03/25/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB171 | |
| HB23 | |
| HJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 2011
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Pete Petersen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 171
"An Act relating to arrests without warrants by peace officers
for certain misdemeanors."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to criminal use of a computer."
- MOVED CSHB 23(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
creating a transportation infrastructure fund.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 171
SHORT TITLE: ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MUNOZ BY REQUEST
02/25/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/11 (H) JUD
03/25/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 23
SHORT TITLE: COMPUTER PRIVACY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PETERSEN, HOLMES
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) JUD, FIN
03/23/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/23/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/25/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) P.WILSON, THOMPSON
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
02/15/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/15/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/17/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/17/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/11 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/08/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/11 (H) Moved CSHJR 4(TRA) Out of Committee
03/08/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/09/11 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 6DP 1NR
03/09/11 (H) DP: JOHNSON, FEIGE, PRUITT, MUNOZ,
PETERSEN, P.WILSON
03/09/11 (H) NR: GRUENBERG
03/25/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor by request, presented
HB 171.
KRIS SELL, Lieutenant
Juneau Police Department (JPD)
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ);
President, Capital City Chapter - Juneau
Member, State Board of Directors
Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 171 on behalf of
the APOA.
EDWARD TALIK, Chief
Ketchikan Police Department (KPD)
City of Ketchikan
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 171.
TERRY VRABEC, Executive Director
Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 171 on behalf of
both the APSC and the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police,
Inc. (AACOP).
JERRY NANKERVIS, Captain
Juneau Police Department (JPD)
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 171.
LAREN J. ZAGER, Chief
Fairbanks Police Department (FPD)
City of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 171.
PAGE DECKER, Assistant Chief
Juneau Police Department (JPD)
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 171.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 171.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding HB 171.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 171.
DAVID BREMER, Staff
Representative Pete Petersen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Petersen, one
of the joint prime sponsors, explained the changes incorporated
into the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 23,
Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as one of the joint prime
sponsors, introduced HJR 4.
BECKY ROONEY, Staff
Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HJR 4 on
behalf of one of its joint prime sponsors, Representative P.
Wilson.
TOM BRICE
Alaska District Council of Laborers
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 4.
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist
Alaska American Federation of Laborers - Congress of Industrial
Organizations (Alaska AFL-CIO)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 4 on behalf of
himself and both the Alaska AFL-CIO and the Teamsters Local 959.
RON AXTELL, Vice President
Laborers' Local 341
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 4, testified in
support of the proposed change to the Alaska State Constitution.
KEVIN POMEROY
Laborers Local 942
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 4.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:50 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Keller,
Pruitt, and Holmes were present at the call to order.
Representative Lynn arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Representatives Thompson and Gruenberg were excused.
Representative Petersen was also in attendance.
HB 171 - ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANORS
1:06:18 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act relating to arrests without warrants
by peace officers for certain misdemeanors."
1:06:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor by
request, explained that HB 171 would allow law enforcement
officers to make an arrest without a warrant for certain
misdemeanor crimes against a person when there is probable
cause. The concept of HB 171 was brought forth by the Juneau
Police Department (JPD), and is endorsed by police departments
across the state. Under AS 11.41 - offenses against a person -
misdemeanor crimes include assault in the fourth degree,
reckless endangerment, stalking in the second degree, custodial
interference in the second degree, sexual assault in the fourth
degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the fourth degree, and
indecent exposure in the second degree. She mentioned that law
enforcement representatives would be providing testimony
regarding why legislation such as HB 171 is needed and how it
would improve law enforcement's ability to effectively ensure
public safety in Alaska's communities.
1:09:13 PM
KRIS SELL, Lieutenant, Juneau Police Department (JPD), City &
Borough of Juneau (CBJ); President, Capital City Chapter -
Juneau, Member, State Board of Directors, Alaska Peace Officers
Association (APOA), after mentioning that she would be
testifying only on behalf of the APOA, said that the APOA is
supporting HB 171 as part of its agenda to promote victims'
rights. She then shared an experience she'd had many years ago
as a patrol officer in Juneau as illustrative of the need for
HB 171. Back then, there was a man in the downtown area who
liked to beat up people who were weaker than himself, especially
drunk people because they were easy targets; he would just start
punching other people simply because they drew his attention.
One night, near the El Sombrero restaurant on Franklin Street,
this man punched a much smaller/lighter man in the face. The
victim, who either couldn't or wouldn't do much to defend
himself, was young and had some mental-health problems but
regardless had done nothing to deserve getting beaten. The
victim was obviously injured by the time she arrived, she
relayed, and witnesses pointed out where the perpetrator had
gone, and knowing whom they were referring to, then-Officer Sell
gave chase and caught up with him by the bank on Front Street.
LIEUTENANT SELL continued:
I got in front of him and told him he was detained as
part of the investigation. He sized me up and down
and said, "No, I'm not." I said, "Yes, you are," and
drew my baton from the ring at my waist. He looked at
me and thought for a second - I felt like I could
almost see the smoke coming out of his ears as he
pondered what might happen next - [and] I will admit
to being relieved when he said, "Okay," and turned
around and put his hands behind his back to be
handcuffed - he had a long history of assaulting
people, both [domestic partners and others], ... and
he knew the drill. I walked him back to the scene to
the approval of the gathered crowd, and put him in the
back of my patrol car, and spoke with the victim, the
victim's friend, and other witnesses. They all agreed
I had the right man and that he had viciously punched
the much smaller man in the face. It also came out in
officer interviews, there and other places, that the
man had punched two other people within about 24
hours, one of whom had [come] ... into the police
department with his eyes swelled shut.
1:12:12 PM
I got out a citizen's arrest report form and offered
it to the people who ... saw the assault. No one
would sign. They were afraid of him. I was
frustrated, but I understood - he was a very scary
man, even for us. None of the civilians in the area
wanted to be the focus of this violent man's attention
and retribution. I told the victim about how I was
going to have to let the man go if no one would place
him under arrest. This is exactly what happened - [I]
took the man out of the car, took off his handcuffs,
and let him go. You can imagine what this did for his
reputation as someone who was going to do whatever he
wanted and nobody, including the police, ... [was]
going to stop him. The bully went on to harm
additional people in his criminal career, until we
finally saw him go to prison for a long period after
he robbed a homeless man: a felony, where we didn't
need anybody who was a witness to place him under
arrest.
But I've always wondered how many of those assaults -
how many of those criminal acts - could have been
prevented if we could have held him accountable more
severely and much quicker. I'm asking you to let the
police protect citizens and to do so immediately after
a citizen is violently attacked. We officers will put
our names down on the piece of paper and take the
responsibility for arresting those who hurt others.
Please don't continue to put that responsibility on
people who are frightened and who have every reason to
be frightened. It is time to tell the bullies and
those who make a lifestyle of intimidating others that
we are done with that behavior, and consequences for
attacking even a stranger will now be immediate.
Thank you - I appreciate your time and attention ....
LIEUTENANT SELL, in response to questions, reiterated that the
APOA supports HB 171, and said she doesn't anticipate that the
arrest authority granted by the bill would be used all the time,
particularly given that even with probable cause, law
enforcement officers often want to conduct additional
investigation before actually arresting someone; instead, HB 171
would give law enforcement officers another tool with which to
address violent behavior immediately. She pointed out, too,
that an arrest would not be mandatory under the bill like it is
under Alaska's domestic violence (DV) statutes. In response to
further questions, she explained that law enforcement officers
already have to determine whether an assault has actually taken
place, whether there really is probable cause to arrest someone,
who to arrest, and whether an arrest is going to be the best way
of addressing the violent behavior or whether alternative steps
could be taken, and the bill wouldn't change that; and that
current law already requires mandatory arrest in situations
involving DV regardless of whether the violence is witnessed by
the officer, and thus the bill wouldn't be used in DV
situations. Again, HB 171 would simply give law enforcement
officers a tool with which to immediately address [non-DV-
related] violent behavior in situations where no one wants to
make a citizen's arrest and the officer hasn't witnessed the
behavior.
1:21:07 PM
EDWARD TALIK, Chief, Ketchikan Police Department (KPD), City of
Ketchikan, expressed support for HB 171, characterizing it as
important legislation that would provide another tool for
Alaska's law enforcement officers. He went on to explain that
the KPD is a small police force, serving a population that
doubles with the influx of seasonal workers and tourists, and
thus there is a definite need for the KPD to keep public safety
at the forefront of its efforts. If passed, he predicted,
HB 171 would give KPD officers greater latitude to address some
of the issues they face daily. Often, calls for service
pertaining to [non-DV-related] assaults come after the fact, and
currently law enforcement officers can't do much unless someone
is willing to place the perpetrator under citizen's arrest. By
allowing an officer that has probable cause to make an on-scene,
warrantless arrest for one of the aforementioned misdemeanor
offenses against a person, HB 171 would go a long way towards
helping the KPD protect its citizens, particularly given that
many times officers end up responding to the same call several
times during their shift; by providing the option of taking an
individual into custody on the first call and thereby preventing
folks from being further injured by that same individual, HB 171
would result in a more efficient use of law enforcement
resources. Furthermore, it makes more sense to arrest a
perpetrator of a violent crime immediately.
1:24:17 PM
MR. TALIK offered his belief that HB 171 would help protect
victims from further violence and serve as a deterrent because
perpetrators of violence would know that they're going to be
arrested immediately when there is probable cause. There must
be a balance between protecting the individual's rights and
protecting the public at large, and HB 171 would be a small step
toward achieving that balance, he opined, additionally offering
his belief that HB 171 would survive a constitutional challenge
because similar laws in other states have done so. In
conclusion, he reiterated his belief that once adopted, HB 171
would help protect people in the community. In response to
questions and comments, he stated that arrests should only be
made when there is probable cause to make an arrest; pointed out
that the bill, already, would only apply to misdemeanor offenses
against a person, and that although there might be a cost
associated with making more arrests under the bill, there is a
huge cost to society and to victims when they are continually
being abused, assaulted, or raped by the same perpetrators of
violence; offered his belief that the authority granted by the
bill would not be used that often, and that it would not be
abused because officers are trained to follow the rules of
arrest which require them to have probable cause before making
an arrest; and surmised that changing the bill such that it
would specifically list the crimes to which it could apply would
still be in keeping with the spirit of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether perhaps the bill ought
to be changed to specify that it could only be used when the
officer also has reasonable cause to believe a danger to the
public exists if someone isn't arrested, but acknowledged that
whether a person should be arrested under the bill could instead
just be left up to the discretion of the officer.
MR. TALIK indicated a preference for having the bill be as
simple as possible.
1:36:11 PM
TERRY VRABEC, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards
Council (APSC), Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed that
both the APSC and the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police,
Inc. (AACOP), support HB 171. In response to a question, he
explained that from the very beginning, the training of law
enforcement officers stresses the importance of learning what
constitutes probable cause and of being able justify all
arrests; and that it is the responsibility of the heads of
Alaska's various law enforcement agencies to ensure that their
officers are following proper procedure. He then offered his
belief that HB 171 would be effecting a good law, and cautioned
against tightening it up to the point where it would no longer
be helpful.
1:39:05 PM
JERRY NANKERVIS, Captain, Juneau Police Department (JPD), City &
Borough of Juneau (CBJ), shared an experience he'd had many
years ago regarding a bar fight he'd responded to as
illustrative of the necessity for and appropriateness of HB 171.
Back then, when he arrived at the scene, the man who'd lost the
fight was unconscious and so couldn't be interviewed, and
although witnesses at the scene pointed out the perpetrator,
none were willing to sign the arrest form, and therefore [then-
Officer Nankervis] was unable to arrest the perpetrator because
he had not witnessed the fight. Noting that as a police officer
he is charged with public safety, he said he wasn't able to do
his job that night, and characterized that inability as just
being wrong. Passage of the bill would neither lower the
standard requiring that there be probable cause before an arrest
is made, nor increase the potential for false arrests; instead,
what would change is that law enforcement officers would be
better able to address public safety issues immediately under
certain circumstances.
CAPTAIN NANKERVIS also noted that when an arrest is made, it
doesn't necessarily mean that the person is actually put in
jail; instead, law enforcement officers might simply take the
perpetrator to the police station and issue him/her a ticket
before releasing him/her. Expressing a preference for having
the bill apply to all misdemeanor crimes so that it would also
address [certain] property crimes, he, too, noted that an arrest
would not be mandatory under the bill. Furthermore, there are
already procedures in place to address abuses of law
enforcement's arrest authority, he remarked, and offered his
belief that law enforcement officers already have a pretty good
idea about what needs to be done in order to maintain public
safety, and that HB 171 would assist in those efforts. In
response to a question, he relayed that whether an assault
warrants a misdemeanor charge or a felony charge depends on the
severity of the injury sustained by the victim, and on the
severity of assaultive behavior.
1:51:50 PM
LAREN J. ZAGER, Chief, Fairbanks Police Department (FPD), City
of Fairbanks, ventured that proof of the value of HB 171 lies
with existing law, specifically the laws pertaining to the
crimes of domestic violence (DV) and driving under the influence
(DUI); years ago, the legislature determined that the state
needed to more effectively and more efficiently address
situations involving DV and DUI, and so provided law enforcement
officers with the authority to arrest in those situations based
on probable cause. House Bill 171 would merely be an extension
of that authority, and wouldn't require law enforcement officers
to change their probable-cause standards, or interfere with
their existing discretion to determine whether an arrest should
be made in any given case. An arrest would not be mandatory
under HB 171, and it has the potential for making law
enforcement more efficient while also being of benefit to the
public.
MR. ZAGER then pointed out that there is a distinction between
arresting a person and charging a person; one could be arrested
but not charged, and one could be charged but not arrested.
Under HB 171, a law enforcement officer would be allowed to
establish whether a particular person is going to be a danger to
himself/herself or others, and then, if the existing probable-
cause standards are met, put the person in handcuffs and take
him/her to jail; the bill wouldn't affect law enforcement's
ability to charge the person with a misdemeanor, but it would
sure affect law enforcement's ability to take the perpetrator
out of play for whatever period of time is necessary to ensure
the safety of the public. In conclusion, he said he supports
HB 171, though he wishes it applied to "virtually all
misdemeanors."
1:55:32 PM
PAGE DECKER, Assistant Chief, Juneau Police Department (JPD),
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ), relayed that he has worked as a
police officer in other states that have had laws similar to
that being proposed by HB 171, and considers such laws to be
great tools, adding that he has not seen them abused, surmising
that that's due to the training law enforcement officers receive
and the internal systems that are in place to deal with abuses.
He then provided members with a handout listing those similar
laws. Characterizing the law proposed by HB 171 as a critical
tool, he opined that Alaska's law enforcement officers need it
in order to succeed in their mission of keeping the peace.
Without the ability to bring control to disorderly-conduct
incidents without the assistance of a willing citizen,
communities can't be assured that their law enforcement officers
will be effective when called upon for help, particularly given
that in such [misdemeanor] cases, law enforcement officers have
no more authority than any other citizen to arrest a perpetrator
of violence. Without adoption of HB 171, there will continue to
be no immediate consequence for those who choose to [violently
misbehave].
1:58:51 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said that officially, the DPS is neutral on HB 171,
though it agrees with the comments made by the previous
testifiers. Regardless that HB 171 might slightly increase the
number of arrests made by law enforcement officers, the DPS
anticipates that the additional time required to make those
arrests would be offset by a reduction in the officers'
workloads because they would no longer need to be continually
responding to the same scene, and by a reduction in the number
of subpoenas and warrants issued. Law enforcement officers in
rural areas of the state would also benefit by the adoption of
HB 171 because it's not always possible for them to contact a
judicial officer immediately [in order to obtain a warrant].
2:00:15 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), said that
HB 171 raises concerns for the PDA because the bill in essence
bypasses any review of the arrest decisions made in [certain
misdemeanor] cases, even those with no exigency requiring
immediate arrest. He predicted that under the bill, arrests
without sufficient probable cause would occur. Furthermore, as
currently written, HB 171 would apply to some very low-level
misdemeanor offenses against a person, and this, too, is of
concern to the PDA, he indicated; for example, the crime of
reckless endangerment could [perhaps] involve something as
simple as driving too fast on an icy road and not being able to
stop at a stop sign.
2:02:57 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in response
to a question, said that the DOL's concerns regarding HB 171 -
as expressed in a letter dated February 7, 2011 - have been
significantly alleviated by the bill's limited application to
only the aforementioned misdemeanor offenses against a person
instead of to all misdemeanors. She said she shares the PDA's
concern that the bill would allow an arrest for an offense
committed outside the officer's presence even in cases that
don't involve exigent circumstances. In conclusion, she
acknowledged, though, that the examples such as the one shared
by Lieutenant Sell illustrate how legislation such as HB 171
could provide a useful tool for law enforcement.
CHAIR GATTO indicated a belief that with very few exceptions,
most law enforcement officers, given all their training,
probably wouldn't abuse the bill.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify on the bill, closed public testimony, and relayed that
HB 171 would be held over.
HB 23 - COMPUTER PRIVACY
2:05:50 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 23, "An Act relating to criminal use of a
computer."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 23, Version 27-LS0172\E, Luckhaupt,
3/24/11, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version E was before the committee.
2:06:29 PM
DAVID BREMER, Staff, Representative Pete Petersen, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Petersen, one of
HB 23's joint prime sponsors, explained that under Version E:
the title has been narrowed to now say, "An Act making the
installation, enabling, or use of keystroke loggers or other
devices criminal use of a computer."; the language of proposed
AS 11.46.740(a)(2) has been divided into a proposed
paragraph (2) and a proposed paragraph (3) in order to clarify
that the bill addresses both the installation/enabling/use of
keyboard logger hardware or software, and the accessing of
keystroke information remotely; there is no longer a provision
establishing an affirmative defense for the owner of the
computer; and the word, "uses" has been added to the language of
proposed paragraph (2) in order to address situations in which
the person who used the keystroke logger to obtain someone
else's personal information was not the same person who
installed or enabled the keystroke logger.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, speaking as one of HB 23's joint prime
sponsors, expressed satisfaction with Version E, venturing that
it addresses all the concerns raised during the bill's last
hearing.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 23.
2:09:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report the proposed CS for HB 23,
Version 27-LS0172\E, Luckhaupt, 3/24/11, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 23 (JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:13 p.m.
HJR 4 - CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
[Contains brief mention of HB 30 and HB 31, which address the
funding and other necessary statutory changes related to HJR 4's
proposed transportation infrastructure fund.]
2:13:25 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska creating a transportation
infrastructure fund. [Before the committee was CSHJR 4(TRA).]
2:13:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors, explained that [if passed by
the legislature,] HJR 4 would place before the voters a proposed
amendment to the Alaska State Constitution establishing a
dedicated fund - in the form of a transportation infrastructure
fund - that would be used to fund Alaska's transportation
projects. In fiscal year 2010 (FY 10), 87 percent of Alaska's
transportation budget came from the federal government, but the
current federal reauthorization legislation has already expired
and been extended many times, and so those federal funds are
only going to be available through September of 2011.
Furthermore, the new federal reauthorization is rumored to be
quite a bit smaller, and is considered to be unfavorable to
states with small populations due to its emphasis on mass
transit, high-speed rail, and "green" transportation.
Therefore, as federal funding continues to diminish, Alaska will
have to shoulder more financial responsibility for its
transportation infrastructure. Investment in the state's
transportation infrastructure creates a competitive environment
that attracts additional economic investments, which translate
into jobs for Alaskans. House Joint Resolution 4 is intended to
provide for Alaska's ever-growing transportation needs.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that over the last couple of
years, the House Transportation Standing Committee has been
seeking and receiving testimony from the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), "grassroots
organizations," and transportation companies regarding the
challenges of transportation in Alaska resulting from its
geographical diversity, and has visited rural and urban
communities across the state, learning about their airports and
basic transportation infrastructures, and the challenges they
face regarding safety, [traffic] congestion, and deferred
maintenance. Furthermore, the Alaska Municipal League (AML) and
the Matanuska-Susitna (MAT-SU) Borough arranged for an
independent study to be conducted regarding the fiscal
challenges of transportation; the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) provided information regarding what other
states are doing to address their transportation-infrastructure
budget gaps; and the federal coordinator for Alaska natural gas
transportation projects provided a list of all funding options
available to address the fiscal shortfalls that Alaska's long-
range transportation plan has outlined.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON relayed that HJR 4 is the culmination
of all that research, and is not intended to diminish Alaska's
relationship with the federal government. Instead, the
intention is to provide for a dedicated revenue stream that
would allow more transportation projects to be completed more
quickly and for less money. Alaska needs to take advantage of
both the cost- and time-savings afforded by state-funded
projects in order to address the state's growing transportation-
infrastructure needs. It is anticipated that the proposed
transportation infrastructure fund would move projects along
much faster, from conception to completion, because state-funded
projects do not have to follow the federal government's highly-
prescriptive and lengthy procedures - which are often expensive
and time consuming - thereby allowing constituents to enjoy the
benefits of such projects much sooner. For example, because
state funds were used for the Elmore Road extension, that
project was completed in less than three years rather than the
seven to ten years it would have taken had following federal
procedures been required.
2:17:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON explained that the proposed
transportation infrastructure fund, in addition to being seeded
with $1 billion and receiving yearly revenue from Alaska's motor
fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, studded tire taxes, and
vehicle rental taxes, would continue to grow as its investment
returns are compounded. Under HJR 4, in any given year, the
legislature could appropriate up to 50 percent of its yearly
revenue, and up to 6 percent of its market value averaged over
the previous five fiscal years. According to a handout in
members' packets developed by the Department of Revenue (DOR),
the proposed transportation infrastructure fund is anticipated
to generate approximately $103 million the first year, and to
increase every year after that by between $3 million and $3.5
million. The legislature would use the same process to
appropriate money from the fund as it currently uses for the
capital budget.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON indicated that there are three pieces
of legislation that together would enable the establishment of
the proposed transportation infrastructure fund: [HJR 4 would
place the proposed change to the Alaska State Constitution
before the voters, HB 31 would provide for the appropriation of
the initial $1 billion to the fund, and HB 30 would provide the
other necessary statutory changes]. As currently outlined in
the legislation, appropriations from the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund could be used for any transportation-related
needs such as capital projects and large deferred-maintenance
projects. And should the legislature later choose to, it could
make further statutory changes such that appropriations from the
fund could also be used for DOT&PF operations, thereby ensuring
that the legislature has the flexibility to use the appropriated
funds as it sees fit.
2:20:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON relayed that those who've testified
before the House Transportation Standing Committee on this issue
agree that the state needs a reliable revenue stream that won't
fluctuate from year to year, and proffered that HJR 4 would
provide just that; with such a reliable revenue stream in place,
the state would be able to implement a transportation plan that
would be independent from the federal government. Historians,
she proffered, write that the drafters of the Alaska State
Constitution were concerned that providing for dedicated funds
would impair future legislatures from responding to evolving
public needs. However, 24 states have constitutionally-required
dedicated funds, and the public need for dependable and
efficient transportation has only grown since the Alaska State
Constitution was written. She offered her understanding that in
one of his speeches, former Governor Hickel indicated support
for the Alaska State Constitution being changed to provide for a
dedicated transportation fund.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON went on to explain that under a change
made by the prior committee, the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund would no longer include revenues from
[airport leases] due to a federal requirement that such revenues
be returned to the airports they were collected from.
[Chair Gatto turned the gavel over to Representative Keller.]
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON mentioned that members' packets include
a list of those who support HJR 4 and would be seeking its
passage in the November 2012 general election. In conclusion,
she opined that Alaska must provide for and maintain a modern,
reliable transportation system in order to ensure the economic
and social wellbeing of its citizens, and that the
constitutional change provided for via HJR 4 - establishing a
dedicated transportation fund - would allow the state to do just
that.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - referring to language on page 1, lines
14-15, of HJR 4 regarding aviation fuel taxes, and to a
memorandum by Legislative Legal and Research Services dated
February 25, 2011, [commenting on federal law as it pertains to
such taxes] - questioned whether, if HJR 4's proposed
constitutional change is approved by the voters, any future
changes to Alaska's aviation fuel taxes would require an
additional constitutional change.
[Representative Keller returned the gavel to Chair Gatto.]
2:25:24 PM
BECKY ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative P. Wilson, one of
HJR 4's joint prime sponsors, offered her belief that any
changes the legislature wishes to make in the future regarding
the appropriation of aviation fuel taxes could be addressed via
a statutory change rather than via another change to the Alaska
State Constitution, and mentioned that under current law,
60 percent of aviation-fuel tax revenue must be refunded to the
municipality responsible for the airport from which the tax
revenue came, and that [the aforementioned HB 30 would
additionally allow] a portion of the appropriations from the
proposed transportation infrastructure fund to be used for
aviation-related projects. In response to another question, she
indicated that use of the phrase, "other transportation-related
fees and funds designated by the legislature" on page 2,
lines 2-3, is meant to provide the legislature with the
[constitutional] flexibility to address such fees and funds
should any be established in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised, then, that use of the phrase,
"transportation and related facilities that are designated by
law" on page 2, lines 9-10, is meant to provide the legislature
with similar [constitutional] flexibility regarding what
appropriations from the proposed transportation infrastructure
fund could be used for.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred. In response to another
question, she ventured that allowing for up to 6 percent of the
market value of the proposed transportation infrastructure fund
averaged over the previous five fiscal years to be additionally
appropriated would provide the legislature with sufficient
flexibility, and pointed out that the legislature could choose
to appropriate less than 6 percent. In response to a question,
she offered her understanding that currently the fees referenced
in HJR 4 are deposited into the general fund (GF).
MS. ROONEY added that under HJR 4, appropriations from the
proposed transportation infrastructure fund could be used for
costs related to motor vehicle licensing and registration that
are designated by law. In response to another question, she
offered her understanding that under [HB 30,] certain specialty-
license-plate fees would be exempt from inclusion in the
proposed transportation infrastructure fund.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to further questions,
offered her understanding that the federal funding of Alaska's
FY 10 transportation budget totaled approximately $400 million,
and explained that under [HB 30, a 19-member Transportation
Infrastructure Fund Advisory Council] would be established that
would prioritize eligible transportation-related projects and
then submit a report to the governor and the legislature making
recommendations regarding which projects should receive funding
from the proposed transportation infrastructure fund.
2:34:51 PM
TOM BRICE, Alaska District Council of Laborers, relayed that the
Alaska District Council of Laborers supports HJR 4, and is
always interested in ensuring long-term, stable funding sources
for Alaska's transportation projects, viewing HJR 4 as one of
the instruments that would help accommodate such. He concluded
by saying that the Alaska District Council of Laborers
encourages the committee to move forward with the resolution,
and looks forward to [promoting] the adoption of the proposed
constitutional change.
2:36:17 PM
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist, Alaska American Federation of Laborers
- Congress of Industrial Organizations (Alaska AFL-CIO), relayed
that both the Alaska AFL-CIO and the Teamsters Local 959 support
HJR 4, and look forward to [promoting] the adoption of the
proposed constitutional change, adding that he, himself - as a
seasonal maritime captain - supports HJR 4, and is looking
forward to having something like [the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund in place] to help out with the state's
harbor needs, particularly given the atrocious state of
disrepair some of the harbors are in, and given the current
limitations of the "municipal grant fund."
2:37:45 PM
RON AXTELL, Vice President, Laborers' Local 341, said that as
someone who's worked in the "heavy highway sector" for many
years, he strongly supports [HJR 4's] proposed change to the
Alaska State Constitution establishing a transportation
infrastructure fund. Regardless that the state does its best to
maintain its roads and highways, Alaska will always be lagging
behind unless it can find a way to fund maintenance and
development, and the recent receipt of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) monies illustrates the effect of
not having such a funding plan in place, he ventured. Alaska's
major highways are in terrible shape, with rutting from studded
tires. How long will Alaskans have to wait before their
highways are repaired? This, he opined, is just one example of
the many problems with Alaska's existing transportation
infrastructure. As a young Alaska moves forward, it will be
forced to pick up the funding burden as the federal deficit
grows and federal monies to states decrease. With financial
uncertainty looming on Alaska's horizon, not moving forward with
[HJR 4's] proposed constitutional amendment could very well
produce a greater strain on future state budgets.
MR. AXTELL offered his belief that the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund would help the state resist the influence of
outside organizations that would prefer Alaska to remain
undeveloped, and predicted that with the establishment of such a
fund, Alaska would have more control over which projects to
proceed with. With many jobs and businesses reliant upon
transportation projects, completing such projects in a timely
and efficient manner would be a win-win for everyone, and it
would be a large disappointment for the state to have to tell
its citizens that it would like to do more development and
improvement but it just can't seem to find the money. In
conclusion, he asked the committee to support HJR 4 and bring
the proposed constitutional amendment before the voters.
2:40:24 PM
KEVIN POMEROY, Laborers Local 942, said he supports HJR 4 and
agrees with the sponsor that Alaska isn't going to be able to
continue relying upon federal funding, and characterized
[HB 31's $1 billion in seed money] as a wonderful investment at
a time when the state has a little bit of money to spend -
unlike some states in the Lower 48. Alaska is going to have to
become more accountable with regard to where it obtains funding,
particularly given that because Alaska has such a small
population, other states are more likely to receive any
available federal funding. For the state to invest in its own
development is a great idea, he opined. Consider, for example,
that many discussions often revolve around ways to
enhance/promote tourism and bring development to the state, and
yet one of the first things visitors to the state see when they
arrive is the condition of the state's airports, ferry
terminals, and roadways - Alaska's transportation infrastructure
- and so it's important for the state to be able to illustrate
that it's capable of taking care of its own infrastructure,
which, in addition to promoting development, is used daily by
Alaskans for a variety of reasons. In conclusion, he reiterated
his support for HJR 4.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify on the resolution, closed public testimony, and relayed
that HJR 4 would be held over.
2:43:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.