Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/13/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB325 | |
| Indirect Expenditure Hearing | |
| HB400 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2018
3:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 325
"An Act relating to computer use by prisoners; and relating to
an exemption from the State Procurement Code for contracts for
rehabilitation and reentry services."
- HEARD & HELD
INDIRECT EXPENDITURE HEARING
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act relating to the collection of fees by the Department of
Public Safety for fire and explosion prevention and safety
services."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the minimum age of eligibility for
marriage."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 325
SHORT TITLE: PRISONER COMPUTER USE; REENTRY SERVICES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/02/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/18 (H) STA, JUD
02/13/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 400
SHORT TITLE: FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
02/28/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/18 (H) STA, FIN
03/01/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/01/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 325 on behalf of the House
Rules Committee by request of the governor and summarized the
issues to be addressed by the proposed legislation.
BROOKE IVY, Staff
Representative Jason Grenn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the recommendations
of the House Finance Committee's Subcommittee on the Department
of Administration (DOA) during the indirect expenditure hearing.
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the indirect expenditure
hearing.
CHERI LOWENSTEIN, Director
Division of Administrative Services (DAS)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the indirect expenditure
hearing.
GREG SMITH, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the recommendations
of the House Finance Committee's Subcommittee on the University
of Alaska (UA) during the indirect expenditure hearing.
ALEXEI PAINTER, Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division (LFD)
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the recommendations
of the House Finance Committee's Subcommittee on the Department
of Revenue (DOR) and answered questions during the indirect
expenditure hearing.
MILES BAKER, Associate Vice President of Government Relations
University of Alaska (UA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the indirect
expenditure hearing.
DAVID TYLER, Director State Fire Marshall
Division of Fire and Life Safety (DFLS)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
400.
LLOYD NAKANO, Assistant State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire and Life Safety (DFLS)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on during the hearing on
HB 400.
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the forthcoming Amendment 2 on
behalf of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, prime
sponsor of HB 400.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the forthcoming
Amendment 2 during the hearing on HB 400.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:19:49 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:19 p.m.
Representatives Tuck, Wool, Birch, Johnson, Knopp, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representative
LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 325-PRISONER COMPUTER USE; REENTRY SERVICES
3:22:16 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 325, "An Act relating to computer use by
prisoners; and relating to an exemption from the State
Procurement Code for contracts for rehabilitation and reentry
services."
3:22:54 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC),
explained that the community residential center (CRC) - or
halfway house - model has been in existence for 20 years with no
changes. The CRCs are where inmates go who are exiting the
prison system; some are on furlough; some are on electronic
monitoring; they are trying to find a job and a place to live.
He stated that currently there is one option for where inmates
can live while transitioning from prison to home or to wherever
they will live; and that is within the CRC halfway house model.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that the problem with the CRC model
is that there has been a 60-65 percent recidivism rate in Alaska
for the past 15-20 years despite changes in the prison system.
He asserted that when people don't have a place to live or a job
when they have finished their sentences, the chance of failure
is high. He said that almost half of these failures occur
within the first six months of release. This occurs because the
process of transitioning from a "hard cell" environment to one
in which the person is productive must have a strategic and
stepdown plan; Alaska does not have that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that another reason the halfway house
model is fundamentally "broken" is the "walk-away" rate, or
escape rate. Every time someone escapes from the halfway
facility, it could result in a felony charge. In 2016, there
were 222 escapes from halfway houses; under his leadership and
with the assistance of staff, that number was reduced to 83 in
2017; however, every one of those escapes represents a new
potential felony charge against the person who walked away from
the halfway house.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS related a third reason for a broken
system: the cost of the CRC halfway house model is very
expensive. He recommended that the committee members not look
at the budgeted rate for a halfway house bed but look at the
actual cost. He offered to share the breakout of the cost with
the committee. He gave examples: at Cordova Center [in
Anchorage], the bed rate is $117 per day per person; at Tundra
Center in Bethel, the rate is $312 per day per person; at
Northstar Center in Fairbanks, the rate is $176 per day per
person; at Seaside Center in Nome, the rate is $145 per day per
person; and at Glacier Manor Half-Way House in Juneau, the rate
is $206 per day per person. He concluded that it is a costly
model, which is the reason he is looking for innovations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS continued by relating other problems with
the model: the inmates don't want to go to the halfway houses;
it is difficult to fill the beds due to problems at the facility
such as drug trafficking; and there isn't enough for the
residents to do. He maintained that without work to do or
places to go, the temptation is to escape or use drugs.
3:27:48 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS gave a final cause contributing to the
[halfway house] model being broken: the procurement
requirements that DOC is currently under. He pointed out that
the request for proposal (RFP) for DOC is 150 pages; it
represents the boilerplate procurement procedures; and anything
over $100,000 requires a very cumbersome and bureaucratic
process. He maintained that the places where he wants inmates
to go when exiting prison are smaller locations and smaller
facilities. People do much better in those locations, and they
are cheaper. He referred to testimony during the 2/13/18 House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting from operators of some
of those small places.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS summarized by saying that it is his desire
that the committee members understand the scope of the issue and
why there are problems with the current halfway houses. He
mentioned that he appreciated the discussion and concerns raised
during the 2/13/18 committee meeting hearing. He maintained
that he is requesting an exception to the procurement rules, not
for the entire department but just for a small amount of money,
$17-18 million, to allow him to pilot a different model.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that the model in place has
benefited the DOC contractor for 20 years, and millions of
dollars are "on the line." He emphasized that this initiative
in no way is meant to disrespect the DOC contractor: this is
the contract DOC requested; it is the bid DOC awarded; and the
contractor provided the service. He maintained that DOC could
do better. He is requesting to be allowed an exception to the
procurement rules - if not for $17-18 million, then for $5
million - to try a pilot project to demonstrate improved
results. He said, "Put requirements on me if you must about
where that money was spent and how that was put together." He
reiterated that the current model is not working, and that is
why he is making this request to the committee.
3:30:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to Commissioner Williams's
testimony that there are drugs inside the halfway houses. She
asked if there is legal action that could be taken against a
contractor if drugs are allowed inside the halfway house.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that the contractors are as
deeply concerned about this issue as is he. He maintained that
the problem lies in the halfway house model: it houses
50 people with no common purpose; some are using drugs and
bring them into the halfway house; some are recovering drug
addicts that don't want to have drugs around. He asserted that
the contractors are not allowing the presence of drugs but are
fighting it like he is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern regarding
establishing a halfway house in a neighborhood without notice to
the neighborhood and the possibility that the proposed
legislation would allow the requirement of public notice to be
circumvented. She added that halfway house residents are
criminals and putting them into neighborhoods would
understandably make residents unhappy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that the proposed legislation
would not preclude any local ordinances, requirements, or
controls regarding the locations of the halfway houses. There
would be discussions at the municipal level, prospective
providers would be heard, as well as objections, and it would be
a community decision. He stated that another consideration is
that the residents of the halfway houses are being released to
the communities regardless. He offered that his proposal
addresses a choice: either an inmate will spend the last six
months of his/her sentence in a halfway house with a 65 percent
recidivism rate upon release due to insecure employment and
housing; or the inmate will live in a local, innovative housing
unit that is smaller, under the control of local ordinances, but
where escapes and drugs are less likely. He added that people
in the smaller locations have problems, but there are fewer
problems. There are many more problems in the large places with
50-100 men, who have nothing in common; some want to continue
trafficking in drugs and some want to get well.
3:35:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his concern that if halfway
houses are placed in communities with no economic opportunities,
an inmate who was not productive before prison, would not be
productive upon release even if he/she was in a smaller
residential facility. He offered that if procurement is an
issue, it could be addressed administratively. He referred to
the communities - Bethel, Cordova, and Nome - and questioned
what could be done in a halfway facility - whether it housed six
or sixty men - that would result in the residents being
productive. He maintained that there are drugs in prisons,
hospitals, and schools; the size of the facility would not make
a difference; if the residents are using drugs, then it is
impossible to keep the drugs out of the facility. He concluded
that he is unable to make the connections between procurement
codes, smaller living facilities, and the type of rehabilitation
that Commissioner Williams is seeking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that research shows that for peer-
oriented returning citizens, who have a common issue that they
are working on together, a six-bed facility is better than a
sixty-bed facility. He described the larger halfway houses:
sixty people housed in one place; four to six people to a room;
varied sleeping and employment schedules; and residents who are
not working. He stated that they are a "hodge-podge" of
individuals who don't have "a lot pulling together."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that the reason that smaller
locations work better is because the residents support each
other; they help each other find jobs; and they are held
accountable by a house parent. He said that this model is used
in Norway; the recidivism rate is 25 percent. He maintained
that the success in that country is not just because of the
money that is spent on prison treatment programs. Their prisons
are not that much better that those of the U.S., although there
are a few things they do better. He said, "What they are better
at is how they step people down." The prisoners start out at a
maximum-security facility; they work their way out; they go into
a halfway house in downtown Oslo with a maximum of 15-20 beds;
and they all have jobs. He continued by saying that finishing
one's prison sentence in one of these halfway houses is a
privilege; the residents all have a lot to lose. He reiterated
that the research on the success of the small peer-oriented
facilities is very clear; and the operators of these small
facilities have testified that the results are good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS mentioned a facility in the Kenai area:
it is a faith-based organization; there are three individuals
just out of prison at the facility; the operator is helping them
to secure jobs and "keep on track"; and the individuals go to
Narcotics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous (NAAA) meetings. He
maintained that the operator is barely able to keep the facility
operating. He stated, "It's all on a shoestring. It's amazing
the results." He asked to be given the opportunity and
flexibility to pilot this initiative, because he sees already
that it is working.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that he has put many of the men
whom Commissioner Williams referenced to work and has seen very
limited success. He said that the men worked for a while; they
did very well; they were hard-working and smart; they were
happier than they had ever been; and they were making more money
than they had ever made. He stated that after about 30-60 days
of good paychecks, they don't make it to work on Monday; then
lose more days of work; then don't show up again; and
Representative Knopp gets a phone call that they are
incarcerated. He maintained that he is not as optimistic as the
faith-based [organization] that is doing this work every day.
He conceded that there have been a few successes with the men
being actively involved with the church.
3:41:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to sixty men in a halfway house
with ten units and six people to a unit. He conceded that a
small housing unit offers a more normal lifestyle for the
residents but suggested that there would be efficiencies in
having 60 men under one roof; having the men in ten different
properties would be very labor intensive and require additional
oversight, administration, and management.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that the larger facility might
be operationally efficient; however, it is not economical. He
said that the larger facilities are very costly due to
requirements regarding cameras, doors, staffing, and many other
"hard" costs. He reiterated that he has broken out the costs
and can demonstrate the actual cost of the beds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS relayed that the other consideration is
that the failure rate is high [for the large facilities]. He
maintained that the smaller nonprofits are better at
transitioning inmates back into society: these facilities are
in smaller peer-oriented communities; the facilities are run by
well-intentioned and seasoned people who are in recovery and
have been for five to ten years; the involvement of the
operators in helping people reenter society is not only
different, but better. He explained that inmates do not want to
go to halfway houses, and their issues and concerns about going
to halfway houses are "real."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS expressed his belief that the current
halfway house model is the cornerstone of the failure to control
the high recidivism rate; and his staff is convinced of this as
well. He said that when asked why he is not putting more people
in halfway houses, he responds that there is a problem with the
model; the model was developed for relief for population
control; it is no longer used for that purpose but as a step-
down unit. He summarized that the easiest course of action for
him is to do nothing; however, continuing to follow the same
failed model after 20 years will not produce different results.
He stated that his job is to bring problems to the forefront and
attack them with new solutions. He asked the committee for its
help and for any suggestions it might offer.
3:45:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that his principle objection to HB
325 is bypassing the procurement guidelines. He expressed his
belief that there are administrative remedies, which the
Department of Law (DOL) could provide. He offered that absent
the procurement waiver proposed by HB 325, a competitive bid
document could be drafted by DOC that defines exactly what is
wanted. He expressed that Commissioner Williams appears to have
a very clear idea of what he wants for DOC and that it is a
model that Representative Birch supports. Representative Birch
offered his belief that there are people willing to operate
small halfway houses who could meet the standard established by
DOC, and the competitive bid process would work. He maintained
that the state gets into trouble when it waives procurement
guidelines; it has at times had a poor track in that area.
3:47:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed that he understands being
intimidated by a ream of paper with requirements. He commented
that the halfway house model is broken, as evidenced by the
recidivism rates, and the state should not allow "some old
methodology of 100 pages of procurement" stop it from trying
something new. He mentioned that he spoke to Kara Nelson
[Director, Haven House Juneau] who testified during the hearing
on HB 325 [during the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting of 2/13/18]. He referred to the public television [360
North] documentary, [entitled "Inside Out Leaving Prison
Behind"]; he recommended that the committee members see the
documentary. He repeated the question he asked Ms. Nelson after
the meeting, which was: Haven House is operating well;
therefore, what is the problem?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that the scope of the problem is
expecting someone from Haven House to work through an RFP. He
said that he appreciates the suggestion to shorten the RFP but
maintained that he doesn't know how to do that. Even if the RFP
is soliciting a proposal for a six-bed facility, if the bid is
for over $100,000, the entire process must still be followed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that he is working on a "Plan B" if
HB 325 doesn't pass. He maintained that there is a reason that
the small facility operators don't apply and expend the great
effort.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he learned [from Ms. Nelson] the
state can't pay Haven House to house inmates transitioning to
life outside, because the organization has not fulfilled the
procurement obligation; Haven House is operating on a volunteer,
nonprofit, donation basis; and it is not getting money from the
state. He mentioned that the state is paying the Northstar
Center in Fairbanks, $176 per day per person. He added that the
center is across the street from his business; the center has
"walk-aways", but that doesn't impact him because they don't
stay in the area. He mentioned that in the neighborhood where
he lives, there are a couple group homes for troubled youth, and
he doesn't really notice them either.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained that he likes the Haven House
model as a method of transitioning prisoners to functioning on
the outside world. He asserted that he does not agree with the
statement, "Because they're once prisoners, they're forever
deemed unproductive, and you can never get them functioning in
society." He stated that he knows people who have been
incarcerated and are now out of prison and functioning well.
There are different reasons for people to go to jail; not all
are destined to a life of nonproductivity; people can be helped,
as Norway has demonstrated. He said that he believes that
downsizing and allowing for closer interactions is a good model.
He said that he applauds Commissioner Williams for exploring a
different model; and he supports circumventing the procurement
codes to allow for a limited pilot project. He said, "What's
the hurt in trying, because we're doing pretty poorly as it is?"
He mentioned the expense of one person supervising six residents
but maintained that there is a high cost associated with a 60-70
percent recidivism rate, that is, the added expense of public
safety, court, and prison.
3:52:56 PM
Vice Chair LeDoux stated that before supporting HB 325, she
wants to hear someone from the Department of Administration
(DOA) say that there is no way for smaller projects to have a
fast track or "lighter" procurement policy. She maintained that
if there is no way, then that is a problem. She offered that
rather than address this problem on a department-by-department,
project-by-project basis, there should be a mandate that the
administration adopt realistic procurement codes. She
maintained that she supports the model that Commissioner
Williams has presented; however, she claimed that she wants to
make sure there is no way the change could be made in the
procurement code. She stated that she would rather spend her
legislative time on something that resulted in a simpler
procurement code so that the requests from departments didn't
come in one by one and each need separate legislation. She
offered that projects under a certain amount could have a
streamlined procurement process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded by saying that for under
$100,000, there is a fast track; however, that amount is spread
out between three to five years. He gave an explanation using a
hypothetical situation: DOC signs a contract with Haven House;
it awards Haven House $50 per night per individual; there are
four to five people who are still serving sentences but are now
housed at Haven House; the amount exceeds $100,000 over the
course of three to five years - the length of the contracts. He
suggested that perhaps there should be more flexibility on the
fast track dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that $17 million is spent on halfway
houses. He asked that as an alternative to the proposed
legislation, he be allowed to bypass the procurement rules for
$5 million; institute a pilot project; track the results after
three years; and try to improve the halfway house model.
3:56:05 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX maintained that if DOC has a problem with the
fast track, there are probably other departments with that
problem. She suggested that the procurement code should be
revised not just for DOC, but for all departments; and without
that, she cannot support the proposed legislation.
3:56:50 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX passed the gavel back to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK acknowledged the high recidivism rate; he
expressed that he is shocked by the escape rate at the halfway
houses. He suggested that the contracts require the halfway
houses not to allow escapes or to be penalized for them. He
offered that DOC could do better with the escape rate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that he looked through the DOC
halfway house RFP and was not able to identify anything that
could be eliminated. He mentioned two provisions - facilities
must pay utilities and they must be bonded - and offered that
they are necessary. He asked what in the RFP specifications
could be eliminated. He also asked why DOC couldn't write the
RFP specifications to set a limit for the number of residents in
a halfway house. He maintained that a large part of a
prisoner's success upon leaving the corrections system is
oversight by proper peers - parole officers and probation
officers. He conceded that more focused attention on the
inmates does lose "economies of scale"; however, the greater
personal attention may help reduce the recidivism rate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK summarized the reasons for the failures of
the current system: the expense per inmate is high; the
stepdown plan is inadequate stepdown; there is a high rate of
escapees; people don't want to live there because of the
atmosphere of drug trafficking; and there is nothing for the
residents to do.
4:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited Section 3 of HB 325, [page 3, lines
19-23], which read in part:
(b) In authorizing a contract for rehabilitation and
reentry services made under AS 36.30.850 and (a) of
this section, the commissioner or the commissioner's
designee shall make a determination that the payment
for rehabilitation and reentry services will promote
the use of community-based and culturally relevant
rehabilitative and reentry services most suited to
provide support for the individual
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that at some point DOC needs to
quantify what is being asked for in a contract: number of
square feet for a room; smoke detectors; and supervision
requirements. He maintained that DOC could describe what it
wants in detail; however, he conceded that quantifying the
qualifications of staff to provide rehabilitation and reentry
services would be more difficult. He stated that he supports
looking for options within the existing procurement code; he
expressed his belief that those options exist. He mentioned
that the commissioner's objective is meritorious; however, the
"safest bet" is for DOC to decide what it wants, put out an RFP,
and rely on a competitive bid process.
4:03:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 325 would be held over.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for the various ways that people are
put into halfway houses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that the walk-away rate decreased
by about one-third from the prior year due to being "smarter"
about who was allowed into a halfway house. He stated that he
has been criticized for not releasing more inmates to halfway
houses; however, he maintained that to avoid the escape rate of
2016, DOC has pared down who was eligible for halfway houses.
He relayed that except for very few exceptions, halfway house
residents are people still serving sentences with six months to
a year remaining. The two main groups of halfway house
residents are inmates who are furloughed, as determined by
statute, and inmates on electronic monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she got involved in
government because of someone trying to circumvent the
procurement code and has reservations about allowing it to
happen. She suggested that DOA staff provide information on the
procurement code and the committee explore possible changes to
the code. She also suggested that the committee hear testimony
from the halfway house contractors and get their input on
possible solutions to the halfway house problems.
4:06:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred with the suggestions.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the phrase "culturally relevant
rehabilitative and reentry services" and asked for the
percentage of halfway house inmates who are from outside of
Alaska's urban areas, who might receive a greater benefit by
being in a place with people from their own cultural background
and closer to home. He mentioned that there are a fair number
of Alaska Natives incarcerated; someone from a rural area
paroled in Anchorage must stay in Anchorage to be close to
his/her parole officer; rural halfway houses could help this
urban-rural divide, if there are such places willing to bid on
halfway house contracts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that another reason why the
current model is broken is that there are not smaller facilities
in rural areas; people do not want to go to halfway houses in
one location and try to get a job, knowing that eventually they
will be leaving. He added that even the Matanuska-Susitna
("Mat-Su") Valley does not have stepdown housing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS mentioned Unalakleet and similar rural
communities and emphasized the benefits of financially
supporting even one stable home in such a region to allow Alaska
Natives to return to that location. An operator of a home that
size would never be able to prepare a bid according to the
current procurement code; the specification of square footage is
much less important than the location of the home; and closeness
to home and one's support system is more important. He stated
that the commissioner of DOC still has full custody of halfway
house inmates; in the smaller halfway houses, any problems can
be immediately and appropriately addressed with a measured
response. He agreed that the current halfway house model is not
culturally relevant to many inmates, and there are very few
options for finding a culturally relevant environment.
4:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP clarified his earlier question: For a
person who was nonproductive before jail, what would make them
productive upon release? He expressed his belief that smaller
halfway houses would have no effect on encouraging an inmate to
become productive. People who have had a lifetime of being
productive are likely to be productive after incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that there are two reasons for his
disagreement with the proposal in HB 325: one is waiving the
procurement code; the other is that contracting with smaller
facilities loses economies of scale. If the [hypothetical]
house in Unalakleet is not full, the price per square foot or
per bed would have to increase. He relayed that the discussions
on Senate Bill 91, [passed during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature (2015-2016) and signed into law 7/11/16], and the
discussions of HB 325 both noted the disproportionately higher
incarcerations rates of rural Alaska Natives and a need for
culturally relevant treatment. He maintained that if housing
inmates in a small rural community to attain cultural relevance
results in just one or two inmates, DOC has lost all economies
of scale.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he does not support HB 325 for
two reasons. He maintained that he does not support an
exception to the procurement code, however, would support a
review of the procurement code. He stated that secondly, he
does not agree with the overall plan behind the proposed
legislation.
[HB 325 was held over.]
INDIRECT EXPENDITURE HEARING
^INDIRECT EXPENDITURE HEARING
4:14:31 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be the Indirect Expenditure Hearing. He stated that first
to be considered are the recommendations from the House Finance
Committee's Subcommittee on the Department of Administration
(DOA) ("House DOA budget subcommittee") related to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV).
4:15:23 PM
BROOKE IVY, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, reviewed the statutory change recommendations
offered by the House DOA budget subcommittee in the fiscal year
2018 (FY 18) closeout report, with the use of a handout,
entitled "Statutory Recommendations of DOA Finance
Subcommittee:" included in the committee packet.
MS. IVY relayed that the first two recommendations refer to
APOC. The first recommendation is to streamline some of the
reporting statutes. She mentioned that the APOC office has been
reduced by six positions since FY 16; therefore, workload has
become a problem. Five areas of the statute were identified in
which small changes could be made to create efficiencies and
streamline the workload. A revision to AS 15.13.374(c) would
extend the response time for advisory opinion requests from
seven days to ten working days. This change would avoid pulling
staff from time-sensitive projects. An additional four areas of
statute were identified for possible amendments. In AS
15.13.030(7), the elimination of the word "all" would allow the
agency some discretion in choosing the documents to be
investigated, examined, and compared for audits. A revision to
AS 15.13.040(g) would extend to "groups" the exemption from
certain filings for contributions to small campaigns; it would
apply to groups raising no more than $2,500 in a calendar year.
There was a recommendation to repeal AS 15.13.040(k), which
requires a filing for a report that is redundant. A new
subsection added by AS 15.13.090(c) would clarify some size
requirements for the "paid for by" identifiers.
MS. IVY relayed that the second recommendation relates to
exploring increases to APOC fee collection. In the FY 18
proposed governor's budget, there was an effort to increase
designated general fund (DGF) program receipts; however, APOC
testified that it would be unable to collect those receipts
unless it has statutory authority to do so. Certain user groups
were identified as requiring the most significant portion of
APOC's time, and these groups were not included in statute;
therefore, the recommendation was to ensure that these user
groups were addressed in statute to be able to collect fees from
them. Registration fees were considered for other user groups,
such as public officials, legislators, and candidates for
registration, which is addressed under HB 91.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked where HB 91 is currently in the
process.
MS. IVY expressed her understanding that HB 91 has passed out of
the House Finance Committee and is currently in the House Rules
Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. Ivy to identify HB 91.
MS. IVY replied that HB 91 was sponsored by Representative Sam
Kito; it creates fees for lobbyists filing with APOC; and it
establishes a $50 registration fee for public officials, with an
exception for those in communities of 15,000 population or less.
She added that persons not qualifying as a group or non-group
entity would be subject to a $100 registration fee; and this
would include the previously mentioned entities not captured in
statute.
4:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for clarification on the
recommendations and asked if they support HB 91.
MS. IVY explained that the recommendations she related were
offered by the House DOA budget subcommittee in FY 18 based on
an amendment process that took place in the committee; however,
the subcommittee is not explicitly offering support for HB 91;
it is simply noting that the issues raised in the recommendation
would be being partially addressed by HB 91. She added that she
cannot relay the rate of the fee, since it was not addressed in
the subcommittee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added that the finance subcommittees look
at what the agencies are doing and try to cut the budget where
possible. Sometimes previous legislatures have passed statutes
that direct agencies to perform activities that are superfluous;
therefore, eliminating those statutes can help those agencies
streamline and reduce the budget. He stated that the
recommendations represent ideas for the legislators; it is their
choice whether to act on them.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if these are just suggestions from
some members of the subcommittee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered that they specifically came from
the House Finance Committee's Subcommittee on DOA. He offered
that the introduction of HB 400 [which relates to fees for fire
prevention measures], resulted from recommendations of the House
Finance Committee's Subcommittee on the Department of Public
Safety (DPS). He maintained that some of these ideas can be
rolled into a committee bill and be acted upon; however, it is
at the discretion of the committee.
4:24:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP explained that in the finance subcommittee
process, one of the conversations was about expenses of the
state, but it also addressed [lost] revenue called "indirect
expenditures" due to subsidies, waivers, or exemptions for
something for which the state would typically charge a fee. He
maintained that the process of looking at indirect expenditures
is to determine if they are being utilized, if the state is
being too generous with them, and whether they should continue.
He added that HB 91, also referred to as the "lobbyist bill,"
addresses the recommendations for generating revenues for APOC.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred.
4:25:23 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), stated that APOC is in support of the
statutory recommendations, which would alleviate some of the
heavy workload due to staff reduction.
4:26:06 PM
MS. IVY referred to the second page of the handout, entitled
"Statutory Recommendations from DOA Finance Subcommittee:"
included in the committee packet, to describe the third and
fourth recommendations, which relate to DMV. She relayed that
the third recommendation is to amend AS 18.65.310(g) to change
eligibility for identification (ID) card fee waiver from 60
years of age and older to 65 years of age and older. She
explained that it currently is a $15 waiver. She said that
making this change would make the age for this waiver consistent
with the other DMV related waiver - the $100 registration fee
waiver - specified in AS 28.10.411(f). She added that the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) supported this change.
4:28:08 PM
CHERI LOWENSTEIN, Director, Division of Administrative Service
(DAS), Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that by
establishing the $15 waiver at age 65 instead of 60, there would
be approximately 11,925 ID cards that would not be waived for
the next five years, which would amount to $178,875 in
additional revenue to the state.
MS. IVY stated that the fourth recommendation is to amend AS
28.10.421(d) to increase the vehicle registration fee for
municipal governments and charitable organizations from $10 to
$50; under the current waiver, they pay $10 - a $90 deduction.
She added that there are many users of that exemption.
MS. IVY relayed that the fourth recommendation includes also the
repeal of AS 28.10.481(i), which would remove the $100 per
vehicle exemption for those with amateur mobile radios.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the 5,543 vehicles mentioned in
the handout as the number of vehicles for which the discount was
used. He asked Ms. Ivy if she has a breakdown of the vehicles -
municipal versus charitable.
MS. IVY replied that she did not have that breakdown. She
mentioned that the numbers on the handout are directly from the
closeout report from the House DOA budget subcommittee. She
said that she has since learned that the total number of
vehicles in FY 17 for which the exemption was used was 9,008,
but it was for a period of over two years.
MS. LOWENSTEIN responded that she did not have the breakdown of
vehicles receiving the exemption but would provide that
information.
4:31:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the $498,870 in lost annual
revenue incurred by the $90 discount per vehicle, stated on the
handout, and said that by reducing the discount to a $50
discount, DMV will not recoup the full half a million [dollars].
He asked if Ms. Ivy had the revised revenue amounts.
MS. IVY answered that she has calculated the FY 15 savings; an
additional $40 per vehicle would have resulted in $221,720 in
additional revenue. She stated that these recommendations were
passed via the amendment process in the House DOA budget
subcommittee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified by saying that eliminating the
exemption entirely would result in about half of a million
dollars in savings; changing the exemption to $50 would result
in about quarter of a million dollars in savings.
MS. IVY concurred.
4:33:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the recommendations from the
House Finance Committee's Subcommittee on the University of
Alaska (UA) ("House UA budget subcommittee") would be presented,
which relates to the Alaska "Washington, Wyoming, Alaska,
Montana, and Idaho" (WWAMI) Program.
4:33:47 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State
Legislature, referred to the handout, entitled "2018 Session
Operating Budget Statutory Change Proposal," and reviewed the
recommendations of the House UA budget subcommittee related to
the WWAMI Program. He relayed that the recommended statutory
change would impact AS 14.43.510(a); currently students that do
not return to the state pay 50 percent of the state financial
assistance; under the proposal, students would pay 100 percent
of the state assistance. He explained that currently students
pay 50 percent of what can be $150,000 state share, if they do
not return to practice in the state. He expressed his belief
that they must also pay 100 percent if they don't complete the
schooling.
MR. SMITH stated that he has heard that graduates not returning
to the state pay about $400,000 annually; however, he expressed
his belief that even with doubling the percentage of repayment,
the amount to be paid would not double due to "behavior change."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for a restatement of the statutory
recommendation.
MR. SMITH stated that the purpose of the recommendation is to
increase the amount that a WWAMI student, who does not return to
the state, must pay from 50 percent to 100 percent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what the fiscal impact of the
proposed change would be.
MR. SMITH referred to page 51 of the Indirect Expenditure Report
[January 2017, LFD], included in the committee packet, and said
that the estimated revenue impact stated in the report
represents the total loan forgiveness for WWAMI graduates; for
those students returning to Alaska, a percentage of the state
assistance [owed] is removed every year depending on the student
being in a rural or urban setting. He said that the amounts
shown on the report account for that adjustment. He expressed
his belief that doubling the percentage owed by non-returning
WWAMI students would not result in the state recouping the
approximately $1.5 million in estimated revenue for FY 15 shown
on the report [page 51(8)]. He said that WWAMI students not
returning to the state are currently paying about $400,000 per
year; with the repayment at 100 percent, the amount would be
close to $800,000; however, the question is, "Would some return
if the full amount was being required?"
4:37:43 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the estimated impact of the
statutory change.
4:37:55 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division
(LFD), Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), answered that the
estimate would have to be determined via a fiscal note; the
behavioral change is difficult to estimate. He stated that
currently students are awarded "forgiveness" based on the years
that they practice medicine in Alaska; therefore, if the
benefits of doing that are significantly larger, more students
would do that. He maintained that it would be misleading to
assume that the state would "capture" all those savings. He
said that the $400,000 figure is the current amount of repayment
going into the general fund (GF); it represents the repayment of
students not returning to the state. He added that the size of
WWAMI was increased in 2007 from 10 students to 20 students per
year; therefore, there should be larger classes and a larger
impact over time. The impact would have to be determined via a
fiscal note. The numbers in the report are from FY 15, and
therefore, outdated.
4:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he is uneasy about this
recommended change. Alaska has no law school and no medical
program, and the WWAMI Program has had a [positive] impact on
UA. He maintained that he would like input from UA to determine
if the proposed change would compromise a program that has
worked very well. He asked if UA has been contacted regarding
the proposal.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the recommendation came from
the House Finance Committee's Subcommittee on UA, and
Representative LeDoux offered the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for the genesis of the proposal. He
opined that it is not a good idea and asked if the sponsor has a
specific reason for proposing it.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his understanding that the WWAMI
Program offers students a loan to attend Western Washington
University (WWU); currently if the students do not return to the
state, they must repay 50 percent of the loan; under the
amendment, they would be required to repay 100 percent of the
loan.
MR. PAINTER explained that through the WWAMI Program, the
students pay tuition at an in-state rate; all the states in the
program pay a cost per student as a member of the WWAMI
cooperative. He continued by saying that the State of Alaska
considers half of the cost to be a loan, and that loan is repaid
by the students unless they return to Alaska and practice
medicine for three years in rural Alaska or five years in urban
Alaska. He stated that the other half of the cost is considered
a subsidy and is not repaid. He summarized that the payment is
structured as a loan but is really a subsidy for which the state
requires a partial payback.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that the proposed change would
eliminate the subsidy if the student does not return.
MR. PAINTER replied, "That is correct." He said that part of
the reason LFD recommended a review rather than made an outright
recommendation is because it would constitute a strong
disincentive to join the WWAMI Program due to the cost being too
high. He maintained that LFD does not know if that is true or
not.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked, "Why would we care what the cost
is?" He said that the program was an incentive program to get
students to return and practice in the state and asked, "Why
would we pay, if there's no benefit to us?"
4:44:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL clarified that the program includes
Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. He reiterated
that students pay in-state State of Washington tuition;
therefore, is not a "free ride" on tuition. The cost to Alaska
is the cost of joining WWAMI so that Alaska does not have to
build a medical school or create an entire medical school
program. It represents an additional cost; the fee would not
even exist if the student attended the University of Colorado
Medical School, because there would be no state buy-in. He
referred to page 51 of the Indirect Expenditure Report and cited
the amount of estimated annual monetary benefit to recipients
shown in (2) of the section entitled, "Legislative Finance
Analysis per AS 24.20.235," which reports the amount of $8,641.
He asked for the cost per student that Alaska pays to be
included in the WWAMI cooperative.
MR. PAINTER replied that he does not know the cost per student;
however, the approximate cost of the WWAMI Program to the State
of Alaska is $3 million; there are 20 students in each class; it
is a three-year program, which calculates to roughly $50,000 per
student.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what the "$8,600" amount represents.
He asked if it is the annual payment of a loan that is paid off
in 20 years, or if it is the amount incurred every year while in
school.
MR. PAINTER responded that $8,641 is the amount per recipient
lifetime per year. He explained that if a student graduates,
has a reduced cost, and holds the loan for many years, that
amount represents the benefit per year that the student holds
the loan; there are 183 people identified holding these loans
and the total cost is divided by 183.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that the loan period
is not a set number of years; therefore, the amount owed by the
student is not known upon graduation.
MR. PAINTER agreed that he does not know that amount.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Representative Knopp's comment:
Why should we care? Why should we give them any incentive if
they're not going to come back? He asked if he could be
provided with the difference in economic impacts for an Alaska
student who chooses the WWAMI Program and most likely returns to
Alaska, or for one who goes to Colorado and doesn't know if
he/she will return.
MR. PAINTER replied that it is a discussion for the committee to
have. The recommendation was based on data from FY 15; the cost
of medical school has changed since then; and the subcommittee
did not want to make a recommendation that would not stand up
over time.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked that the amounts be calculated for
the current fiscal year [FY 18].
MR. PAINTER answered that the figures could be updated; however,
LFD is not equipped to compare the costs of medical schools.
4:48:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked, "How much discussion has gone on
between ... the sponsor of this proposal and the University of
Washington (UW) or UA or whoever is ... coordinating the WWAMI
Program?" He maintained that there is great cost associated
with starting a medical school; Alaska does not have a medical
school; and the program has provided Alaska with physicians.
4:49:57 PM
MILES BAKER, Associate Vice President of Government Relations,
University of Alaska (UA), relayed that the statutory change was
a recommendation from the House UA budget subcommittee; it was
not a recommendation put forward by UA. He stated that there
have been many questions from legislators this year regarding
the WWAMI Program; UA has provided legislators information in
response to those questions. He offered that the program can be
complicated: it is operated by the UW on behalf of the State of
Alaska to allow the state to be part of a medical school; the
agreement is among the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education (ACPE), UW, and UA. He relayed that the state pays a
fee to be in the WWAMI coalition; if a student does not adhere
to the obligation of serving in Alaska, some of that fee is
recouped through an agreement between ACPE and the student. He
suggested that the committee hear from Jane Shelby, Ph.D.,
Director of the Alaska WWAMI Program, and Stephanie Butler,
Executive Director of ACPE.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his interest in hearing from
people involved with the WWAMI Program to ensure that the
program is not comprised.
4:53:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his understanding that Alaska
pays a fee for its students to participate under an in-state
resident rate; the fee Alaska pays compensates for the non-
resident rate; the students do, however, pay tuition. He asked
for clarification on the amount that is forgiven and the amount
required to be repaid. He said, "Is it simply ... if they don't
return to the state to practice, they have to pay 50 percent of
what the state paid to the organization for the non-resident
rate or for participation in the program, or is part of their
tuition's student loans being forgiven as well?" He expressed
that he would like to know what Alaska is requesting to have
repaid.
MR. BAKER responded that the WWAMI Program was statutorily
created by the legislature, because Alaska does not have a
medical school. He maintained that there are huge benefits to
having a medical school, including Alaskan trained Alaska
physicians. The state has agreed to pay a fee to subsidize the
medical school and the twenty slots that Alaska gets at the
medical school annually. Alaska students compete to be accepted
to one of the best medical schools in the country. They pay a
tuition; however, because Alaska is in the WWAMI cooperative,
the students pay tuition at a resident rate. He said that as
the program has developed over the years, much of the student's
training can be done in Alaska.
MR. BAKER stated that the "fee" that is being discussed is the
fee that Alaska pays to be in the coalition; the fee becomes an
obligation to the student, when the student does not agree to
return to Alaska to practice either three years in rural Alaska
or five years in urban Alaska. If a student serves part of that
time, the 50 percent fee obligation is prorated. He said that
the fee is really the cost to the State of Alaska to have a
medical school through UW; the 20 students are benefiting from
that agreement. He emphasized that the benefit does not
represent a scholarship or the state paying the student's
tuition; it is the State of Alaska's fee to be in the
cooperative. If the students to not follow through with the
signed commitment to return to Alaska to practice for an
extended period, then a portion of that fee becomes an
obligation of the student.
4:58:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether a Washington resident, who
lives in Washington and attends the UA Medical School, would
have the additional "membership" fee or if that fee is unique to
students from the other WWAMI states.
MR. BAKER replied that for the students from the states in the
coalition, there is reciprocity in terms of practicums and
residencies, which can be done in any of those states during the
time the students are in the program. He said that each state
has a different arrangement with UW in terms of fee structure
and whether it is built into the tuition.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for the actual fee assessed per
student under the WWAMI Program - either for the total schooling
or annually. He added that the fee being discussed is the fee
that alleviates Alaska from having to build and maintain a
medical school.
MR. BAKER responded that the fee for Alaska is $50,000 per year
per student during the second, third, and fourth years. He said
that 50 percent of that would be $25,000, and over the three
years would total about $70,000; this is the potential repayment
amount for a student not meeting the obligations of the program,
plus interest.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL confirmed that the amount does not represent
tuition but the fee for Alaska being in the coalition.
5:01:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that there are states in the
WWAMI coalition that have medical schools - Oregon being one.
MR. BAKER confirmed that Oregon was not one of the WWAMI states.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the other three WWAMI states
have medical schools.
MR. BAKER answered that he did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether UW is the only medical
school that Alaska sends students to under the WWAMI Program.
MR. BAKER concurred.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered to invite WWAMI staff to a future
committee hearing.
MR. BAKER asserted that he would provide information about other
WWAMI states having medical schools.
5:03:40 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the recommendations from the
House Finance Committee's Subcommittee on the Department of
Revenue (DOR) ("House Revenue budget subcommittee") would be
presented.
5:04:12 PM
MR. PAINTER relayed that the House Revenue budget subcommittee
originally recommended that the exemption from studded tire fee
or lightweight studs continue. Currently a $5 fee is charged
upon purchase of a studded tire, because they create more wear
on the road. Since the fee is too low to dissuade people from
purchasing studded tires, SB 50 has been introduced to raise the
fee to $50 per tire and to change the weight under which a stud
can qualify as "lightweight" from 1.1 grams to .5 grams. He
concluded by saying that the recommendation was that the
lightweight stud exemption be continued, and the studded tire
fee be reviewed.
5:05:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he loves his studded tires.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that he would not want to
discourage people from using studded tires; he does not support
an increased fee. He expressed his belief that at one time
there was legislation addressing steel studs; people
transitioned then to aluminum studs - the lightweight studs. He
asserted that the $5 fee was to apply to the heavier steel
studs. He said that SB 50 was a surprise.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) personnel has
mentioned the use of a softer, more pliable asphalt mix to
address contraction and expansion [of roadways]. He suggested
that the asphalt may be too soft, causing the excessive wear
from tires. He suggested that consideration be included in the
conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL clarified that the weight of a stud in grams
refers to steel versus aluminum and not the size of a stud. He
maintained that a $50 tax on a $90 or $100 tire is punitive and
ridiculous.
5:07:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the second recommendation of
the House Revenue budget subcommittee relates to recreational
vehicle (RV) rental tax.
5:08:05 PM
MR. PAINTER relayed that the House Revenue budget subcommittee
recommended reconsidering the rate of the RV tax. He stated
that when the legislature enacted the vehicle rental tax 15
years ago, there was concern that RVs, which cost more per day
to rent, would face a very high tax at 10 percent; therefore,
they were taxed at 3 percent, which was considered a roughly
equivalent per vehicle per day cost. He said that the
recommendation is for the legislature to review the statute to
determine if the rate is still appropriate.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked to be provided with the undiscounted
vehicle rental tax rate and the indirect expenditure impact.
MR. PAINTER answered that the normal rate is 10 percent and the
rate for RVs is 3 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed that he believes the ratio to be
appropriate; a car can be rented for $20 per day and a motorhome
for $60-$100 per day.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that renting an RV from a rental
company is more in the $200-$225 range; through 1-800-RV it is
about $200, depending on the size. The rental cost for a sport
utility vehicle (SUV) is more like $70-$80 per day.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how the taxes on RVs compare with
hotel taxes.
MR. PAINTER offered his belief that hotel taxes are municipal
taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the municipal hotel tax ranges.
MR. PAINTER replied that it varies greatly by community.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the rationale for the tax rate
being only 3 percent for RVs and 10 percent for cars.
MR. PAINTER relayed that he reviewed the legislative hearings on
the legislation creating the 3 percent tax for RVs; the
discussion was centered around ensuring that RV rentals were
charged the same tax as cars even though RVs were much more
expensive. He mentioned that the RV rental costs at the time
were much lower than they are today. The intention of the tax
was to generate money to support tourism; therefore, per visitor
was more important than per vehicle to create parity.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that if the tax were per
visitor, the tax on an RV rental would be greater because it
holds more people.
MR. PAINTER maintained that the intent was to make the cost
roughly equal per vehicle regardless of vehicle type. The
easiest way to do that would have been to charge a set cost per
vehicle, but it was not done that way.
HB 400-FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
5:13:22 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to the collection
of fees by the Department of Public Safety for fire and
explosion prevention and safety services."
[Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB
400. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the forthcoming Amendment 2,
labeled 30-LS1490\A.2, Bannister, 3/13/18, which read: [The
text of Amendment 2 is listed at the end of the 3/13/18 minutes
of HB 400.]
5:14:00 PM
DAVID TYLER, Director State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire and
Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed
that his staff suggested that DFLS use the "fix-it ticket"
concept. [Testimony was suspended due to audio difficulties.]
5:15:39 PM
LLOYD NAKANO, Assistant State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire and
Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed
that he is unable to describe the amendment because he has not
seen it.
5:16:07 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, prime sponsor of HB 400, noted that
the forthcoming Amendment 2 is a modification of the amendment
introduced during the 3/8/18 committee hearing on HB 400. She
stated that the new amendment addresses the concern of committee
members that it would be unfair to charge for an inspection and
immediately issue a fine for violations. Under Amendment 2, a
correctable citation would be issued, called a "fix-it ticket";
this would be like being ticketed for driving without a license
and given the option of paying the ticket or showing the court a
copy of the driver's license to allowing the ticket to be
waived. She maintained that Amendment 2 would utilize the same
scheme: if a person is cited for a fire code violation upon
inspection, the person would have 30 days to provide DPS with
proof that the problem was corrected and that he/she is now in
compliance with the fire code. Subsequently, DPS will contact
the court and waive the ticket. She referred to Section 3,
subsection (k), on page 2 of the amendment, lines 23-29.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE addressed the concern that DPS would be
motivated to impose fines to put money into the DPS budget. She
explained that the amendment is written so that the money
generated by the fines go to the Alaska Court System (ACS) and
ultimately to the general fund (GF) and would not be designated
for DPS.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his appreciation with the changes
to the amendment. He stated that he is still concerned with the
fine levied per day of noncompliance and asked how that would
coordinate with the 30 days. He maintained that for a small
operator, a "per day" fine may be severe. He stated that he
supports giving the fire marshal and fire safety people the
authority to fine to pressure people into compliance.
5:19:55 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System (ACS), stated
that ACS's position on Amendment 2 is neutral; it would require
ACS court to establish a schedule of bail amounts, as stated in
Section 3, subsection (m), on page 3, lines 4-8. She cited the
language on page 1, lines 12-14, which read: "Each day that the
violation or noncompliance continues is a separate offense."
She offered that the provision may impose a logistical problem:
when someone gets a ticket, it is immediately electronically
filed with the court and can be paid online or later; however,
the ticket is for the amount on the ticket, and ACS would not be
counting days and assessing an amount more than what is on the
face of the ticket. She suggested that the language may be a
remnant of when a violation was a Class B misdemeanor. She
maintained that the wording is not wording that she has seen in
conjunction with a citation.
MS. MEADE continued by saying that ACS can accommodate a
procedure that involves people correcting violations and
demonstrating proof of correction to DPS, and DPS notifying ACS.
She stated that the "30 days" is the same timeframe that ACS
allows for people to pay the citation, before sending a warning
letter. She maintained that shortening the period in the
amendment would allow ASC to avoid sending warning letters to
people who are correcting their violations within the 30 days.
She concluded that ACS can comply with everything else in the
amendment; there are some redundancies, but they are drafting
issues.
5:23:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL relayed that depending on the type of
infraction and the remedy required, 30 days may or may not be a
long time. He suggested that instead of shortening the period
allowing for a correction, the "fining" process be started after
the 30 days if no correction has been made, which would avoid
letters being sent unnecessarily.
MS. MEADE answered that she does not know if DPS could comply
with that procedure, since personnel use hand-held devices that
perform automated downloads to ACS at the end of their shifts.
She stated that she is not certain if they can reverse citations
written so that the citations are not filed with ACS. She added
that the warning letter, sent to a person who has not paid or
responded to a fine, goes out 30 days after a citation and it is
required by statute; the person must get a warning within 30
days before ACS can issue a default against the person. She
suggested that the citation could be dismissed after the 30
days, if DPS notifies ACS that the violation has been corrected;
however, warning letters would have been issued unnecessarily.
5:25:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that he supports issuing the
warning letter right at 30 days; the person with the violation
has 30 days to correct it and submit the proof; if that doesn't
happen then the letter serves as a reminder and notifies the
person that penalties are forthcoming. He maintained that
smaller violations could be remedied in a few days or a week;
violations regarding larger commercial fire extinguishing and
retardant systems may take longer.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed that the proposed legislation is
a step in right direction. He asked whether there is a scenario
under which HB 400 would impose multiple-day fines. He asked if
his understanding is correct: the language that "each day is a
separate offense" is incorrect; an infraction incurs only one
fine for up to $500; and the fines do not accumulate over
multiple days.
MS. MEADE responded that the language with respect to citations
is new to her; ACS does not typically impose fines that way; and
under HB 400, ACS would be setting the fines for each of the
violations listed in AS 18.70. She reiterated that in her
experience, she hasn't seen an "escalation" clause or "rolling"
clause; ACS will set the appropriate fines and the person
receiving the fine will owe the dollar amount shown on the
citation, and not a multiple of that fine based on the days of
noncompliance.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that the amendment could be
corrected to reflect that concern.
5:28:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her understanding of the
amendment: if the person does not correct the violation within
the 30-day period, he/she is charged up to $500 per day. She
cited page 1, lines 12-13, which read: "Each day that the
violation or noncompliance continues is a separate offense."
MS. MEADE replied that she does not believe that sentence
belongs in the proposed legislation because it is incompatible
with ACS establishing a bail schedule and setting an amount for
an offense, that is, one citation with a single dollar amount.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the language could be
revised under a new amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to DPS downloading citations at the
end of a shift using an automated devise. He asked if that is
the case for fire marshal inspections. He stated that his
recollection is that upon inspection of his business, he was
given a hand-written booklet by a fire inspection person, which
is different than being stopped and cited by an Alaska State
Trooper (AST) on the highway. He asked if fire marshals use
handheld automatically downloadable devices.
MS. MEADE answered that her understanding is that the proposed
legislation would be the first law that gives fire marshals the
authority to issue citations, as opposed to charging violators
with misdemeanors.
5:30:59 PM
MR. NAKANO replied that currently DFLS does not have a process
for issuing citations; however, if HB 400 passes, it will use
the same process that AST uses, since deputy fire marshals that
conduct fire inspections are police officers. They will use two
electronic devises: one to conduct the fire inspection and one
to issue the citations.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that the bail amounts cited on
page 3, lines 4-8, would be set by ACS, and the language on page
1, lines 12-14, would be "cleaned up" to clear up the "per day"
issue. He asked if his understanding is correct: the set
dollar amount is for the citation and the bail schedule is for
the misdemeanor charge.
MS. MEADE referred to the language on page 3, lines 4-8, which
read: "The supreme court shall establish a schedule of bail
amounts." She stated that the meaning of the word "bail" in
this context is probably 100 percent different from what
Representative Knopp is expecting in terms of criminal
procedures. She said that it would be more appropriate to refer
to it as "fine amounts," but for historical reasons it is
referred to as "bail amounts." She maintained that ACS
establishes fine schedules; for example, it does so for traffic
violations and for Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
violations; the legislature has directed ACS to establish fine
amounts. She stated that under HB 400, ACS would establish the
fine amounts for all the offenses listed in AS 18.70.010 through
AS 18.70.100, and the fines would be $500 or less.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS summarized by saying that the legislature
delegates the responsibility of setting the fine amounts to ACS.
MS. MEADE concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether fire marshals were more
suitable than ACS for setting fine amounts for the different
levels of violations.
MS. MEADE responded, "That's right." She said that when ACS is
assigned this task by statute, it exclusively works with the
agency involved. She maintained that ACS does not have the
expertise to determine appropriate fines; therefore, it would
create the bail schedule in conjunction with the agency
involved.
5:34:50 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE offered that the amendment was written [giving
ACS the task of setting the bail schedule] because there were
concerns about regular updates to the fire code; if the fines
were set in statute, the legislature would have to review the
statutes every year; if ACS sets the bail schedule in
conjunction with DPS, it can keep abreast of the current fire
codes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether ACS revises these schedules
on a regular basis.
MS. MEADE answered, "No and yes." She said that ACS is passive
and receptive to requests from agencies. She explained that
typically ACS responds to an agency's request for a fine to be
updated; the request becomes a project assigned to staff,
accompanied by a series of meetings and preparation for the
revision.
The following amendment to HB 400 was either discussed or
adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in
the main text only.]
AMENDMENT 2 [30-LS1490\A.2, Bannister, 3/13/18]
Page 1, line 2, following "services;":
Insert "and relating to penalties for violating
fire protection and safety requirements and orders"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 18.70.100(a) is amended to read:
(a) A [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (c) OF THIS
SECTION, A] person who violates a provision of
AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 or a regulation adopted under
those sections, or who fails to comply with an order
issued under AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100, is guilty of a
violation and shall be punished as provided in
AS 12.55 by a fine of not more than $500. Each day
[CLASS B MISDEMEANOR. WHEN NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,
EACH 10 DAYS] that the violation or noncompliance
continues is a separate offense.
* Sec. 3. AS 18.70.100 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) A peace officer or an employee of the
department who is authorized by the commissioner of
public safety to enforce AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 may
issue a citation to a person who commits a violation
identified under this section.
(e) A citation issued under this section must
comply with the standards adopted under AS 12.25.175 -
12.25.230. A person receiving the citation is not
required to sign a promise to appear in court.
(f) The time specified in the notice to appear
on a citation issued under this section must be at
least 35 working days after the issuance of the
citation.
(g) The commissioner of public safety is
responsible for the issuance of books containing
appropriate citations and shall maintain a record of
each book and each citation contained in the book. The
commissioner of public safety shall require and retain
a receipt for each book issued to an employee of the
department designated by the commissioner of public
safety to provide investigative services to enforce
provisions of AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100.
(h) On or before the 10th working day after
issuance of a citation, a peace officer or an employee
issuing a citation under this section shall deposit
the original or a copy of the citation with a court
having jurisdiction over the alleged offense. Upon the
deposit of the citation with the court, the citation
may be disposed of only by trial in the court or other
official action taken by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor. The peace officer or employee who issued
the citation may not dispose of the original or copies
of the citation or of the record of the issuance of
the citation except as required under this subsection
and (i) of this section.
(i) The commissioner of public safety shall
require the return of a copy of each citation issued
under this section and of the copies of each citation
that has been spoiled or on which an entry has been
made and not issued to an alleged violator. The
commissioner of public safety shall also maintain in
connection with each citation issued a record of the
disposition of the charge by the court in which the
original or copy of the citation was deposited.
(j) A citation issued under this section is
considered to be a lawful complaint for the purpose of
prosecution.
(k) If a person to whom a citation is issued
under (d) of this section provides proof to the
department within 30 days after the issuance of the
citation that the person has corrected the condition
for which the citation was issued, the person may not
be convicted of the violation. The department shall
notify the court if the department, within 30 days
after the issuance of the citation, receives
sufficient proof from a person to whom a citation is
issued under (d) of this section that the person has
corrected the condition for which the citation was
issued.
(l) Unless the citation has been voided or
otherwise dismissed by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor, or bail has been forfeited under this
section, a person who fails to appear in court to
answer a citation issued under this section,
regardless of the disposition of the charge for which
the citation was issued, is guilty of failure to obey
a citation under AS 12.25.230(b).
(m) The supreme court shall establish a schedule
of bail amounts. The maximum bail forfeiture amount
for a violation may not exceed the maximum fine
specified under (a) of this section for that
violation. The issuing peace officer or employee shall
write on the citation the amount of bail forfeiture
applicable to the violation.
(n) If a person cited for a violation for which
a bail forfeiture amount has been established under
(m) of this section does not contest the citation, the
person may, within 30 days after the date of the
citation, mail or personally deliver to the clerk of
the court in which the citation is filed by the peace
officer or employee
(1) the amount of bail indicated on the
citation for that offense; and
(2) a copy of the citation indicating that
the right to an appearance is waived, a plea of no
contest is entered, and the bail is forfeited.
(o) When the cited person has forfeited bail
under (n) of this section, the court shall enter a
judgment of conviction. Forfeiture of bail is a
complete satisfaction for the violation. The clerk of
the court accepting the bail forfeiture shall provide
the offender with a receipt stating that fact if
requested.
(p) A person cited under this section is guilty
of failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230(b) if
the person fails to pay the bail amount established
under (m) of this section or fails to appear in court
as required.
(q) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if
a person cited for a violation for which a bail
forfeiture amount has been established under (m) of
this section appears in court and is found guilty, the
court may not impose a penalty that exceeds the
forfeiture amount for that violation established under
(m) of this section.
(r) In this section, "department" means the
Department of Public Safety."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 18.70.100(c) is repealed."
[End of Amendment 1 - HB 400 was held over.]
5:37:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:37
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB400 Sponsor Statement 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 ver A 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Fiscal Note DPS 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment 1 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment2 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB325 Sponsor Statement 2.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Sectional Analysis ver A 2.5.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 ver A 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Fiscal Note DOC 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document-Letter DHSS 2.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document testimony, T Eames CCTHITA 2.15.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Letter of Support- Michelle Overstreet 3.14.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325- Opposing Document- Letter from AACOP 3.30.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| H STA Indirect Expenditure Hearings 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |