office in the event that a notary public died.
Number 480
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Horetski to clarify HB 92's
language regarding false certificates.
Number 484
MS. HORETSKI explained that the language to which
Representative Green was referring was identical to that in
the last version of HB 92.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what would happen in the event
that a notary public's next of kin did not notify the
lieutenant governor's office that the notary public had
died.
Number 493
MS. HORETSKI replied that there were no enforcement
mechanisms for that requirement included in HB 92.
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if HB 92's sponsor concurred with
the changes in the draft committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT indicated that he concurred.
Number 502
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT the draft
committee substitute dated April 9, 1993. There being no
objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE the Judiciary
Committee substitute for HB 92 out of committee. There
being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 188 next.
HB 188: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
Number 524
CHARLIE COLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALASKA, commented
that he had intended to submit legislation this session
modeled on a successful California program which did away
with the necessity of notaries public. He urged the
committee to look into adopting a similar program in Alaska.
MR. COLE testified in support of HB 188, and said that the
bill was one of the governor's priorities. He said that the
bill would provide for forfeiture of real property under
certain conditions, and would result in a major, positive
change to the state's forfeiture laws. He stated that a
great deal of drug activity centered around the illicit use
of real property. Under present law, he said, real property
could not be forfeited. He noted that there was a "gaping
hole" in the state's forfeiture laws.
MR. COLE suggested that the committee change language on
page 6, line 23, of the work draft dated April 12, 1993, to
avoid subjecting a claimant to the heavy burden of proving
that he or she did not have "reasonable cause to believe"
that drug activity was conducted on the real property. He
recommended deleting the words "or have reasonable cause to
believe."
Number 600
MR. COLE stated that currently, forfeiture cases were
handled by the U. S. Attorney, not the state, as the federal
government had greater forfeiture powers for real property
than the state did. Thus, much of the proceeds of a
successful forfeiture went to the federal government. He
said that if HB 188 was enacted, the legislature would
supervise and control forfeitures. If complaints were heard
about abuse of forfeiture powers, the legislature could
restrict the state's authority.
Number 632
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that her question pertained to
both HB 188 and to HB 222, Use of Rented Property/Law
Violations, which she had sponsored. She said that HB 222
required law enforcement authorities to notify property-
owners if someone other than the property-owner was
arrested. She asked if authorities had notified a property-
owner of an arrest, but the property-owner did not evict the
tenants, was the property-owner then "knowledgeable" about
the illegal activity and subject to the forfeiture of his or
her property.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES offered an example of a family living
in a rental unit when the husband was indicted. If the
landlord was notified of the indictment, but did not evict
the tenants, and the wife was later indicted, she asked if
the landlord would be seen as having reason to know that
illegal activity was taking place on the premises.
Number 652
MR. COLE stated that he would have to think about HB 188's
effect on such a situation. He stated that an indictment
did not mean that a person was guilty.
Number 669
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that if an arrest was made and a
person jailed as a result, a person would not be deemed to
"reasonably know" that illegal activity was continuing while
the defendant was in jail.
Number 677
MR. COLE commented that most forfeiture situations were
worked out at an administrative level and did not go to a
hearing.
Number 694
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that the unfortunate reality was
that budgets were so low that prosecutors and law
enforcement officials did not have time to work on marginal
cases. If officials knew that they could not prove that a
property-owner knew about the illegal activity taking place
on his or her property, they would not pursue the forfeiture
case.
Number 701
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND supported the state's efforts in
trying to achieve the forfeiture of property that was used
in the commission of a crime, particularly in the case of
drug offenses. However, he expressed concerns that HB 188
could negatively impact innocent property-owners. He said
that the bill could be improved by allowing for forfeiture
only in the cases in which a conviction occurred and/or
there was a showing that the property was materially used in
the commission of the crime.
Number 714
MR. COLE asked if the language on page 1, line 11 did not
adequately address Representative Nordlund's concern.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND replied that the language to which
Mr. Cole had referred pertained to property, but not to the
owners.
Number 731
MR. COLE responded that language in sections 4 and 7 of the
bill seemed to provide adequate safeguards. Additionally,
he said that the amendment which he had suggested would go
even further to protect against innocent property-owners
having their property seized.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON offered an example in which a person
owned a new home. That person's grown children returned
home to live with that person, having become involved in
drug trafficking while living away from home. The person
had always trusted the children, and saw no reason to keep
close track of the children's activities. As a result of
the drug trafficking, the person's home was seized. He
asked Mr. Cole to outline the steps that the person would
have to go through in order to ensure that the real property
was not forfeited.
Number 766
MR. COLE indicated his belief that it was not difficult to
keep track of activities going on in one's home. He then
outlined the stages governing Representative Davidson's
hypothetical situation. He said that the person would very
likely know if an arrest was made, and therefore not need to
learn about the proposed forfeiture when notice of it was
advertised in the newspaper. He stated that section 4 of
HB 188 provided for public notice of proposed forfeiture
actions.
MR. COLE said that the person would then be required to make
a claim under oath, setting out his or her interest in the
property, the date it was acquired, the acquisition price,
and then generally answering the state's allegations of
forfeiture. If the person did not make a claim, then
forfeiture would be ordered by the court without further
proceedings.
Number 790
MR. COLE stated that section 7, beginning on page 6, line 15
of the work draft, established the standards for a timely
claim. He said that a person could have property returned
upon proof, by a preponderance of evidence that (1) the
person had a valid interest in the acquired property,
acquired in good faith; (2) he or she did not knowingly
participate in or facilitate the conduct that resulted in
the property being subject to forfeiture; and (3) the person
did not know that another person might engage in conduct
that resulted in the property being subject to forfeiture.
Number 808
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if Mr. Cole was saying that a
person had, in effect, to prove his or her innocence.
MR. COLE replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked about what would happen if a
person missed making a timely claim, due to being out of
state on vacation for six weeks. He asked Mr. Cole if he
felt that there should be some sort of appeal process
included in HB 188.
TAPE 93-60, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. COLE replied that similar situations already occurred,
including notification that a bank was going to foreclose on
a house. He said that HB 188 was no greater danger than
many existing laws, as it included standard and routine
notice periods.
Number 022
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON expressed a concern that the
forfeiture process proceeded rather swiftly.
Number 029
MR. COLE commented that 30 days in which to file a claim was
somewhat generous, in light of other time periods used for
legal proceedings.
Number 039
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that section 7 appeared to
violate "innocent until proven guilty" constitutional
protections.
Number 052
MR. COLE responded that there were no constitutional
problems in HB 188, in his opinion. He said that there were
many provisions in civil law which placed the burden of
proof on the citizen. He gave the Internal Revenue Code as
an example. He noted that the basic presumption of
innocence was with regard to the commission of a crime. He
asked how law enforcement officials could prove that a
property-owner knew about illegal activity occurring on his
or her real property. He said that it was not unreasonable
to impose the burden of proof on the property-owner.
MR. COLE stated that a property-owner would not find it
difficult to prove that he or she did not know about the
illegal activity.
Number 109
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Mr. Cole to offer his opinion
on restricting HB 188's provisions to those situations in
which a conviction occurred.
Number 118
MR. COLE replied that Representative Nordlund's suggestion
was an intermediate step, one on which he did not choose to
express an opinion. He said that it would result in a less-
strict law.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Dean Guaneli, from the Department
of Law's Criminal Division, to compare HB 188 with federal
forfeiture requirements.
DEAN GUANELI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION
ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testifying via telephone,
stated that he believed that a conviction was not a
prerequisite for forfeiture in any jurisdiction. He said
that a conviction was definitely not a requirement under
current Alaska forfeiture law. He said that the problem
with basing forfeiture on conviction was that lack of a
conviction did not prove a defendant's innocence. Often, he
said, a conviction did not occur due to suppression of
evidence, invalid search warrants, or police mistakes.
MR. GUANELI expressed an opinion that the state should still
be able, in certain circumstances, to go after property used
in the commission of a drug offense, even if no conviction
resulted. He noted that forfeiture was viewed as a
proceeding which was separate and apart from a criminal
case; therefore, the outcome of the criminal case should
have no bearing on the forfeiture proceeding.
Number 185
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned concerns which had been
raised regarding the state seizing a cruise ship, if drugs
were found aboard.
Number 196
MR. GUANELI stressed that the state would take reasonable
actions with regard to forfeitures. He said that the state
had found evidence of drug dealing on cruise ships in the
past, and had taken no actions against the ship owners. He
added that drug dealers used Alaska Airlines jets to convey
drugs to Alaska on occasion, and the jets were not seized by
the state. He reiterated the Attorney General's comment
that most forfeiture cases would be worked out at the
administrative level.
MR. GUANELI mentioned that if the state had evidence that a
girlfriend or other associate of a drug trafficker was
listed on a title or deed in order to protect certain
assets, the state would aggressively pursue forfeiture of
the property. On the other hand, he said, if a parent or
wife knew nothing of drug trafficking occurring in their
home, there was no point in the state pursuing forfeitures.
He said that the whole point behind forfeiture laws was to
make people take care of the property that they owned, so
that it was not used in drug dealing.
MR. GUANELI said that forfeiting an Alaska Airlines jet, or
a cruise ship, or the assets of a lending institution would
not further the purposes of forfeiture laws. He reiterated
the Chairman's comment that the state did not have time to
pursue marginal forfeiture cases.
Number 245
MR. COLE expressed his opinion that if a cruise ship captain
knew that his or her vessel was being used for drug
trafficking, then the state ought to seize the ship.
Number 273
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that operators were not
necessarily owners. He asked Mr. Cole what protections HB
188 offered to property-owners.
MR. COLE replied that HB 188 included lien protections in
section 7, on page 6, line 19.
Number 284
RAY BROWN, representing the ALASKA ACADEMY OF TRIAL LAWYERS,
testified in support of forfeiture laws, but stated that he
had many concerns about HB 188. He urged the committee to
make substantial changes to the bill before passing it out
of committee. He predicted that HB 188 would make lawyers
rich, and only benefit the entity which received the
proceeds from successful forfeitures.
MR. BROWN stated that only those who could afford to
litigate civil forfeitures would have an opportunity to
regain their property; less-affluent citizens would simply
lose their property, even if they were innocent of any
wrongdoing, because they could not afford to litigate
forfeiture issues. He argued that if law enforcement
officials had a monetary incentive to seize assets of
significant value, then such forfeiture matters would not be
worked out administratively. He called HB 188 extremely
dangerous.
MR. BROWN stated further that a cruise ship company might
have no idea that a particular crew member was running a
drug trafficking operation out of one of the company's
ships. But, according to the Attorney General, if the
company did not know of the operation, but the ship's
captain did, the company's vessel should be forfeited. He
commented that the state merely had to get an indictment or
establish probable cause to make a prima facie showing that
the property was forfeitable. He said that it was extremely
easy for the state to get an indictment.
MR. BROWN commented that if an indictment established a
prima facie showing, then people who could not afford to
litigate a forfeiture action would lose their property. He
stated his opinion that a conviction should not be necessary
for the state to seize property. He mentioned that children
hid many things from their parents. He said that, under HB
188's provisions, if a parent had sent a child with a drug
problem to a rehabilitation facility, and that child
returned home, a parent could potentially be found to have
reason to know that his or her child was selling drugs.
MR. BROWN said that if a child was selling marijuana out of
his or her room, and was indicted for that offense, a parent
who could not afford to hire an attorney to defend him- or
herself could lose his or her home. He commented that
HB 188 placed an unfair burden on people. He stated that
allowing law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to keep
the proceeds from forfeiture cases provided too great of an
incentive for seizures. He asserted that parts of HB 188
were unconstitutional.
MR. BROWN said further that the bill's requirement regarding
filing claims on one's seized property violated Fifth
Amendment rights. He commented that currently, when the
state handed over forfeiture cases to the federal
government, the proceeds were shared between the federal
government, the state, and local law enforcement agencies.
He stated that HB 188 should not change that situation. Or,
he said, it might result in several agencies scrambling to
forfeit assets in order to receive the proceeds.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Mr. Brown's comments about
current sharing of proceeds were correct. He indicated his
understanding that under HB 188's provisions, proceeds would
go into the state's general fund, not to specific agencies.
Number 460
MR. BROWN said that it was his understanding that proceeds
would go directly to the agencies responsible for the
seizures, but said that he might be wrong. He indicated his
support for the proceeds being deposited into the general
fund instead. He praised law enforcement officials in
Alaska, but expressed concern that if a big enough incentive
to seize property existed, forfeiture authority might be
abused.
MR. BROWN commented that lending institutions would probably
object to HB 188, as it would require them to prove that
they had no knowledge that illegal activities were occurring
on real property for which they had lent money. He said
that the only people who would praise the bill would be
lawyers who would be hired to represent people whose
property had been seized. He said that HB 188 invited
abuse.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Brown to clarify his opinion
regarding law enforcement abuse of HB 188.
Number 496
MR. BROWN indicated his belief that a law enforcement
officer would only seize property if she or he believed that
there was probable cause to seize that property. But, he
said, a law enforcement officer would not know, at the time
of seizure, that a property-owner was innocent of any
wrongdoing. He said that innocent property-owners would
suffer under HB 188, as the cost of litigation would often
outweigh the cost of the assets seized. He commented on
Representative James' HB 222, Use of Rented Property/Law
Violations.
MR. BROWN mentioned that he used to live in a condominium
where a neighbor was a crack dealer. He stated that there
was very little that could be done about these people,
because probable cause could not be established to enter the
premises. He said that, under HB 188, the same situation
existed for a banker, who had heard that someone to whom he
or she had lent money for a car was a drug dealer. He said
that the banker or a landlord could risk a libel suit by
seizing the automobile, or evicting tenants. He said that
HB 188 put tenants, lienholders, and bankers in a ridiculous
position.
Number 529
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if HB 188 did not protect liens.
Number 532
MR. BROWN replied in the affirmative. He offered a
hypothetical situation in which a banker had lent a person
money with which to buy a car. In the eighth month that the
person was making payments on the car, the banker learned
that the person was using the car for drug dealing. "What
would the banker do?" he asked. The banker technically had
knowledge of the illegal activity and its relationship to
the car, he said.
Number 538
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned the Attorney General's
recommendation that language on page 6, line 23 of the
April 12, 1993 work draft, "or have reasonable cause to
believe" be deleted. He asked Mr. Brown if he believed that
the situation that he had just described would meet the test
of knowledge.
Number 545
MR. BROWN said that if the forfeiture was litigated, then it
would not meet the knowledge test. However, if a person was
arrested and indicted, the forfeiture would still have to be
litigated. A property-owner would probably win such a case,
although it would cost him or her a great deal of money in
legal fees.
Number 552
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Brown how he would propose to fix
HB 188.
Number 555
MR. BROWN responded that consensus should be reached among
the Department of Law, the Public Defender Agency, the
Office of Public Advocacy, and the criminal defense bar on
how to amend HB 188 so that it was palatable to all parties.
He expressed his concern over the burden of proof contained
in HB 188, as well as the fact that the bill could hurt
innocent people.
MR. BROWN mentioned that a New York law held that real
property could not be forfeited unless it contributed
directly and materially to the commission of a specified
serious felony offense. Also, he said, there had to be
knowledge and complicity.
Number 584
MR. GUANELI agreed with Mr. Brown in that he was in favor of
forfeiture laws. He also agreed with an ACLU position paper
which noted that forfeiture laws were a useful and powerful
tool in the war against drugs. He said that HB 188 was
designed to take the profit out of drug dealing, therefore
serving as a deterrent. He responded to Mr. Brown's
contention that HB 188 was unconstitutional, as it would
require a defendant to disclose information about his or her
defense, or perhaps incriminate him-or herself before trial.
Number 599
MR. GUANELI noted that the Alaska Supreme Court had said
that the preferred procedure, if a defendant would have to
disclose something about his or her defense, or would have
to incriminate him- or herself in a forfeiture proceeding,
was to postpone the forfeiture proceeding until after the
criminal case was resolved. Therefore, he said that Mr.
Brown's concern was invalid. He asserted that HB 188 was
not unconstitutional. He said that to contend that HB 188
would cause innocent property-owners to lose their property
was overstating the case.
MR. GUANELI reminded the committee members that the state
already had a forfeiture law which contained most of the
provisions included in HB 188. He stated that Alaska's
forfeiture laws were not used often, because they were not
as adequate as federal forfeiture laws. He noted that the
state often used the federal system to accomplish much of
what HB 188 would allow the state to do itself. He
commented that the state was interested in seizing
greenhouses in which marijuana was grown, as well as
buildings which were built and used solely for drug
operations.
Number 628
MR. GUANELI indicated that the state was not interested in
pursuing the forfeiture of the family home of someone whose
adult child sold cocaine on one occasion in that house. He
said that prosecutors would not bother to pursue cases
involving innocent property-owners. He commented that
HB 188 started with the current Alaska drug forfeiture law,
and made some specific changes to it. The bill, he said,
would permit forfeiture of real property, and would permit
prosecutors to trace drug money to property purchased with
that money.
MR. GUANELI indicated that HB 188 would require that
forfeiture proceeding costs be paid by the drug dealers.
Additionally, he said that HB 188 allowed the court to seize
non-related assets of a drug dealer, in the event that the
dealer destroyed related assets, or moved them out of the
jurisdiction. He stated that HB 188 was designed to prevent
drug dealers from hiding the assets from their business in
coin collections, works of art, etc., and to take the profit
out of drug dealing. He said that the bill was not designed
to run roughshod over innocent people.
MR. GUANELI commented that HB 188 resolved some ambiguities
in Alaska forfeiture laws, which the courts had noted. He
called the members' attention to his written summary of what
HB 188 did to protect innocent property-owners. Under
current Alaska law, he said, a car, boat, or plane could be
forfeited unless a lending institution proved that it was
not knowledgeable of the vehicle's involvement in drug
activity. An Alaska Supreme Court case held that there was
a very strict test for allowing property to be forfeited.
MR. GUANELI said that the Supreme Court had held that if,
prior to parting with property, the lienholder did not know
or have reasonable cause to believe that the property would
be used to violate the law, or that the violator had a
criminal record or a reputation for committing certain
crimes, property could be forfeited. He commented that
HB 188 reversed that court opinion and said that it was not
enough to show that a bank knew of a borrower's drug dealing
reputation, nor was it enough to show that a bank knew of a
borrower's criminal record.
MR. GUANELI stated that HB 188 provided that a bank had to
know or have reasonable cause to believe that an offense
would occur. He said that HB 188 offered significant
protection to lending institutions.
TAPE 93-61, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. GUANELI, in response to an earlier question from
Representative James, said that if a landlord was notified
of a drug offense after it had occurred, that landlord could
not be reasonably expected to know what had occurred before
he or she had knowledge of the offense. He added that if a
landlord was unable to evict a tenant, it was inappropriate
that forfeiture of the real property occur. He reiterated
his statement that HB 188 was designed to deter drug
dealers, and that seizing property of innocent-owners and
lending institutions did not further that purpose.
Number 034
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that Alaska had a forfeiture
law, which some people contended did not go far enough. He
said that everyone wanted to take property from those who
had acquired it through illegal means. But, it seemed to
him that Mr. Guaneli was saying, "Trust me -- we do not want
to go after innocent people." The fact was, he asserted,
that sometimes innocent parties had their property seized
and HB 188 would require those innocent people to prove that
they did not have any knowledge of the illegal activity. He
had not heard any guarantees that innocent people's property
would not be seized.
Number 072
MR. GUANELI commented that the state now used federal law to
accomplish much of what HB 188 would allow the state itself
to do. One benefit of HB 188, he said, was that the state
would assert control over forfeiture cases, instead of
handing that control over to the federal government. He
noted that any law could be abused, but said that HB 188
contained protections not found in federal forfeiture laws.
He mentioned the "60 Minutes" program regarding federal
forfeiture law, and stated that HB 188 would result in a
different way of handling such cases.
Number 089
MR. GUANELI said that if money was seized under current
Alaska law, officials were required to present evidence to a
judge within 48 hours, connecting the money to drug dealing.
If that evidence was not brought forth, he said, the money
had to be returned to its owner. He stated that there was
apparently a requirement under federal law that, in order
for a person to file a claim for seized property, he or she
had to put up a 10% bond. He noted that there was no such
requirement under Alaska forfeiture law.
MR. GUANELI commented that HB 188 was an attempt to make
Alaska law workable, so that the state could avoid using
federal forfeiture laws.
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Guaneli if the impetus for
HB 188 had come from the governor, or the attorney general,
or himself.
Number 196
MR. GUANELI replied that forfeiture bills had been before
the legislature for the past six years. Previous bills were
much broader than HB 188, he noted. He stated that the
impetus for HB 188 had been the attorney general.
Number 215
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that, if HB 188 was
introduced in order to bring forfeiture proceeds to the
state instead of to the federal government, then it sounded
as if incentive issues were at play.
Number 222
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she would feel more
comfortable if, in cases of titled property in which the
name on the title was different from that of the accused
party, property-owners would be presumed innocent until
proven otherwise.
Number 244
MR. GUANELI mentioned that large-scale drug dealers were
very adept at hiding their property and holding it in such a
way as to prevent its forfeiture. He said that if the
legislature enacted a bill which in essence instructed
people on how they ought to structure the titles on their
property, criminals would do whatever they needed to do to
place their property under others' names in order to prevent
its forfeiture. He said that such an amendment would place
a heavy burden of proof on the state, merely because of a
specific name on a title.
Number 271
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if Mr. Brown had any response
to Mr. Guaneli's comments. He indicated that he would like
to see the state have the ability to seize real property,
but wanted to see protections included in HB 188.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Brown to offer specific
suggestions on ways to amend HB 188.
Number 285
MR. BROWN suspected that when federal forfeiture laws were
written, the U.S. attorney had given the same sort of "trust
me" assurances which the committee was hearing from the
Department of Law. He said that the committee should not
put a lot of trust into those assurances. He suggested that
the committee, at a minimum, raise the standard of proof at
least to "clear and convincing evidence," instead of a
preponderance of evidence.
MR. BROWN said that in his eleven years as a criminal
defense attorney, he had not found that drug dealers were
terribly sophisticated about hiding their assets. He also
suggested that the bill require that seized property have
contributed materially and directly to a serious drug
transaction, instead of the loose and tangential
relationship now contained in HB 188. Also, he said that
defendants and other property-owners should have to know
about, consent to, and otherwise be an accomplice in the
drug activity.
Number 332
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the state had had a
forfeiture law, excluding real property, on the books for
years. He asked Mr. Brown if he knew of any cases in which
a person's property was forfeited due to his or her child
selling drugs while using that person's car or airplane.
Number 336
MR. BROWN did not know of any such cases. However, he said
that HB 188 represented a substantial change in the current
forfeiture laws, for example, the inclusion of real
property, and property traceable to drug offenses.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it was his understanding that
HB 188 did not change the standards for seizing property.
Number 368
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked for Mr. Guaneli's comments on
the idea of putting together a group to try to reach
consensus on the forfeiture issue.
Number 377
MR. GUANELI responded that he had worked with defense
attorneys in the past on legislation. He expressed an
opinion that there would be deep, philosophical differences
in a working group, over the appropriateness of HB 188. He
was not confident that putting a working group together
would result in a consensus. He indicated his willingness
to work with others, however. He stated that HB 188 was a
very narrowly-crafted bill.
Number 402
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said that it would be useful for him
to have a list of areas where the experts disagreed.
Number 414
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned Mr. Brown's concern regarding the
constitutionality of requiring a person to testify against
him- or herself in a forfeiture proceeding, when a criminal
matter was not yet resolved. He commented that it had been
explained that that would be precluded from occurring.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that requiring a preponderance of
evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as was a standard
burden of proof for civil cases, was a policy call for the
committee. He stated that the committee might be
overlooking the fact that the state already had a forfeiture
law in place; HB 188 merely added real property to that law.
Also, he said that federal forfeiture policies might be more
onerous than that which was proposed in HB 188.
Consequently, he said, passage of HB 188 might result in
more protections for property-owners.
Number 454
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that his reading of the bill
indicated that property had to have a direct and material
link to drug activity in order to be forfeited.
Number 466
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON understood that the Alaska Academy
of Trial Lawyers had intended to provide proposed amendment
language to the committee.
Number 469
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND responded that he had received a
letter from Ms. Christine Schleuss of the Alaska Academy of
Trial Lawyers regarding suggested language, and had
distributed that letter to the committee members. He said
that he would like to offer an amendment requiring that the
standard of proof be raised to clear and convincing evidence
in cases involving real property. He did not yet have the
amendment drafted.
Number 510
MR. GUANELI stated that the proposed amendment might be
acceptable to him, although he would like to give the idea
some more thought.
Number 530
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked the committee members if there were
other specific areas of the bill that they wished to
consider amending.
Number 540
MR. BROWN stated that he would like to review proposed
amendments to HB 188.
Number 546
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that the Alaska Academy of
Trial Lawyers' letter raised the issue of a prohibition
against state enforcement officers initiating federal
forfeiture proceedings.
Number 552
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that that issue was completely out
of the province of HB 188.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if the committee should be
looking into addressing that issue in another bill.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that Representative Davidson could
introduce legislation addressing that issue, if he so
desired. He did not know of any situations in Alaska that
those testifying on HB 188 feared would occur if the bill
was enacted. He stated that the state had given prosecutors
and law enforcement officials the same power of arrest and
indictment, and noted that in many cases, arresting a person
for a heinous offense would have a much greater impact on a
person's life than seizing that person's house or car. Yet,
he said, although a person could be ruined by an improper
arrest, that did not mean that no one should ever be
arrested.
Number 580
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that it was his understanding
that any proceeds from forfeited property would have to go
into the general fund, as the state had a constitutional
prohibition against dedicated funds.
CHAIRMAN PORTER concurred. The only way that they would
find their way to state law enforcement agencies or
prosecutors, he said, was through legislative
appropriations.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the state's current forfeiture
laws required property-owners to prove that their property
was not linked to drug transactions.
Number 610
MR. GUANELI stated that he understood Representative Green
to ask if current law contained similar protections for
innocent property-owners. He said that HB 188 expanded
statutory provisions protecting innocent owners. He
predicted that, under current law, Alaska's courts would
probably interpret existing protections to include those
additional protections provided in HB 188.
Number 642
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the difference in
language between HB 188 and existing law seemed to indicate
that a significant change was being made in the law. He
stated that existing law seemed less burdensome for
property-owners than did the proposed language in HB 188.
He asked if the legislature would be creating a situation
which would be more prone to abuse than the situation
created by existing law.
Number 656
MR. GUANELI expressed an opinion that HB 188 provided
greater protection than did existing law. He indicated that
the Alaska Supreme Court had applied a fairly strict test
regarding the circumstances under which a person would be
considered knowledgeable about a drug offense.
Number 667
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Guaneli, Ms. Horetski, Ms.
Schleuss, and Ms. Margot Knuth to craft a committee
substitute which would strike "or have reasonable cause to
believe" on page 6, line 23. Also, he asked that clear and
convincing evidence be incorporated as the standard for
forfeiture of real property. He asked that the committee
substitute be ready for the committee's review on Friday.
Number 683
MR. GUANELI stated that he would be out of town through
Friday, but could be available via telephone.
Number 687
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 211 next.
HB 211: MUNICIPAL INVENTORY TAX EXEMPTION:EXPORTS
Number 706
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 211,
explained that the bill would remove a "glitch" in the
statutes regarding local business inventory taxes which
prevented the transportation hub of Anchorage from becoming
an international warehousing and distribution center. She
said that the bill would allow municipalities to opt to
exempt goods being held for shipment out of state from
inventory property taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY noted that Alaska's proximity to Asia
and the potential for opening a northeastern sea route to
Europe were tremendous incentives for warehousing businesses
to locate in Alaska. House Bill 211 would allow a local
government to explore opportunities for attracting
warehousing and distribution businesses. A local government
would decide what tax exemptions to allow, and then create
its own ordinance to govern those exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY stated that the bill had a zero fiscal
note, and enjoyed the support of the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs, the Alaska Municipal League, and other
entities.
Number 735
MITCH GRAVO, representing the ANCHORAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (AEDC), stated that his organization strongly
supported HB 211. He said that the AEDC was actively trying
to attract warehousing business from large corporations to
Anchorage. House Bill 211 would make the AEDC's job much
easier, he added.
Number 744
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if, under current law,
municipalities could exempt from taxation property intended
to be exported out of state.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what HB 211 would accomplish then.
Number 752
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY responded that HB 211 would allow a
municipality to make exemptions as it saw fit.
Number 768
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE HB 211 out of
committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|