Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 09:07 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 15, 1995
9:07 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-95, #12, Side 2, (575-end)
SFC-95, #14, Side 1, (000-575)
SFC-95, #14, Side 2, (575-750)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:07 a.m.
PRESENT
Co-chair Halford, Senators Phillips, Rieger and Zharoff were
present. Senators Sharp and Donley joined shortly after the
meeting began. Co-chair Frank arrived later into the
meeting.
Also Attending:
Senator Miller, Dan Fauske, CEO/Executive Director, Alaska
Housing Finance Corp.; Ron Swanson, Director, Division of
Land, Dept. Natural Resources; Margot Knuth, Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Dept. of Law; Mike
Greany, Director, Legislative Finance; Donna Schultz,
Juvenile Probation Officer, Family Youth Services, Dept.
Health & Social Services; Joe Ambrose, Legislative Aide to
Senator Taylor; and Mary Vollendorf, Legislative Aide to
Senator Leman.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 93 DISPOSAL OF LAND ALONG THE DALTON HWY
Discussion was had with Senator Miller and Ron Swanson,
Director, Division of Land, Dept. Natural Resources.
CSSB14 (RES) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and zero fiscal note from the
Dept. of Natural Resources.
SB 6 LICENSING/REGISTRATION SUSPENSION/DENIAL
Discussion was has with Joe Ambrose, Legislative Aide
to Senator Taylor. This bill will be brought back
before the
Committee Friday, March 17th.
SB 14 INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING
Discussion was had with Margot Knuth, Assistant
Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Dept. of Law; Mary
Vollendorf,
Legislative Aide to Senator Leman; and Donna Schultz,
Juvenile Probation Officer, Family Youth Services, Dept. of
Health
& Social Services. CSSB14 (JUD) was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation, with the
following fiscal notes: Dept. of Administration,
$104.6;
Dept. of Law, $81.7; Dept. of Corrections, zero; Dept.
of Public Safety - Troopers, zero; Dept. of Public
Safety - Motor Vehicles, $96.4; and Alaska Court
System,
$55.0.
SB 92 AHFC SUBJECT TO EXEC. BUDGET ACT
Discussion was had with Dan Fauske, CEO/Executive
Director,
Alaska Housing Finance Corp. Testimony is attached. SB
92
was REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero fiscal note.
SENATE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land along
the Dalton Highway; and providing for an effective
date."
Co-chair Halford invited Senator Miller to sit at the table.
Senator Miller is the sponsor of SB 93 and was given the
floor. He explained that SB 93 does not have a fiscal note,
and has passed out of Resources with a committee substitute.
The Dalton Highway is open to public travel creating a
continuing need for more development along the highway. SB
93 would allow for leasing within already identified nodes,
to include the Yukon River Crossing, Happy Valley, Coldfoot,
and Franklin Bluffs. The procedures provide for public
review. The leasing covers the areas where existing pipeline
camps existed. The areas are well established. Mr. Swanson
from the Dept. of Natural Resources supports SB 93. SB 93
will allow for development, but not strip development.
Senator Zharoff asked who is presently maintaining the
highway.
Senator Miller answered that the Department of
Transportation is maintaining the highway.
Senator Phillips asked how many services are in existence,
at the present time, along that area of the highway. Senator
Miller responded that Coldfoot offers food, gas, tire
changing, etc. Senator Phillips asked how many miles
between stops? Mr. Swanson, responded between 75 - 150
miles between the various service points. Senator Phillips
asked how disposal would be handled? Mr. Swanson answered
that there is an adopted federal land use plan in place.
The bill has restrictions for commercial and industrial
disposal. He spoke of the task force ongoing between federal
and state agencies with the hope to make their
recommendations become the state land use plan for
implementation. Senator Phillips asked for particulars in
obtaining the land. Mr. Swanson replied that the application
requests vary from 5 to 40 acres, for lease or purchase. He
noted that surveying and appraising is a requirement of the
applicant without a time limit.
Senator Rieger moved for passage of CSSB 93 (RES) with
individual recommendations. No objection having been raised,
CSSB 93 (RES) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero
fiscal note from the Department of Natural Resources.
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to registration of a motor vehicle and
suspension of a driver's license for failure to appear
in court or failure to pay a fine."
Senator Halford announced Joe Ambrose from Senator Taylor's
office and asked him to join the committee. Mr. Ambrose
stated that Senator Taylor is the sponsor of SB 6. It is
designed to provide the court system and municipalities
throughout Alaska with additional leverage in the collection
of fines relating to moving vehicle citations and parking
offenses. He also stated that it applies to an individual
who fails to appear in court as ordered. This legislation
passed the Senate last year on a 17 - 3 vote as SB 166. SB
6 would be a valuable tool for use by the courts in
addressing the problems created by those who choose to
ignore the law, especially those who fail to make court
ordered appearances or to pay fines imposed by the court.
The bill is based on statutes from other states. The
experience in the State of Washington indicates that over
50% of those who receive notice of possible sanctions, clear
up outstanding matters within a week. SB 6 ties together
the failure to settle moving violations to the drivers
license, and parking violations to vehicle registration.
This mirrors the California law. A new fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles
indicates a change for additional leased office space for
$10.0. The bill continues to be a generator of revenue
based on the renewal fees for a suspended license.
Co-chair Halford noted that the change from $104.8 to $114.6
is reasonable.
Senator Phillips noted a situation that involved a Chugiak
resident who received a ticket and was to appear before the
court. He claims that he did not receive notice to appear
before court due to an incorrect address.
Mr. Ambrose responded that this is an option for the court,
it is not mandatory. He mentioned that there are over
25,000 outstanding moving violations fines in a given year.
The court system was working on the assumption that
approximately 10% of those would fall into this system.
Mr. Ambrose stated that Senator Taylor's office has received
a response from the parking ferries. There have been
several POM's generated. The opposition is not to the
overall thrust of the bill, but rather to Section 2 which
applies to unpaid parking fines and would lead to non-
renewal of the vehicle registration. The area of concern is
in Anchorage, and in particular, the Anchorage Parking
Authority. Section 2 was included last year at the
suggestion of several municipal attorneys. The sponsor does
not take great ownership in this section, and if it were
deleted he would not be upset.
Senator Rieger supports the amendment and asked what it
would do to the fiscal note. He stated that the Anchorage
Parking Authority cites for improper placement or tagging of
license plates. Senator Donley stated that he has a draft
amendment, and recommended holding the bill. He stated that
there is a problem when ticketed by the Anchorage Parking
Authority, in that there are no appellate rights. A
prohibitive fee is required to challenge the ticket. When
ticketed by a peace officer or a state trooper, one has the
right to go to court and defend themselves. He stated that
when people are ticketed, based on state rules, they should
be provided with the same due process that the state
provides.
Senator Zharoff asked if Alaska would have reciprocity with
other states regarding the parking and moving violations.
Mr. Ambrose responded that he didn't know about parking
violations, but that there is an existing arrangement
whereby, if the State runs a records check and there is an
outstanding warrant, out-of-state, it can be executed.
Senator Zharoff then quoted Section 3, "When the person
appears in court or pays the required fine, the court shall
terminate the suspension imposed under this subsection and
provide the department and the person with written notice of
the termination." He noted that this process is very slow.
He stated that what should take minutes, often takes weeks
or months. He asked if this particular problem could be
remedied? Mr. Ambrose stated that he could not fix that
problem in this bill.
Mr. Ambrose reiterated that the intent of the legislation is
to give the court additional leverage. If there is a
failure to appear in court, the court at this time can issue
a warrant. The fact remains that there are so many of these
cases that it does not happen.
Senator Donley issued his proposed amendment. Co-chair
Halford asked if there was conflict in his amendment insofar
as removing Section 2 from SB 6. Senator Donley responded
there was no conflict. Senator Phillips moved to delete
Section 2 from SB 6. No objection having been raised,
Section 2 has been deleted from the bill and will be
reflected in a CS.
Discussion was had on Senator Donley's proposed amendment.
Co-chair Halford asked that Senators Zharoff and Donley work
with Senator Taylor in redrafting the bill. The committee
agreed to hold the bill to the next meeting, Friday, March
17th.
SENATE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to criminal mischief."
Mary Vollendorf, Legislative Aide to Senator Leman presented
testimony on SB 14. (Testimony attached to minutes.)
Margot Knuth, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
testified the problem has been in the increase in joyriding
in Anchorage which has doubled in the last two years. Half
of those offenses have been committed by juveniles. The
question is, what can be done to impose meaningful sanction?
The most important feature of this bill is that it makes
joyriding an offense for which driving privileges can be
revoked. This is expected to have a deterrent effect for
juveniles in particular. It is possible to waive a multi-
offending juvenile to adult court for felony purposes if,
there was a desire to go through the petition for waiver
proceeding. She noted that in 47.10.010, which allows
minors to be prosecuted as an adult in district court, there
is an exception for felonies. The law states that with a
felony waiver provision there would be no basis for
excluding the juveniles.
End Tape #12, Side 2 (575-end)
Begin Tape #14, Side 1 (000-575)
Senator Donley asked for further explanation. Ms. Knuth
responded that the criminal mischief statute which, if the
defendant has caused more than $500 damage, is a felony. In
a juvenile, prosecution would go through Family Youth
Services. Or, file the petition for waiver to adult court
under the separate offense of criminal mischief, which is
taking the vehicle and causing more than $500 worth of
damage. That is separate from joyriding which doesn't
involve any damage to the vehicle. That is one way to get
to adult court with the juvenile, the other is through theft
rather than joyriding.
Senator Donley asked how the court system will allow this
since a specific statute says, "if they steal a car and they
are under 18, it is not a felony." Ms. Knuth responded that
the state does not have a strong desire to be prosecuting
these cases as felons. It is expensive. The case needs to
go to the grand jury and in those cases they are going to be
litigated more vigorously. The state prefers that in dealing
with juveniles, it is made a misdemeanor in district court,
which would be handled in a more routine way. She stated
that for over 99% of the joyriding cases with juveniles, the
state does not want them as felons, but rather in district
court.
Senator Rieger wanted to understand how the bill was drafted
and drew attention to section 1 and 3. Ms. Knuth stated
that those under 18 years of age would not appear in
district court as an adult. She stated that in section 3,
it specifies that 18 or older for this offense before the
mandatory 3 day jail sentence would apply. If under the age
of 18, sentencing could be applied to a period of
incarceration, but would not be in jail with adults. There
is no mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders. She went
on to say that there are two processes available when there
is a juvenile. One, is going through the juvenile process
system, and the other is being waived to adult court. If a
juvenile had been waived to adult court for a joyriding
offense and it was the second offense, they would be treated
as a felon. But, there would be a special arduous petition
for a waiver process where this state has the burden of
proving that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment, etc.
Most of the joyriding offenders under the age of 18 have
been going through the juvenile process. They do not go
into district court, but rather superior court. The
proceedings are closed and does not result in a criminal
conviction on their record. The only way to get a criminal
conviction is if there was a petition for waiver. She
stated that it is unlikely that a juvenile would be waived
to adult court on a single joyriding offense.
Co-chair Frank joined the committee.
Senator Zharoff asked the definition of joyriding. Ms.
Knuth responded that joyriding is referred to as criminal
mischief. Statute 11.46.484(a)(2) states, "the person
drives, tows away, or takes the propelled vehicle of
another". This is distinguished from theft because it is
not required to prove an intent of permanently depriving the
owner of the vehicle.
Senator Donley questioned the fiscal impact on juveniles
since there is no room within the jail facilities at this
time. Ms. Knuth responded that there is no anticipation to
give the juveniles time to serve for the joyriding offense.
Hence, it's a property offense, it is likely to be a first
offense and the sentence would probably be a suspended term
with an order of restitution, and revocation of driving
privileges. She clarified "restitution" by stating that,
12.55.045(e) specifies,"If a defendant is convicted of
criminal mischief in the third degree in violation of AS
11.46.484(a)(2), and the victim of the offense incurs damage
or loss as a result of the offense, the court shall order
the defendant to pay restitution." She added, that it
applies to juveniles as well as adults.
Senator Donley wanted to know if there was a fiscal note
from the Department of Corrections? He said, there is a
statement that says the court system expects 450 cases. If
this bill is to send a message to the juveniles that
joyriding is no longer going to be tolerated, then
incarceration for repeat offenders when not imposed, makes
the bill pointless. He then stressed that if the intent is
not to incarcerate, even though there has been a conviction
of a misdemeanor, what is the impact on the juvenile system?
Ms. Knuth responded that Senator Donley's question
presupposes that the system is not working. She stressed
there are not many repeat offenders or those that abuse the
probation system. In order to get to the point of
incarceration, the offender is a repeater, or has failed to
comply with the conditions of probation. Most joyriding
incidences are a single event. Joyriding is not the
starting offense that leads people down the path of criminal
acts.
Co-chair Halford stated simply that he disagreed with
everything Ms. Knuth just stated. Senator Donley says that
the information that he has received from his constituents
is that these are repeat offenders and they are not being
treated seriously.
Senator Rieger asked for an explanation of restitution with
or without the bill. Ms. Knuth responded that if the matter
is handled as a juvenile proceeding, none of the criminal
code applies. Restitution does not apply, revocation of
driving privileges does not apply, and appearing in front of
a judge does not apply. These offenders will receive an
adult conviction, they will go before the judge with
possible consequences of: pay restitution, suspended jail
sentence, loose their driving privileges, permanent funds
dividends can be attached for the payment of the
restitution. These are not consequences experienced in the
past. There are too many juveniles to go through superior
court petitions. The problem is the exploding population.
District court is uniquely set up to process cases in an
efficient manner.
Co-chair Frank asked if there are statistics regarding
repeat offenders? Donna Schultz, Juvenile Probation Officer
youth had been charged with criminal mischief. Those with
prior offenses totalled 12. Statewide joyriders totalled
2400, 1200 of those are juvenile offenders and 600 are from
the Anchorage. Joyriding is a crime of opportunity. She
stated that joyriding has doubled in two years.
Co-chair Halford inquired how the municipality of Anchorage
is handling joyriders now. Ms. Knuth responded that as a
misdemeanor offense Anchorage has a similar statute to our
criminal mischief for adult joyriding offenses. Anchorage
cases number 600 a year. Co-chair asked how the decision is
made to prosecute under municipal ordinance versus state?
Ms. Knuth said that if the municipality has a statute
regarding the crime and prosecutors to handle the case, they
will take it on. This is not true for all municipalities.
Co-chair Halford directed attention to page 1, section 1,
line 5. What would the effect be on changing the word of
"or" to "and"? Ms. Knuth responded that it would take the
second offender juvenile and made it a felony. She stated
that if this bill does not have an effect on joyriding, then
something else needs to be tried. However, this bill is a
big step forward.
Ms. Knuth reported that the "Use It/Loose It" was a
legislative measure passed last year targeting juveniles
drinking. This has proven to be effective. Juveniles are
going to the same parties in Juneau, and now they are
drinking root beer instead of beer because they do not want
to loose their driving licenses. There have been similar
reports from around the state. The threat of jail has never
been a deterrent, probably because like other criminals they
think they are not going to be caught. With "Use It/Loose
It", we have a much higher catch rate.
Senator Donley stated that he supports the bill. However,
he does not want others to get the wrong message. There is
no fiscal note from the Department of Corrections because
they assume no juveniles will be incarcerated. It becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy because if they don't add any
facilities to deal with this, the judges have no place to
send the juveniles, so they in turn are not going to
incarcerate them. Restitution is a good step forward, but
the public should not think this is going to mean that
juveniles are going to serve hard time for this because they
are not going to have any place to send them.
Senator Donley made a motion to MOVE CSSB14(JUD) with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. No
objection having been raised, CSSB14(JUD) was REPORTED OUT
of committee with the following fiscal notes: Dept. of
Public Safety/Dept. Motor Vehicles, $96.4; Dept. Public
Safety/Troopers, zero; Dept. of Corrections, zero;
Department of Law, $81.7; Court System, $55.0. Co-chairs
Halford and Frank along with Senators Rieger and Sharp
signed with a "do pass". Senators Zharoff and Phillips
signed with "no recommendation".
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act requiring that, in addition to its operating
budget, all activities of the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation are subject to the Executive Budget Act."
Co-chair Halford announced that by the request of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, SB 92 is submitted.
Senator Phillips explained that Senators Sharp, Frank,
Rieger and himself served on the LB&A Committee and that the
Alaska Housing Finance Corp. and Alaska Railroad were left
out of their bill last year. This bill adds AHFC.
Discussion was had on the Alaska Railroad, and it was
decided to create a new bill.
Co-chair Halford asked Dan Fauske, CEO/Executive Director,
Alaska Housing Finance Corp to join the committee. Mr.
Fauske testified to the committee (testimony attached).
Co-chair Frank thanked Mr. Fauske for his comments.
Historically, the programs were not included in the original
legislation. The legislature has had confidence in AHFC's
ability to handle political and arbitrary decisions. He
stressed that he meant not just Mr. Fauske, but the
institution which includes the bond counsel and professional
contractors, and staff. Senator Frank does not view the
inclusion of AHFC in the budget act as being overly
burdensome, it is hoped that it will improve the
relationship between the agency and the legislature. He
added, in addition to the items Mr. Fauske mentioned, the
relationship between AHFC and the legislature has been
strained over the years. He added that there has not been a
vehicle for discussion. The legislature spends a lot of
time communicating with other state agencies. An
understanding is developed through the budget process of
their programs. Over time, communication is improved. Co-
chair Frank emphasized that the agency may view it as a
threat, but, it is an opportunity to improve the working
relationship between the agency and the legislature. The
legislature will not want to take action that will be
contrary to the purposes of the statutes, programs, and
purposes of AHFC. The legislature does want to understand
what goes on and wants to have an improved opportunity to
work with the agency to make sure that the purposes are
carried out. He stressed that it is not the legislature's
purpose to cut any agency out. He noted that if the
legislature does not receive cooperation, then the view may
be that decisions are more rash. Co-chair Frank stated that
he supports bringing this legislation into the budget
process and improve the relationship between the agency and
the legislature. Otherwise, he said, there would be many,
he included, who would not be interested in supporting a
capital or operating budget for this agency.
Senator Rieger questioned Mr. Fauske's testimony. He asked
if he opposed the inclusion into the executive budget act
suggesting that it would hinder AHFC's operation. Mr. Fauske
responded that he is not beyond being scrutinized, but his
review in the short time he has been there is that currently
there was $790,000,000. in loans and activity which occurred
through that agency. Currently, the amount this year is
$385,000,000. He stated his confusion, wanting to know if
it is capped. He asked, does the agency stop at some point
denying itself access to the market for refinancing and
lowering people's mortgages. This has been a very
successful program. He asked, how does the agency improve
on past performance? He stressed he welcomed the review and
indicated that next to the permanent fund this is Alaska's
most important asset. He noted that he wants to be
perceived in some capacity of success, mainly being opened
to the process which takes place allowing people to
participate. Again, his concern is, how does this become
structured so that there isn't a stoppage at a critical
point in the market?
Co-chair Frank indicated that it was not the legislature's
intent to stifle the agency. He suggested it could be
handled with general authority which is not dollar specific,
or through the LB&A process, requesting additional increases
from the established dollar maximum. The legislature is
interested in finding a way to make it work and not to
thwart the programs of AHFC. This legislation is not meant
to be negative, it is meant to be supportive.
Mr. Fauske stated that he needed to receive clarity from the
committee on a potential problem. In the past, programs
have gone into various districts without the representatives
even aware it was coming in. He indicated he was stating a
criticism of the agency, that it has not been forthcoming in
dealing with Representatives or Senators of certain areas.
Co-chair Frank responded that there was no truth to that and
it has a lot to do with activities outside the budget
process. In the budget process the legislators are tuned
into what state government is doing. If a legislator is
sitting on the Finance Committee, there is a definite
understanding of everything. If a legislator is not
presiding on the Finance Committee, then there will be
requests from the constituency for information, which does
heighten the awareness for those programs.
Senator Phillips asked if Mr. Fauske was speaking to the 5%
money? If it was passed by AHFC, and implemented to the
public, are you saying that legislators did not receive the
information before, or know about the program before it hit
the streets?
Mr. Fauske responded that he was not speaking of the 5%,
which could be another example. Specifically, he was
speaking to major HUD funded projects for senior centers,
and others that have come into various regions.
Senator Phillips and the committee spoke to the 5% funds.
Senator Rieger stated that making the agency subject to the
executive budget act, may not totally eliminate
misunderstandings. AHFC statutes have provisions for
establishing programs by regulation.
Mr. Fauske assured the committee that it is his intent to
open up the communication. That is not to say that all
problems are solved, but the agency is striving hard not to
repeat past mistakes.
Senator Rieger asked if Mr. Fauske would oppose legislation
resplitting the AHFC from ASHA? Mr. Fauske responded that
historically, and as an individual who worked for the
institution on the North Slope, efforts to develop a housing
program did not materialize. Dealing with ASHA was
impossible. Regulations were a problem. There were three
and four generations living in one house. Conventional
banking loans were not available. In essence nothing was
working. It took 4 years to finally turn it around. He
stressed that if it means going back to that, he opposes it.
He stated there are a great many people in this state who do
not have the same access as some of the urban areas or
technically advanced rural areas, and literally are shut off
from the entire process. ASHA, in those days, went through
appropriations from the state, the regulations were so
heavy, the agency could never get around anything. ASHA was
in poor standing with HUD at the time, and that was one of
the reasons why it was important to create this
comprehensive unit that functioned better. He felt that
this has been accomplished when he talks to staff and
outside agencies. He stated that he would oppose it unless
there were assurances that it would not result in those
circumstances again.
Discussion was had regarding communication and travel during
the out of session months.
Co-chair Frank MOVED for passage of SB 92 with individual
recommendations. No objection having been raised, SB 92 was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue. Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along
with Senators Rieger, Phillips, Donley and Sharp signed the
committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Senator
Zharoff signed "no recommendation".
Co-chair Halford announced that SB 6 would be revisited
Friday, March 17th.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|