Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/02/1993 02:00 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 2, 1993
2:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to exemption amounts."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 99(L&C)
"An Act relating to the powers, duties, financial
administration, and operations of certain state agencies,
including the duration and renewal of licenses issued by the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, duties of and fees charged
by the office of public advocacy, student loan fees,
compensation of hunting and fishing license vendors,
Department of Labor fees and licensing periods, police
standards fees, motor vehicle registration and insurance and
the definition of `vehicle', program receipts accounting,
risk management administration, receipt of donations and
charging of fees by the Department of Natural Resources,
coverage of persons under Medicaid, and revising the order
of priority for coverage of optional medical services under
Medicaid; amending Alaska Rule of Probate Procedure 16(d);
and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to termination of
tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to tenant
responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible entry
and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties of
peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 168(STA)
"An Act relating to newspapers of general circulation."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DAY.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 158 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/24/93.
SB 99 - See Labor & Commerce minutes dated 2/16/93,
2/23/93,
and 3/2/93.
SB 155 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/24/93.
SB 168 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/22/93 and
3/24/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
Joe Ambrose, Aide
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 158.
Steve Phillips
Alaska Collectors Association
Ketchikan Credit Bureau Inc.
320 Bawden #312
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 158.
David Teal, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 158.
Kenny Leaf, Committee Aide
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 99.
Juanita Hensley, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Brent McGee, Director
Office of Public Advocacy
Department of Administration
900 W. 5th, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Geron Bruce, Special Assistant II
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Donald Study, Director
Division of Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 20630
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Arbe Williams, Special Assistant
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Cheryl Frasca, Division Director
Division of Budget Review
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Raga Elim, Special Assistant
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
David Skidmore, Aide
Senator Steve Frank
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 155.
Glenn Flothe
State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on SB 155.
Alice Brewer
1201 W. 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155
Mark Butterfield
Alaska Legal Services
1016 W. 6th Avenue #200
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 155.
Myrna Sheets
1028 Evergreen Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Jerome Byrd
2224 Eastland
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Merlyn Alden
Box 81118
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Sam Helms
1524 Stacia Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Doug Isacson
Box 72739
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Charles Lippitt
2203 McKinley Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Dixie Dixon
2600 Cordova #100
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Rae Barger
NHP Property Management
1019 E. 20th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
John Todd
13320 Crestview Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155
Hans Metz
5305 E. 42nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
Richard Illgen
7061 Lowell Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 155.
Jan Evensen
838 Irwin Street #6
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 155.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-38, SIDE A
Number 001
Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 2:00 p.m.
(There was a request for verbatim reporting for SB 158, and
I have done a modified approach.)
SENATOR TAYLOR presented SB 158 (REDUCING EXEMPTION AMOUNTS)
introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked his
Aide, JOE AMBROSE, to review the bill.
MR. AMBROSE - "Senate Bill 158 revises Title 38, the Alaska
Exemption Act, the statute establishes the dollar amounts of
homestead, personal property, wages, and liquid assets that
are exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, and
foreclosure by creditors. SB 158 lowers the exemptions in
current law and will enhance the ability of our business
community to collect outstanding debt. Last October, the
exemption amounts increased significantly as the Department
of Labor recalculated the allowances, using a complicated
formula provided in AS 09.38.115. You have in your packets
a draft committee substitute which would repeal this section
as recommended by the Department of Labor. This is a brief
overview of SB 158. STEVE PHILLIPS, representing the Alaska
Collectors Association is here this afternoon to give you a
more detailed explanation of the legislation."
SENATOR LITTLE - "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What section was
it that was being repealed in the substitute."
MR. AMBROSE - "The only change in the committee substitute
is on page 3, line 9, which repeals AS 09.38.115(b)."
SENATOR TAYLOR next called on STEVE PHILLIPS.
MR. PHILLIPS from the Alaska Collectors Association -
"Basically, what we are trying to accomplish here is
fairness to the business community, to the people of Alaska.
It has become obvious that when you are two and a half times
the minimum of any other state in the union higher, there is
a problem here. You have to make, basically, almost $2000 a
month at this point in time, to have your wages garnished.
Small claims is normally the last avenue that is available
to you. You try to work with people to take care of the
debt prior to going that far.
The way the state law is set up at this point in time, we're
not able to recoup most of our attorney fees, legal costs,
court costs, etc. so when we go to court, its strictly a
last ditch effort to collect the dollars and cents we are
trying to collect. You're still going to be at a point
where you are going to have to be making almost $1400 per
month to have your wages garnished, so it's still a pretty
substantial amount."
Number 104
SENATOR LITTLE - "Does this bill specify how many members
are in the family? $2000 a month might be a lot for a
single individual, but if you are caring for a family of
four people, that's barely scraping by. Is there anything
that would address that eventuality."
MR. PHILLIPS - "Well, it is not actually on the number of
those within the family, but .... if there is a sole income
for a household, the exemption is much higher."
SENATOR LITTLE - "Is that specified here in the bill?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "Yes, it is. It is in existing statute and
that will not be changed."
SENATOR LITTLE - "Do you happen to know the number of the
existing statute?"
SENATOR JACKO - "Do you know what the average income is in
the State of Alaska?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "Thirty two thousand six something."
SENATOR JACKO - "What is that per month?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "In the neighborhood of $2,700 per month."
SENATOR JACKO - "Is the primary focus on low income people?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "It could. The bottom line is .... we have a
credit grantor lending money to a person, or a person buying
a product, and what we are doing, the way the law is set up
now, we have made them debtor proof. They don't have to pay
their debts, and they know it, and it's something that is
being used."
Number 140
SENATOR JACKO - "Do they take that into consideration when
they are loaning them the money?"
MR; PHILLIPS - "They should, but when you sign a contract to
pay back a debt, most people are going to take that on good
faith. You're signing a contract, and when they fail to pay
it back, then it ends up with us."
SENATOR LITTLE - "I see a lot of arguments - in the cost of
a home here in Alaska, and in many more rural areas in
Alaska, it is much, much higher than in the State of
Washington or Oregon, just because of transportation costs.
I think there is justification to have home exemptions, and
even personal property exemptions that are higher than the
other states that have been laid out here before us. Is
there a reason why the level that has been chosen, for
instance for a home, at $36,000, is about the same as in
Washington? I have never heard of someone buying a home for
$36,000 in the state."
MR. PHILLIPS - "I think we're missing the point here. This
isn't buying a home. (SENATOR LITTLE said she understood
that.) This is the equity. Under state law, it doesn't
matter if they have zero equity in the home, the way it
stands right now, we have to pay them $64,000 to be able to
take the home, plus the first deed of trust. So, .... folks
can have X amount of dollars in a home, we can't recoup the
money, the way it stands right now. But again, in the six
years that I've been in business, we have foreclosed on one
home, and it was paid off prior to ever going to
foreclosure."
Number 190
SENATOR LITTLE - "Explain that to me again. You said you
had to pay them."
MR. PHILLIPS - "Under state statute, when the new law went
into effect in October, it went to $63,000 some odd dollars.
That has to be paid to them up front. (SENATOR LITTLE asked
to whom.) To the owner of the house .... The personal
exemption for that home is paid to them. Then you have to
pay to whoever holds the first deed of trust. If these
people have zero in the bank, or zero equity in the home,
they just made $63,000, and the collection agency has to pay
the first deed of trust."
SENATOR LITTLE - "But then the person is responsible to the
bank?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "No ma'am, we are responsible. We have to
pay the first deed of trust, also, the way the law is set
up."
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested MR. PHILLIPS explain further - "You
have to take judgement against the individual. After having
taken judgement, then to collect on the judgement you have
to hire a trooper to execute. Once you have executed, you
have to take some asset, or property, to pay the judgement.
Let's assume that they have a house as SENATOR LITTLE is
asking about. You've not found a bank account, not found
any income sufficient to pay the judge. Explain to SENATOR
LITTLE what is involved in the taking of a house on a writ
of execution."
MR. PHILLIPS - "Under Alaska state law, which I think is a
good part of the law, if we were going to attach a home, we
would go to the court system and ask for a writ to attach
the home. The judge will look at the case and what we have
tried to do. Once we have tried to go after real property,
and could not, we would send the writ to court, the judge
would look at it to make sure we have met all of the
criteria. He (the judge) would sign it and say, "OK, you
cannot dispose of this property for 30 days."
At that point in time, we send a trooper, or process server,
to serve them. Then, it is posted the next four months in
the newspaper, the post office, and the court system, that
there will be a lien sale of this home on a certain date.
They have that time, plus the next year after the lien sale,
to reclaim the house. .... You can't just walk in and take
someone out of their home. It's a very long drawn out
process. In six year of business, we have foreclosed on one
home, and before we got to the final process, the people did
recoup their home."
SENATOR LITTLE - "So this bill would allow you to pay less
to the individual whose home has been foreclosed upon?"
Number 228
MR. PHILLIPS - "Yes ma'am, it will take it to $36,000, which
is 20% higher than Washington or Oregon."
SENATOR LITTLE - "Well, having built a house in Alaska, I
would think that it's a 20% greater cost in building a house
here, but I understand your point. Thank you."
SENATOR TAYLOR - "Would you please explain to the committee
the difficulty you encountered in executing upon a state
employee, with deferred compensation available as a dodge."
MR. PHILLIPS - "We have a young lady that works for the
State of Alaska. She wrote 42 NSF checks within the City of
Juneau. We tried to collect it by dealing directly with
her. She refused to deal with us. We reduced it to
judgement by taking it to court for a court awarded
judgement. She had a chance to show up in court to defend
her side. In this particular one, she did show. The court
awarded the judgement against her, and we went to attach her
wages, and at the point in time, it was $350 per week with
the net due to them, which is an exemption right. She
raised her retirement program to drop hers to $350 per week,
so basically, we zeroed out. This is the kind of things we
are running up against now. She makes very good money, but
she can go out and write 42 checks and get away with it,
because the way the law (is written).
SENATOR HALFORD - "Isn't there any criminal prosecution
available?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "The police won't do that ...
SENATOR HALFORD - "Can't you do anything to prosecute the
theft?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "It is federal offices, we cannot under the
(unintelligible) Act, we cannot, under any circumstances,
involve the police department or any other civil, we always
use civil, can't go criminal."
SENATOR HALFORD - "If somebody got a bad check, can they do
anything criminally?"
MR. PHILLIPS - "Yes, we can. In the City of Ketchikan, a
husband and wife came through year before last, dumped
$40,000 in bad checks in four days on three bank accounts.
They went to the State of Washington. We tracked them down,
brought them to the DA, and they (the DA) said they were too
busy. The police department in Ketchikan will not handle
them now because of that.
SENATOR TAYLOR - "I think you will find its the same here in
Juneau, isn't it? (MR. PHILLIPS said it was so.) You can
take 30 NSF checks in on somebody who has bounced them all
over town, and all they say is that it is a civil matter.
Take it to court. You take it to court, and right now they
have $450 of net take home exemption per pay period, and you
cannot execute on them."
SENATOR HALFORD - "Bankruptcy exemption is a different issue
from intentional theft by pen v. theft by gun."
SENATOR TAYLOR - "It may be, SENATOR HALFORD, but it works
out the same way if you are in business. You will not get a
police officer to help you."
MR. PHILLIPS - "We are averaging 1600 checks a month in the
City of Juneau that we are processing in the collection
agency here. Ketchikan went down to about 300.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for any more questions and whether MR.
AMBROSE had the citation requested by SENATOR LITTLE.
Number 278
MR. AMBROSE - "Senator, I do not have. There is a formula,
and I can't find it. I'll check with legal and get the
exact citation. There is a formula showing, there is a
scale based on whether it is an individual, head of
household. That sort of thing."
SENATOR TAYLOR invited DAVID TEAL, Director of
Administrative Services for the Department of Labor, to
testify.
MR. TEAL - ".... Our involvement in this is limited to the
automatic adjustment, which occurs in Section 115, and our
position was that we had some technical problems because of
amendments made in 1987. In going through the public notice
process, we had some complaints from the public that the
notice doesn't go to the correct people, the people that are
interested. People who read labor regs tend to be those
people who are interested in wage and hour, public safety,
and health issues as opposed to finance issues, so that the
people that probably needed to know, didn't get the proper
public notice. The third issue was the changing of statute
via regulations, and of course, that is up to the
legislature to decide that one. Given that the section is
being repealed, the problems for us would go away."
MR. AMBROSE to SENATOR LITTLE - "If you will look at page 3,
line 1, in either the committee substitute or the original
bill, '(b) The exemption amounts under AS 09.38.030 may be
increased when the individual submits an affidavit, under
penalty of perjury, stating that the individual's earnings
alone support the individual's household;'"
SENATOR LITTLE - "And then I also found the section that is
being repealed."
SENATOR TAYLOR entertained a motion to adopt the committee
substitute. SENATOR DONLEY asked for the difference in the
committee substitute. SENATOR TAYLOR explained the only
modification was on page 3, line 9, "Sec. 7. AS
09.38.115(b)" and the department had testified in favor of
the change.
SENATOR HALFORD - "So we're taking the exemption from
$64,000 down to $36,000 with no cost of living escalator."
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt CS FOR SENATE BILL NO.
158(JUD). Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR DONLEY moved, on the committee substitute, to
delete, on page 1, lines 7 and 13, the $36,000 number, and
leave the $54,000 in place.
SENATOR TAYLOR reviewed the changes, and objected for
purposes of discussion.
Number 354
SENATOR DONLEY - "I think people have traditionally felt
pretty strong about the homestead exemption. It allows
people to maintain a home of reasonable value. I have been
concerned about the escalator clause in there also, and I
support the repeal of that, but it might be going too far to
repeal that and also drop the homestead exemption. This is
kind of a middle ground to repeal the escalator clause and
leave the homestead exemption where it is, but still
maintain these reductions back down to more appropriate
levels for the individual exemptions ...."
SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his objection, and the amendment was
adopted.
SENATOR HALFORD - "We have gone back down from $64,000 to
$54,000 because it really means $64,000 today, because it
was in 1963 dollars."
SENATOR DONLEY - "To clarify that, the new statutory amount
would actually be $54,000, and it wouldn't be modified ...."
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO.
158(JUD) from committee with individual recommendations.
The bill passed on a 3-2 vote.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 99 (FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF
STATE GOVERNMENT) sponsored at the request of the Governor
and said one person would be testifying on the
teleconference.
KENNY LEAF, Judiciary Committee Aide, explained the bill
under consideration, CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 99(L&C), would
affect some of the departments. He said a number of persons
wished to speak to the amendments and suggested beginning
with JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services for the
Division of Motor Vehicles.
MS. HENSLEY explained the Division of Motor Vehicles has
several sections of this bill beginning with page 14,
Sections 50 through 58, all pertaining to motor vehicles.
She proposed to outline each section.
Number 417
Section 50 - is a technical amendment which would allow
the DMV to retain $100 thousand in state revenue by
selling the entire motor vehicle file, which is
currently done.
Section 51 - does the same thing as Section 50, but
would delete the word, Vehicle Register, for
clarification.
Section 52 - would allow the department to design
special license plates that depict Alaska flora and fauna
for a $30 fee. They are projecting revenue of $300
thousand.
Section 53 - clarifies the handicapped plates as
defined in 23 C.R.F. 1235.2 of federal law, which uses "a
disability that limits or impairs the ability to walk."
This would bring in approximately $16.8 thousand to the
state.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified that some persons who currently
receive free handicapped plates will now have to pay for
them.
MS. HENSLEY referred to the federal definition to explain
the person must be mobility impaired, and she explained the
extent of disability allowed for a free handicapped license
plate.
Section 54 - clarifies a court decision that has
prompted the change to require a dealer to affix two plates
to the vehicle owned by the dealer.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked about the court case, and MS. HENSLEY
explained it was a case brought against a dealer on the
Kenai Peninsula. Because the statute was vague, the dealer
won, so this would clarify the statute.
Section 55 - would remove the division's authority to
issue titles on mobile homes. DMV considers mobile
homes real estate property and treated as such. She
outlined the current problems in issuing titles. There
would also be a modest saving in money.
Number 499
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned how they could tell the difference
when they come in to register - what about travel trailers
that are used for living quarters. How does the department
know the use of the trailer?
MS. HENSLEY explained she was referring to those mobile
homes that required a permit to move along the highway,
while a travel trailer is registerable and tagged. A mobile
home just has a title.
Section 56 - clarifies an exemption for senior citizens
for one free registration a year, and she described
some abuses of the exemption.
Section 57 - would allow the department to charge a $10
registration fee if the person comes into the office to
register a vehicle, when they have the opportunity to
do so by mail. This fee could be waived for good cause.
She figured this could bring in an additional $2
million to state revenue.
MS. HENSLEY explained that Senate Finance has based the DMV
budget on the passage of this bill and how it would affect
the operation of the division. In addition she discussed
the waiver provisions.
Section 58 - clarifies that a company is required to
register their vehicle as a commercial vehicle instead
of a private vehicle. She estimated $400 thousand in
revenue in improperly registered vehicles.
Section 59 - is a section added to the bill by the
Revisor of Statutes to clarify the deletion of a mobile
home from the tax schedule.
Section 61 - sets the definition for a mobile home.
SENATOR LITTLE had some questions about the list defining
the mobile homes, and MS. HENSLEY reviewed the list. She
also explained Section 70 repealed the mobile home statutes.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for any additional questions from the
committee and invited BRENT MCGEE, Director for the Office
of Public Advocacy, to testify.
MR. MCGEE thought Sections 33, 34, and 35 were relatively
straight forward and would adopt regulations that would
allow the office to charge a fee for public guardian
services, based on the ability of the ward or protected
person to pay for the guardian services. Before the fee
schedule was adopted there would be comments and suggestions
from affected interest groups and institutions.
SENATOR LITTLE wanted to know from whom the Office of Public
Advocacy would collect the fee. MR. MCGEE explained their
clients are wards or protected persons, or conservatees,
which are people for whom the court has ordered services.
He detailed the list of services that might be provided to
their clients.
Number 586
SENATOR LITTLE asked whether most of these individuals were
indigent. MR. MCGEE said the clients weren't necessarily
so, and he explained the court procedure for deciding the
competency of a person to manage their lives. He explained
they were usually mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or
suffer from some age related disability. He also explained
the court only appointed a guardian when the court finds
there is no friend, relative, person, or non-profit
corporation able to accept those responsibilities. He
claimed the Office of Public Advocacy was the last in
statutory priority, and it was not usual for clients to have
substantial resources.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. MCGEE for his testimony and
called on GERON BRUCE from the Department of Fish and Game.
MR. BRUCE directed attention to Section 44 of SB 99 which
deals with the Department of Fish and Game, and he referred
to a position paper from the department. He reviewed the
summary of the department's concerns with this section of
the bill and a proposed amendment.
TAPE 93-38, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. GERON summarized the department's objections to the
procedures through which hunting and fishing licenses are
sold in the state - exclusively through vendors. Under
current law, at the time of sale the vendor is entitled to
retain 5% of the value of the transaction, while the
remainder of the money and the receipts go to the
department. On a quarterly basis the vendors are then
entitled to receive one dollar of additional compensation,
or $50, which ever is greater, based on the records they
have supplied.
MR. GERON explained this functioned for the Department of
Fish and Game as a financial control and accounting
mechanism, to enable the department to audit the records for
errors. He further explained the value of the quarterly
compensation was to provide an enforcement and correcting
mechanism to the department for resolution of remittances
that are delinquent or incorrectly calculated.
MR. GERON explained how the proposed amendment would enable
the department to continue their auditing practices, a copy
of which was at the end of the position paper. He did
praise Section 44 for changing the funding source for this
additional compensation from a general fund appropriation to
a Fish and Game fund appropriation, with a savings to the
general fund of about $500 thousand.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the following amendment to
Section 44 to read as follows:
Section 44. AS 16.05.390(d) is amended to read:
(d) Compensation provided by this section shall be
paid from appropriations made to the department
[FROM THE GENERAL FUND].
In answer to a question by SENATOR LITTLE, SENATOR TAYLOR
explained the placement of the amendment on page 13, lines 6
through 12. MR. GERON further explained the language in
current Section 44 would remain in statute and subsection
(d) would be added to the end of the section. SENATOR
TAYLOR checked to be sure everyone understood the amendment.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved the Amendment #1 from committee with no
objections.
Next, SENATOR TAYLOR called on DONALD STUDY, Director of the
Division of Labor Standards & Safety for the Department of
Labor.
MR. STUDY said he was here to address the sections, plus
some amendments, for the Department of Labor.
Section 45 - would allow the department to adopt
regulations establishing fees for administering special
inspector examinations and for processing applications
for special boiler and pressure vessel inspector
commissions. He explained these functions were
currently carried out without charge. He said the
proposed application fees of $25 would generate
approximately $400 in annual receipts to the general fund.
SENATOR HALFORD questioned putting fees in regulation, and
MR. GERON explained that was correct. He also explained
there were few special inspectors, mainly from insurance
companies.
Section 46 - would shift the set time period for
certificates of fitness for plumbers and electricians for
a one or three year certificate to a two year
certificate. He explained the section would not have a
physical impact other than stabilizing revenues in the
department, which are in support of the division and
presently in the FY94 budget.
Section 47 - would establish fees for an application
examination and for duplicates of certificates of
fitness for plumbers and electricians. It would also
increase fees for the issuance, or renewal of a
certificate. A $50 fee would generate approximately $23.8
thousand and reflects the cost of providing services. He
described the remainder of the fee schedule, which is
also in the FY94 operating budget.
Section 49 - raises the fee for an employment agent's
license from $10 to $100, which is valid for two years.
He said this fee had not been increased since 1953.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified that biennial was every other year.
Number 094
MR. STUDY defended the employment license fee change and
said there were eight licensed employment agencies operating
in the state. He explained the permitting system kept the
fly-by-nighters from coming into the state to take advantage
of it.
MR. STUDY next addressed the proposed amendments, which he
said had been approved by the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee Chairman, SENATOR KELLY. He said these amendments
would allow the phase in of the biennial licenses over a
three period to stabilize the annual revenue stream.
SENATOR TAYLOR said they would be taken one at a time.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment #1, on page 13,
lines 30 & 31, page 14, and lines 1 through 10, to provide
for a two year term for certificates of fitness. There was
an objection from SENATOR DONLEY, who thought the time and
fees should be set in statute rather than by regulation.
MR. STUDY explained the phasing in of a two year certificate
so all of the revenue doesn't come in one year, with no
revenue the following year, and to match more with the
budget.
SENATOR DONLEY said an amendment should be written to do as
MR. STUDY described, not one that gives them more power than
they need.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified the amendment was amending the
section rather than replacing it, and he reviewed the
changes. He asked why the days were taken out, and MR.
STUDY referred the question to ARBE WILLIAMS, Special
Assistant to the Department of Labor, for the answer.
MS. WILLIAMS described working with the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee on the language for Sections 46 and 47,
and explained they were only asking for a phase in period.
She thought that had been accomplished by regulations, and
she reviewed the legislation from this perspective.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed with SENATOR DONLEY'S assessment of
the sections, and he articulated his concerns on the time
frame.
MS. WILLIAMS said they would be happy to implement SENATOR
DONLEY'S suggestion. SENATOR TAYLOR read Section 49, which
he thought might answer their concerns. MS. WILLIAMS said
Section 49 was not related to the certificates of fitness
program, but she was assured that drafting could work out
the objections.
CHERYL FRASCA, Division Director for the Division of Budget
Review, asked the committee members to look at Section 72,
which relates to transition language for the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board. She suggested a similar section to
clarify the problems with Sections 46 through 48.
SENATOR TAYLOR proposed to adopt Amendment #2, a conceptual
amendment which would provide a similar transition to
Section 72 to provide the Department of Labor with the
opportunity to issue two year certificates. Without
objections, so ordered.
Number 185
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. STUDY to read his next amendment,
Amendment #3, and he provided the following:
Add a new section 47 to read
*Sec. 47 AS 18.62.030 is repealed and reenacted to read:
Sec. FEES.
(a) An applicant shall pay a non-refundable
application and examination fee of $50 when applying for a
certificate of fitness;
(b) an applicant for a trainee or journeyman level
certificate of fitness shall pay a biennial fee of $160, to
be prorated if the certificate is issued for a shorter
period, for the issuance of a certificate or a renewal
certificate;
(c) an applicant shall pay a fee of $25 for the
issuance of a duplicate certificate of fitness.
MR. STUDY explained how the amendment would be referenced by
other legislation for a master trades person. There was a
general discussion about the different levels of applicants
and the licensing fees for each.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment #3 as outlined by
MR. STUDY. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MS. FRASCA if she wanted to present
additional testimony. She said only if the committee wanted
to go through the other sections of the bill, and she listed
police standards as well DNR park fees.
SENATOR LITTLE said she was interested in parks fees, which
sparked a discussion of the fees, and SENATOR TAYLOR asked
MS. FRASCA to review those sections.
MS. FRASCA explained when the bill was proposed it included
a section that would authorize the Division of Parks to set
by regulation fees that involved day use of parks and park
facilities such as visitor centers. It would be to recover
some of the cost of developed sites. MS. FRASCA said the
Labor and Commerce Committee changed that to set the fee
amount in statute, as opposed to regulation.
MS. FRASCA reviewed the provisions of Sections 65, 66, and
67, and she referred to page 20, line 16, where the Labor
and commerce Committee inserted the word, overnight.
SENATOR LITTLE questioned where this would be.
RAGA ELIM, Special Assistant to the Department of Resources,
explained the idea was to be able to assess a nominal fee to
the users of developed facilities for day activities. He
gave two reasons for the removal of the word, overnight,
because it would reduce any revenue that could be generated,
and DNR does not want people using these facilities
overnight.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to adopt Amendment #4 which would
remove "overnight" on page 20, line 16. Without objections,
so ordered.
Number 253
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the fees were mandated, such as $1
for a visitor center or an historic site?
MR. ELIM said it provides the authorization, and he
explained the intent of the original bill which would have
allowed the promulgation of fees using public comment.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there were any other problems with
the bill, and the response was none. He explained it was
not his intent to move the bill today, but he wanted to
allow more time for a reflection on the changes.
MS. FRASCA suggested a sectional analysis in their bill
packet that might be more user friendly.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 155 (USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW
VIOLATIONS), noted the prime sponsor was SENATOR STEVE
FRANK, and invited SENATOR FRANK'S aide, DAVID SKIDMORE, to
review the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR said there would be teleconference testimony
from Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Number 307
MR. SKIDMORE explained that SB 155 related to
Landlord/Tenant Law and incorporated most of SB 35 from the
last legislative session. He further explained it was
introduce in response to constituent concerns over tenants
who were abusive of rental units, and the bill makes five
basic changes:
(1) It reduces the time a landlord must wait before
beginning the eviction proceedings from 10 to 5 days, when
tenants fail to pay rent;
(2) it makes the legal obligations of the tenant in
statute more stringent;
(3) it creates a check list process that describes the
condition of the unit at the beginning of lease, in order to
substantiate later claims for damages;
(4) it amends the nuisance abatement statutes to
include drugs and alcohol offenses;
(5) and it creates a summary eviction process for
violation of the tenant obligations in statute and in the
rental agreement.
MR. SKIDMORE said SENATOR FRANK did wish to introduce two
amendments to the bill today.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he preferred to only take testimony on
the bill today. He also noted that SENATOR DONLEY has a
series of amendments, and he suggested MR. SKIDMORE could
examine those with SENATOR FRANK. SENATOR TAYLOR promised
the bill would be rescheduled quickly.
SENATOR TAYLOR opened the teleconference site in Anchorage
to hear GLENN FLOTHE.
MR. FLOTHE indicated he was representing the Department of
Public Safety in the event there were any questions.
There were no questions, but he was invited to stand by.
SENATOR TAYLOR next called on ALICE BREWER in Anchorage.
Number 353
MRS. BREWER identified herself as the Executive Secretary
for the Landlord & Property Managers Association and the
owner of a four-plex. She praised the introduction of the
bill and explained why she thought it was greatly needed to
combat the threat of violence and social disintegration that
accompany drug dealing.
MARK BUTTERFIELD, representing the Alaska Legal Services,
explained that 95% of both the landlords and tenants were
good, and stressed there were a minor number of people, who,
he conceded, could do a great deal of damage. He reviewed
the remedies available to the landlords, with few available
to the tenants. In reference to Section 15, he suggested
there should be more of a reasonableness in handling the
tenants. (It became increasingly difficult to hear the
conclusion of his testimony.)
Number 425
SENATOR TAYLOR reviewed the amendments that were proposed
for the bill, two from the sponsor, SENATOR FRANK, and eight
from SENATOR DONLEY. He urged anyone else wishing to amend
the bill, to send their amendments to him. SENATOR TAYLOR
said the bill would be tentatively scheduled for April 6,
1993.
SENATOR TAYLOR turned to the teleconference site in
Fairbanks to hear MYRNA SHEETS.
MS. SHEETS didn't understand how there could be opposition
to landlords being ripped off and no recourse from the law.
She thought it was time that the laws were changed.
JEROME BYRD from Fairbanks, as a short term landlord,
related his bad experiences and strongly urged the
legislators to pass the bill. He thought it would make
everything right for the landlords.
MERLYN ALDEN from Fairbanks and a landlord for 15 years,
reviewed the good tenants v. the bad ones. He described how
he tried to protect the good tenants, even the mediocre
tenants, but he wanted to be able to get rid of the bad
ones.
SAM HELMS from Fairbanks claimed he had $10,000 worth of
damage to his rental, with was no recourse from the police
or the district attorney. He thought the bill might
partially correct such criminal damage, and he described the
dilemma of late payments from state welfare agencies. He
thought the 24 hour notice might help alleviate the
malicious vandalism.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked the participants for waiting to
testify and called on DOUG ISACSON in Fairbanks.
MR. ISACSON explained he was the Director of Credit Services
for the State of Alaska, a credit recording bureau,
providing consumer credit reports throughout the state. He
described one of their services, Credit Watch, which helped
landlords screen out individuals with poor track records.
He said the service was available in Fairbanks, Anchorage,
and Juneau, and he had heard the same stories from all of
the tenant watch members. He reviewed the problems with
trying to evict tenants who are trying to abuse the system.
TAPE 93-39, SIDE A
Number 001
He concluded with an appeal to get rid of the poor tenants
and safeguard the community.
*SENATOR TAYLOR announced that time constraints and lack of
quorum prevented the hearing of SB 168, but he promised it
would be rescheduled for April 6, 1993. He thanked ANNETTE
SHACKLETT, STEPHEN ROUTH, RICHARD ULLSTROM, BOB GOULD, and
PAT LYNN for waiting to testify on SB 168.
Next, SENATOR TAYLOR returned the teleconference network to
Anchorage for the remainder of the testimony.
CHARLES LIPPITT thought five days was sufficient for the
tenant to pay the landlord, and he discounted some of the
reasons given by the tenants for not paying. He encouraged
the legislature to pass the bill.
Number 086
DIXIE DIXON explained she was representing the Mountain View
Landlord group, as well as being a property owner and a real
estate broker with Remax. She further explained the
landlords could no longer depend on the police department to
back them up for the moderate to severe violent
disturbances, drug, or alcohol abuses. She said they were
told to do the evictions themselves, and she described the
immunity received by welfare recipients for damage or back
rent. She said it cost a minimum of $3,000 to do an
eviction, and she described the problems landlords have with
this. She asked for a copy of the proposed amendments
before the committee, so they could use them to make some
proposals of their own.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he would fax the amendments to them at
the Anchorage L.I.O. He then called on RAE BARGER.
MRS. BARGER said she was a property manager for 280 units in
Anchorage and does low income housing. She explained why
the legislation was important to her as a landlord to help
expedite evictions, and she described the difference the 5
days would make in her business. She also described damage
that ranged from $500 to $5000 per unit, and how that
affected her rental to low income persons. She explained
presently there were families living in shelters who need
her units but must wait for evictions and damage repair.
Number 156
JOHN TODD has owned and managed property for over 20 years,
and he explained about 80 to 95% of the tenants are very
good. He also explained how he got along with the marginal
tenants, but he deplored the bad apples. He said the 5 or 10
day notice didn't make much difference, and he described
$5000 worth of vandalism to one of his apartments. Between
insurance and the small claims court he had managed to get
most of the cost of repairs, but he didn't think the
landlords should have to put up with such damage.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed his support for the bill and
promised to be working on the legislation.
MR. TODD continued to describe the unruly tenants and how
difficult it was to get rid of them. He said even tenants
supported the bill.
HANS METZ explained he is a small landlord and his
livelihood depends on his rental business. He gave his
reasons for supporting the bill because the present system
is slow and cumbersome, the notice system doesn't work well,
and there are problems with the court. He said the bill
would allow screening out the tenants, who were abusing the
current system and protect the good tenants.
Number 224
RICHARD ILLGEN said he was an attorney, has represented both
landlords and tenants in residential and commercial
settings, and has conducted legal education seminars on
forcible entry and detainer proceedings in Alaska. He
explained how the legislation would adversely affect
commercial tenants in the area of economic pressures
particularly with the shorter time frame of five days rather
than ten.
The last person to testify on SB 155 was JAN EVENSEN from
Anchorage.
Number 284
MS. EVENSEN wished to address some of the time problems with
verification of welfare payments and the eviction of drug
dealers and bad tenants. She thought this was an abuse of
good tenants, and she noted a packet of information she had
sent to the committee, documenting some of the problems she
listed. She asked for a shorter time limit on all parts of
the notice and eviction procedures, because of the stress
factor of evicting a person.
SENATOR TAYLOR announced the committee was leaving the
teleconference network, but he reiterated his promise to fax
copies of the amendments and his intent to return SB 155 to
committee next Wednesday, April 6, 1993.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|