Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/01/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB28 | |
| SB66 | |
| SB178 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 1, 2014
9:06 a.m.
9:06:58 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joe Balash, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources;
John "Chris" Maisch, Director, Division of Forestry,
Department of Natural Resources; Rod Arno, Executive
Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau; Senator Dennis
Egan; Alida Bus, Staff, Senator Dennis Egan; Lieutenant
Kris Sell, Police Officer, Juneau Police Department; Anne
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Brittany Hutchison, Staff, Senator Click Bishop; John
Manly, Staff, Senator Click Bishop.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Sturgeon, CEO, Ouzinki Native Corporation, Anchorage;
Glen Holt, Self, Fairbanks; Mark Stahl, Self, Talkeetna;
Erin McLarnon, Self, Willow; Nick Steen, Member, Ruffed
Grouse Society, Wasilla; Barbara J. Miller, Self, Wasilla;
Gary Stevens, Self, Chugiak; Carl Portman, Deputy Director,
Resource Development Council, Anchorage; Thomas Malone,
Chair, Tanana Valley State Forest Citizens Advisory
Committee, Fairbanks; Al Barrette, Self, Fairbanks; Tracey
Wollenberg, Public Defender, Department of Administration,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 28 SUSITNA STATE FOREST; SALE OF TIMBER
SB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 66 IMITATION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
CSSB 66(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN1(ADM) and
FN2(ADM); previously published indeterminate
note: FN3(LAW); and new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Corrections.
SB 178 PASSENGER VEHICLE RENTAL TAX
SB 178 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSHB 297(FIN)
HOME ENERGY RATING SYSTEMS
CSHB 297(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSHB 305(FIN)
JUNK DEALER & METAL SCRAPPER LICENSING
CSHB 305(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
9:08:48 AM
AT EASE
9:09:25 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the sale of timber on state land;
establishing the Susitna State Forest; and providing
for an effective date."
9:09:47 AM
JOE BALASH, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
explained the legislation. He stressed that the governor
was interested in a positive investment, and he felt that
the legislation was in line with the governor's intention.
The bill would create a state forest in the Susitna Valley
and expand the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
authority to offer negotiated timber sales statewide. He
stated that DNR currently managed 9.5 million acres of
state land in the Mat-Su valley under the area plans. This
bill would establish the Susitna State Forest from land
that the plans classify for forestry and DNR manages for
timber harvest and multiple use. Remaining state land in
the area was designated for land sales, agriculture,
recreation, water resources, and fish and wildlife habitat,
including over 3. 1 million acres of legislatively
designated state parks, refuges, and public use areas. The
proposal excludes lands that were priorities for the
state's land disposal program. It was consistent with the
area plans, and was recommended by the Alaska Timber Jobs
Task Force. The proposed state forest included
approximately 686,800 acres of land in 20 parcels. The
state forest would help meet the growing regional demand
for state timber sales and personal use firewood
harvesting. Local mills depend heavily on state timber for
their raw materials. Interest in logs, chips, and wood
pellets for commercial, public school, and residential
space heating also continues to expand. Active forest
management provided forest stand with a variety of ages to
support diverse and healthy wildlife habitat. It also
helped reduce wild land fire risk by breaking up large
expanses of hazardous fuel types and encouraging
regeneration by less-flammable hardwood species. The state
forest would be managed as part of the State Forest System,
and would continue to be open for public use and access,
including wildlife habitat management, harvest, and
recreational activities. He announced that DNR had
conducted extensive outreach on the proposal. In additions
to meetings on the area plans, DNR held community meetings,
and made a presentation at a legislative town meeting in
Wasilla.
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the legislation would not
make the land unavailable for property development for the
private sector to add to the borough's property tax base.
Commissioner Balash replied that there were various
conversations with the borough and in the region. He stated
that DNR had a received an endorsement from the Mat-Su
Borough assembly, and referred to a resolution in the
member's packets. He stated that there were some concerns
that were addressed in order to alleviate some impacts to
municipal and residential developments.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the land could return to the
private sector after it was designated as forest land.
Commissioner Balash responded that state forests were
public lands that were still managed for multiple use, but
not considered for settlement or residential development.
He stressed that there was still economic activity on the
land. He stated that moving the land back to the general
use category would require legislative action.
9:16:16 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if there would be anything that
would prevent timber harvest in the state forest.
Commissioner Balash replied that all of the activities in
the forest would be governed by the Forest Resources
Practices Act, and other regulatory authorities. He stated
that the forest would be sustainably managed with a long-
term management plan.
Senator Olson wondered how the designation would result in
the prohibition of exploiting the resources within the
designation. Commissioner Balash replied that the
designation of the forest did not preclude other uses of
the land, particularly the mineral rights associated with
the land. He stressed that DNR would still have the ability
to issue mining leases and provide for exploration of the
other minerals on the land. He agreed that the land would
not be available for residential development.
Senator Olson queried the effect of the legislation on the
traditional campsites that were used to harvest fish and
game seasonally. Commissioner Balash replied that DNR must
continue to maintain the other uses in the area. He
deferred to Mr. Maisch.
Senator Olson queried the effects of the established camps.
Commissioner Balash responded that the designations that
were already public lands would remain in public lands. He
stressed that the inholdings would remain outside of the
designated forest.
Senator Olson stressed that an individual with a camp might
have their claim overrun. Commissioner Balash replied that
he had worked hard to ensure that it would not be an issue.
9:22:55 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked for a brief history of the proposed
concept. Commissioner Balash deferred to Mr. Maisch.
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, explained the history of
the proposed concept. He stated that there were two area
plans that were updated in 2009, and public meetings were
held in seven communities. He stated that the idea of state
forest classified lands was discussed as part of an area
planning process, and the concept that a state forest
proposal would be drafted at the conclusion of the process.
In addition, there were six open houses when the Division
of Forestry took over the project. There were twelve
additional public meetings, when the legislation was
initially proposed three years prior. He stated that there
had been recent meetings to outreach to local entities that
were not on the road system. There was a concern for the
need for community expansion lands in Houston, Willow, and
Wasilla, so 70,000 acres were removed from the proposal to
alleviate that concern. He shared that there was a blocking
nature in the way that the state forest was proposed,
because there was a forest inventory for the lands, which
showed a good commercial interest. The area planning
process determined that the proposed lands were the most
preferred lands for the forestry process, which was why the
location was spread across the valley with twenty parcels.
He stated that there was some concern regarding access, and
the need for access development, which was one of the key
features of state forests.
9:26:28 AM
Senator Dunleavy looked at the earmarked parcels, and noted
that there was a considerable amount of acreage that could
be logged. He wondered how the approach was different form
the forest designated parcels versus the state-owned
parcels that were already designated for logging.
Commissioner Balash replied that the area plan processes
for a particular primary use did not preclude other uses
including disposals of the land. While the blocks may be
designated for forestry purposes, in the area plan
implementation, it would not preclude someone from applying
for the land to be disposed in a different way.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if logging was the only activity
that could occur on the state forest. He wondered if, for
example, mining would occur on the land. Commissioner
Balash responded that logging was the primary development
interest, but mining could occur given the process time.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if there would be a problem with
bringing a pipeline through the forest area. Mr. Maisch
responded that a pipeline in the forest would not be an
issue, as there were utilities across other state forests.
9:30:28 AM
Co-Chair Meyer queried the state royalty from the timber
sale. Mr. Maisch responded that the sales were sold through
a competitive process for the majority of timber. He stated
that there was no royalty, but rather by sealed bid or
outcry auction, so the best dollar took the sale which was
known as "stumpage return."
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if the pale yellow on the
map was current forestry. Commissioner Balash responded
that the pale yellow was considered general state lands.
Vice-Chair Fairclough restated her question Commissioner
Balash replied that the lands were designated as habitat
under the area plans. Mr. Maisch furthered that the yellow
lands were classified as forestry use, but were dropped
from the designation in the state forest. The hatched lands
were considered habitat classified lands under the area
plans.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if there was a separate land
classification for habitat, which was not considered
forest. Commissioner Balash replied in the affirmative, and
stated that the habitat lands were currently not included
in the legislation as part of the forest.
Senator Hoffman queried the number of acres that were
considered for the proposal. Commissioner Balash replied
that there was an initial proposal which was around 760,000
acres, but had been adjusted and was currently 688,000
acres.
Senator Hoffman queried the classifications within the
proposed lands. Commissioner Balash replied that the land
was currently designated forestry lands.
9:36:07 AM
Senator Hoffman asked if there was a plan for the private
selection. Commissioner Balash responded that there was a
planning cycle for the disposals, but was not certain that
the map included any in the cycle.
Senator Hoffman requested those plans and how many acres
were considered for the program in the region. Commissioner
Balash agreed to provide that information.
Senator Dunleavy noted a testimony in the packet from the
Grouse Society, and there were some issues raised. He
wondered if those concerns were considered. Commissioner
Balash stated that the Grouse Society would like to see
that the forest be larger, and include some of the habitat
lands to ensure that those lands were not disposed of for
some other purpose.
9:39:26 AM
JOHN STURGEON, CEO, OUZINKI NATIVE CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He shared that he had been in the timber
industry in Alaska for 43 years. He stated that his
operation logged approximately 50 million board feet each
year. He shared that there had been many conversations
regarding losing the oil resource in Alaska. He felt that
it was time to examine alternatives to bring additional
revenue into Alaska, and he felt that the timber industry
could provide some of that revenue.
9:42:32 AM
GLEN HOLT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. He stated that he was in
further favor of further land designations of habitat lands
currently designated, because of the opportunity to enhance
those lands through forest management programs.
9:45:54 AM
MARK STAHL, SELF, TALKEETNA (via teleconference), testified
in favor of the legislation. He stated that he owned and
operated a small saw mill in Talkeetna. He stated that many
of his customers and neighbors expressed appreciation for
access to local resources. His ability to grow the business
was hampered by the lack of a predictable and reliable
timber base. There was too little private land in the
Susitna valley to provide a steady raw materials supply, so
establishing a state forest would resolve the issue.
9:48:27 AM
ERIN MCLARNON, SELF, WILLOW (via teleconference), testified
in support of the legislation. She stated that she was a
business owner and six year Board of Forestry member. She
stated that the Mat-Su valley was a wonderful place to
live. She felt that a state forest would help to grow the
local economy, and guarantees all users place to recreate.
She frequently utilized state forest lands for her
training, because of the access to trails.
ROD ARNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL,
JUNEAU, testified in support of the concept of a state
forest in the Mat-Su valley, multiple use in the state
forest such as resource development and recreational
pursuit. He stressed that the location should be kept
intact. He felt that there were a number of Alaskans that
were interested in food harvest. He stated that the tax
burden on the Mat-Su valley could be counteracted by the
resource development.
9:56:28 AM
NICK STEEN, MEMBER, RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY, WASILLA (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He believed that the establishment of a state forest would
help solidify and expand the forest product industry. It
would be an economic boost to the Mat-Su borough and all
Southcentral Alaska residents. Through proper forest
management, the forest should be either revenue enhancing
or revenue neutral. In addition to the timber resource, the
wildlife would greatly benefit.
9:58:38 AM
BARBARA J. MILLER, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
urged the committee to develop the west side of the Susitna
River. She encouraged the private development of the land
on the east side of the Susitna River. She felt that the
land on the east side would provide a boundary, because it
was difficult determine where one was located.
10:00:10 AM
GARY STEVENS, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), felt that
the forest aspect of the legislation was too disconnected,
and would be difficult to manage.
10:01:51 AM
CARL PORTMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in strong
support of the legislation. He felt that the new state
forest would enhance access and encourage a broad range of
multiple uses. The new state forest would allow the
Division of Forestry to more actively manage lands and
vegetation to promote a variety of forest ages, which in
turn would maximize the sustainable supply of timber to
provide a more diverse and healthy habitat for wildlife. He
added that active forest management would reduce the risk
of wildfires. The Division of Forestry would manage the
forest to help meet growing regional demand for state
timber sales.
10:04:37 AM
THOMAS MALONE, CHAIR, TANANA VALLEY STATE FOREST CITIZENS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of the legislation. He felt that dedicated lands
would provide the multiple use aspects of the land, in
addition to specific forestry uses.
10:07:51 AM
AL BARRETTE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of aspects of the proposal, but remarked that there
should be a focus on maintaining traditional uses.
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:10:41 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if this was the same bill that was
proposed two years prior, and asked why that particular
bill did not pass through the legislature. Commissioner
Balash replied that the legislation that was proposed two
years prior included more parcels than the current
legislation. There was local opposition, and the local
assembly did not support the bill.
Mr. Maisch added that there was a difference in the
definition from timber to fiber in the current legislation,
and there was also a recommendation of three clauses for
the 118 timber authority in order to apply authority
statewide.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
did not previously support it, and still expressed some
concerns that the legislation was not robust enough. He
wondered if the current legislation was considered a
compromise. Commissioner Balash replied that there were
some suggestions, and remarked that he would be willing to
work with the committee to establish a more workable
outline for the proposal.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the fiscal note was currently
zero, but wondered if the proposal may have a positive
fiscal impact to the state. Commissioner Balash replied
that the state forests were, at worst, revenue neutral. The
funds that were raised from the sale of the timber
resources supported the expenses of managing them and
building infrastructure.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the Mat-Su borough was in favor
of the bill. Senator Dunleavy indicated that there was
support from the borough.
10:15:49 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted three concerns that were worth
addressing: 1) the establishment of language of the
patchwork; 2) the natural boundary issue, and posting
trespassing warnings; and 3) the issue of public access.
Commissioner Bishop stated that Vice-Chair Fairclough had
pointed out his concerns.
Senator Dunleavy queried a timeline for the proposal. He
wondered what was expected of the individuals who had
contracts. Mr. Maisch replied that there was a published
five year timber sale program.
SB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:19:57 AM
AT EASE
10:23:18 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to imitation controlled substances;
and providing for an effective date."
10:23:55 AM
SENATOR DENNIS EGAN, stated that the legislation made it
easier for law enforcement to crack down on drug dealers by
making illegal any substance represented by a controlled
substance. Currently a drug dealer could sell a felony
drugs during a sting operation, the officer could not make
a charge, because the substance did not contain a specific
ingredient on the list of imitation controlled substances
in statute. The current definition of imitation controlled
substances in AS 11.73.099 listed chemicals, a substance
must contain, in order for it to be illegal. He stated that
SB 66 changed the definition of an imitation controlled
substance to more generally make illegal that was made to
look like an already illegal drug. He stated that the most
recent version of the bill reduced the penalties for crimes
under the statute.
ALIDA BUS, STAFF, SENATOR DENNIS EGAN, stated that she had
nothing to add to the testimony.
10:26:16 AM
LIEUTENANT KRIS SELL, POLICE OFFICER, JUNEAU POLICE
DEPARTMENT, testified that the legislation was a request
from the Juneau Police Department. She stated that the
legislation was as written because of the police experience
in field operations in purchasing narcotics. She found that
there were some instances where drug dealers would sell
"sham narcotics" such as salt, sheet rock dust, or other
unidentified substances. She shared that there were some
states that identified the sale sham narcotics as a drug
charge. She examined Alaska's law, and noticed that there
were limitations by the list of very specific chemical
compounds that could be charged as selling imitation
controlled substances. Those chemicals were mostly
precursors or "cut" that was used for controlled
substances. She stressed that many of those chemicals were
expensive, and sometimes more difficult to find than an
average household products, so many drug dealers did not
use those chemicals when selling the sham drugs. She shared
that sometimes she had been required to make sham drugs
when there was a controlled delivery, because the police
operation did not want to run the risk of losing a large
amount of controlled substances. She stated that she could
make a very realistic version of the drug, meth, with flour
and a heavy coating of hair spray. She announced that many
known drug dealers were getting a pass on selling the fake
drugs to the customer, but the customer did not have the
option to complain to law enforcement, they would just use
a new dealer.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the legislation was age-
specific. Lieutenant Sell replied that the draft version of
the committee substitute was age-specific.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that anyone over 19 could be
convicted of selling drugs. Lieutenant Sell responded that
the committee substitute from the Judiciary Committee did
not have an age requirement.
10:33:38 AM
AT EASE
10:34:28 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the age was contingent on
prosecution, because there was an age specified in statute.
Lieutenant Sell replied that age was referenced, but was a
higher penalty to expose a younger person to the
substances.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the crime was different, if a
person buying the substance was only one year younger than
the person selling the substance Lieutenant Sell deferred
to the Department of Law (DOL).
Co-Chair Meyer queried how the substances were deemed
authentic controlled substances or an imitation. Lieutenant
Sell replied that there were presumptive field tests
conducted, before the substance was sent to the crime lab.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered how often people were prosecuted
under the existing statute. Lieutenant Sell replied that,
in her experience, no one had been prosecuted under the
existing statute.
Senator Dunleavy wondered how big of an issue this is in
Juneau. Lieutenant Sell replied that there were several
instances per year.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had expressed an opinion on the bill.
Lieutenant Sell replied that she did not know if the ACLU
had expressed an opinion the bill.
Senator Dunleavy asked what would happen to a child that
sells an imitation drug to a friend in middle school or
elementary school. Lieutenant Sell replied that there would
be an examination of whether the child understands the
implications of their actions. She shared that there were
some cases of children in middle school that brought
marijuana to school, but had not seen the imitation
controlled substances in schools yet.
Senator Olson felt that the legislation may be a focus on
"thought policing." He felt that there may be a person that
would not necessarily be guilty, but be more innocent than
presumed. Lieutenant replied that the intent of the bill is
for known drug dealers who sometimes sold sham substances.
She stressed that there was not an intent to determine the
thought, rather than the tried and true test of the
reasonable person. The two-prong approach would be the
appearance of the drug and a representation.
Senator Olson felt that there could be an issue of
objectivity of the officer over a person who was obviously
not guilty.
10:42:45 AM
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in response to some concerns from some committee members.
She felt that the bill may capture conduct that was not
intended to capture, especially pertaining to individuals
who have an intent to deceive someone into thinking that
the substance was an imitation controlled substance. The
memo from legislative services (copy on file) discussed a
hypothetical situation from the Morrow Case: When someone,
without any intent to deceive, gives caffeine diet pills to
someone indicating that the pills were as effective for
weight loss as any prescription medicine. In the 1985 Court
of Appeals case, Morrow versus State, both parties agreed
that the statute would cover that hypothetical situation,
even though it may not be the hypothetical situation that
the drafters of the bill were intending to capture. She
stressed that the hypothetical situation was repeated from
the legislative memo. She stressed that the statute was
written to capture situations where the recipient might
reasonably believe that the substances was a controlled
substance, but the distributor had no intent for the
recipient to believe that it was a controlled substance.
One way to correct the over-breadth problem would be to
write an intent to deceive requirement or a requirement
that the person intentionally misrepresented that the
substance was a controlled substance. She felt this
addition would narrow the statute to conform to the concern
of law enforcement.
Senator Olson assumed that Ms. Wollenberg was not
supportive of the legislation. Ms. Wollenberg replied that
she has concerns with the bill as written.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if Ms. Wollenberg had been
referencing a memo from Legal Services from February 6,
2014. Ms. Wollenberg replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked at page 1, paragraph 2,
speaking to the grounds of vagueness and over breadth of
the state statute. She wondered if Ms. Wollenberg was
speaking to that paragraph. Ms. Wollenberg explained that
the Morrow versus State case was the only case on the
subject, and discussed the hypothetical situation in
paragraph 3. She share that there was a challenge to the
statute on vagueness and over breadth. That was resolved in
the case by saying that the scope of the statute did not
need fixing, because the facts of the case showed a clear
misrepresentation.
10:48:12 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked at page 2 and the substantive
due process and equal protection. She stated that the bill
would eliminate the requirement that the imitation
controlled substance contain a pharmaceutical active
substance. A felony sentence might be challenged under the
circumstances as sufficiently unfair, arbitrary, or
disproportionate to the offence to constitute a violation
to a right to due process. Ms. Wollenberg responded that
under current statute, manufacturer delivery of an
imitation controlled substance was a Class C felony. A the
time that the legal memo was written those penalties had
not yet been addressed, so there was some concern that the
penalties for selling or manufacturing an imitation
controlled substances were, in some cases, more severe than
the corresponding penalties for distributing actual
controlled substances like marijuana.
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:51:25 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
responded to a question from Senator Dunleavy regarding
children. She stated that juveniles who would committing
the conduct would not be committing crimes, rather they
were possibly committing delinquent acts. She looked at the
age differential, and stated that the three-year age
difference was a common provision in law. She stressed that
it was against the law for an adult to sell imitation
substances under current law. She replied to a question
from Senator Olson about thought policing. When a person is
prosecuted for a crime, the state was the thought police,
because culpable mental state must be determined.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if there were concerns regarding
whether legitimate substances could be made illegal under
the legislation. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the bill made
non-controlled substances illegal. She stressed that
current law made it a crime to take a substance that was
not a controlled substance by misrepresentation.
Co-Chair Meyer queried Ms. Carpeneti's view of the
legislation. Ms. Carpeneti responded that it made sense to
reduce the penalties for the crimes to make the penalties
for the conduct similar to drunk driving. She understood
the concern of law enforcement, but stressed that DOL did
not have any specific concerns with the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the legislation would make it a
more serious crime than actual possession of a real
controlled substance. Ms. Carpeneti responded that it was
the intent of reducing the penalties, so they were not more
serious than bad conduct with connection with controlled
substances.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if there were any cases that were
prosecuted under the current statute. Ms. Carpeneti stated
that there were one or two convictions per year.
Senator Olson asked how many prosecutions were successful.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that there were some that were
referred to DOL, and accept prosecutions at a similar
level. She shared that, depending on evidence, a theft
charge may be implemented because it was part of the
conduct through the sale of the sham drug.
10:56:35 AM
AT EASE
10:57:47 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if there was not an anticipation
for more cases, if the fiscal note could be changed to
zero. Ms. Carpeneti explained that the fiscal note was
indeterminate, because the effect of removing the
substances was unknown.
Co-Chair Meyer asked for Ms. Carpeneti to comment on Ms.
Wollenberg's testimony. Ms. Carpeneti replied that she did
not share the same concerns with Ms. Wollenberg regarding
"culpable mental state." The Morrow case specifically
provided that the statute should read, to avoid the
vagueness and over breadth problem, that it was an
intentional misrepresentation.
Vice-Chair Fairclough remarked that Ms. Wollenberg
suggested adding legislation that had stronger "intent to
deceive" language. Ms. Carpeneti felt that the law as
interpreted was adequate.
Senator Egan shared that the legislation would not affect
many people in the state, but fixed a loophole in current
statute.
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to REPORT CSSB 66(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 66(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published zero fiscal
notes: FN1(ADM) and FN2(ADM); previously published
indeterminate note: FN3(LAW); and new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Corrections.
11:02:42 AM
AT EASE
11:07:01 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to the application of the passenger
vehicle rental tax; and providing for an effective
date."
11:08:07 AM
Commissioner Bishop explained that SB 178 would provide
clarification of the intent of the rental car tax. It would
amend statute to make it clear that the rental vehicle tax
would not apply to Alaska business making long-term rentals
to other Alaska businesses.
11:09:52 AM
AT EASE
11:10:15 AM
RECONVENED
11:10:31 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute CS
SB 178(FIN), work draft 28-LS1406\Y (Strasbaugh, 3/28/14).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
BRITTANY HUTCHISON, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, explained
the changes to the CS. Section 1, page 1, line 4 was a
housekeeping section, which consolidates a terms for
passenger and recreational in order to better organize the
statute. Section 2, page 1, line 10 reduces the term from
90 days to 28 days of which a rental vehicle is exempt from
the tax. Therefore, a rental vehicle was exempt if it was
28 days or more and had a written contract. It also
exempted an extension of the contract, as long as the
extension took place before the 28 day period, with no
break in the initial period and extension. This was
intended to coincide with current rental company contracts,
and because most visitors did it for less than 28 days.
Section 3, page 2, line 6 consolidated the terms passenger
and recreational, and the statute clearly stated that
passenger vehicles were taxed at 10 percent of all costs
and fees, and recreational vehicles were taxed at 3 percent
of all costs and fees. Section 4, page 2, line 13 repeals
AS 43.52, sections 30 and 40, because the consolidations in
Sections 1 and 3 eliminated the requirement. The committee
substitute from the Transportation Committee had two
sections that had since been removed: a section decreasing
the gross vehicle weight and the other dealt with further
defining a passenger vehicle. She stated that the
definition of a passenger vehicle was removed, because the
department stated that it would be too difficult to
implement. Currently in statute, vehicles currently over
8500 pounds were exempt from the tax. The purpose of the
legislation was to clarify which rental vehicles would be
covered by the tax. It was intended that only passenger
rental cars as described in AS 43.52 should be taxed.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the letter of intent would
follow the bill. Ms. Hutchison replied the letter of intent
would not be attached to the bill.
JOHN MANLY, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, introduced
himself.
SB 178 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 305(FIN)
"An Act relating to the records of metal scrappers;
repealing the requirement that a junk dealer or metal
scrapper obtain a license; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 305(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 297(FIN)
"An Act recognizing the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation as the authorizing agency to approve home
energy rating systems for the state; and providing for
an effective date."
CSHB 297(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
11:16:40 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:16 a.m.