HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 7, 1993 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair Representative Pete Kott Representative Gail Phillips Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Nordlund MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Cliff Davidson COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 122 "An Act eliminating a requirement that a court consider the findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator when awarding shared child custody." PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 119 "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of imprisonment on a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor; directing the Alaska Supreme Court to develop and implement a day fine plan; requiring the Department of Corrections to report to the legislature on the use of day fines; amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 32; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 119 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 65 "An Act relating to the improvement of state finances through reduction of operating costs of certain state agencies and establishment of certain fees; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 65 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 128 "An Act relating to early acknowledgement of paternity for the child of an unmarried mother." CSSSHB 128 (HES) PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS SB 105 "An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers and to agents for motor vehicle buyers; and providing for an effective date." CSSB 105 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 188 "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property; and providing for an effective date." NOT HEARD WITNESS REGISTER CHRIS CHRISTENSEN Staff Counsel Alaska Court System 303 K Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 264-8228 Position Statement: Supported HB 122 ART SNOWDEN Administrative Director Alaska Court System 303 K Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 264-0547 Position Statement: Supported HB 119 REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Court Building, Room 601 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-4947 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 119 CHERYL FRASCA, Director Division of Budget Review Office of Management and Budget Office of the Governor P. O. Box 110020 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-4681 Position Statement: Explained HB 65 MARY LOU MADDEN, Assistant Director Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education Department of Education P. O. Box 110505 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-6744 Position Statement: Explained HB 65 DONALD G. STUDY, Acting Director Division of Labor Standards and Safety Department of Labor P. O. Box 20630 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Phone: 465-4855 Position Statement: Explained HB 65 SHARON BARTON, Director Division of Administrative Services Department of Administration P. O. Box 110208 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-2277 Position Statement: Explained HB 65 DAVID STEPHENS, Chief Planning Operations/Services Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Department of Natural Resources P. O. Box 107001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Phone: 762-2653 Position Statement: Explained HB 65 JANICE ADAIR, Assistant Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-5010 Position Statement: Explained HB 65 GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel House Judiciary Committee Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-6841 Position Statement: Explained HB 65 and SB 105 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Court Building, Room 600 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-3875 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 128 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Aide to Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 30 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-3873 Position Statement: Explained SB 105 STEVEN ALLWINE Alaska Auto Dealers 8725 Mallard Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 789-1386 Position Statement: Supported SB 105 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 122 SHORT TITLE: CHILD CUSTODY PROCEDURES BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY TITLE: "An Act eliminating a requirement that a court consider the findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator when awarding shared child custody." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/03/93 215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/03/93 215 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 03/17/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/17/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/19/93 703 (H) HES RPT 8DP 1NR 03/19/93 704 (H) DP: VEZEY, G.DAVIS, BUNDE, OLBERG 03/19/93 704 (H) DP: TOOHEY, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA, BRICE 03/19/93 704 (H) NR: KOTT 03/19/93 704 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 3/19/93 04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 119 SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE USE OF DAY FINES IN MISD. CASES BILL VERSION: CSHB 119(JUD) AM SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER,B.Davis,Davies,Brown, Larson TITLE: "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of imprisonment on a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor; directing the Alaska Supreme Court to develop and implement a day fine plan; requiring the Alaska Court System to report to the legislature on the use of day fines; amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 32; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/03/93 214 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/03/93 215 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/11/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/12/93 611 (H) STA RPT 3DP 3NR 03/12/93 611 (H) DP: ULMER, B.DAVIS, KOTT 03/12/93 611 (H) NR: VEZEY, OLBERG, SANDERS 03/12/93 611 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 3/12/93 03/12/93 611 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 3/12/93 04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 65 SHORT TITLE: FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVT. BILL VERSION: CSHB 65(FIN) SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR TITLE: "An Act relating to licenses, certificates, and permits administered and fees charged by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the office of public advocacy, the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Labor, the Alaska Police Standards Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Environmental Conservation; relating to the administration of the state insurance catastrophE reserve account; relating to the provision of group life or group health insurance for state employees; authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to accept certain donations for parks and recreation; relating to fiscal reporting and accounting by the Department of Administration; extending the suspension of certain tax credit provisions; and amending Alaska Rule of Probate Procedure 16(d); and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/15/93 75 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/15/93 75 (H) L&C, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 01/15/93 75 (H) -8 FNS(2-DEC, 2-DHSS, LABOR, DNR, DPS 01/15/93 75 (H) ADM) PUBLISHED 1/15/93 01/15/93 75 (H) -5 REVENUE FNS(DPS, 2-LABOR, 2- DOE)1/15 01/15/93 75 (H) -5 ZERO FNS (3-ADM, LABOR, REV) 1/15/93 01/15/93 75 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 02/01/93 201 (H) -REVISED FN (DNR) 2/1/93 02/08/93 251 (H) -CORRECTED FN (DNR) 2/8/93 02/09/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 02/11/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 02/23/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/01/93 478 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 3DP 1NR 03/01/93 478 (H) DP: PORTER, SITTON, GREEN 03/01/93 478 (H) NR: HUDSON 03/01/93 479 (H) -REVENUE FN (DPS) 3/1/93 03/01/93 479 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/1/93 03/01/93 479 (H) -7 PREV FNS (2-DEC, 2-DHSS, LABOR, DPS 03/01/93 479 (H) ADM) 1/15/93 PREV FN (DNR) 2/8/93 03/01/93 479 (H) -5 PREV REV FNS(DPS, 2-LABOR, 2 -DOE)1/15 03/01/93 479 (H) -5 PREV ZERO FNS(3-ADM,LABOR, REV) 1/15/93 03/12/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/16/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/20/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/23/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/24/93 754 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE 3DP 4NR 03/24/93 755 (H) DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, SANDERS 03/24/93 755 (H) NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS, G.DAVIS, KOTT 03/24/93 755 (H) -14 PREVIOUS FNS (SEE ABOVE) 03/24/93 755 (H) -6 PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (SEE ABOVE) 04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 128 SHORT TITLE: EARLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY BILL VERSION: SSHB 128 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS,Toohey TITLE: "An Act relating to early acknowledgement of paternity for the child of an unmarried mother." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/05/93 235 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/05/93 235 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/08/93 569 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED- REFERRALS 03/08/93 569 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/15/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/15/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/16/93 (H) HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 106 03/17/93 691 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY 03/17/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/17/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/19/93 704 (H) HES RPT CSSS(HES) 6DP 2DNP 1NR 03/19/93 704 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, BUNDE, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA 03/19/93 704 (H) DP: TOOHEY, BRICE 03/19/93 704 (H) DNP: KOTT, VEZEY 03/19/93 704 (H) NR: OLBERG 03/19/93 705 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 3/19/93 04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 105 SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS & BUYERS' AGENTS BILL VERSION: HCS CSSB 105(JUD) AM H SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Duncan; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Phillips TITLE: "An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers and to agents for motor vehicle buyers; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/08/93 284 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/08/93 284 (S) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY 02/25/93 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 02/25/93 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 02/26/93 501 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 4NR 02/26/93 501 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 03/10/93 (S) JUD AT 02:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/10/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 03/11/93 736 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2NR SAME TITLE 03/11/93 736 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS (DPS) 03/15/93 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 03/15/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/16/93 824 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/16/93 03/16/93 826 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/16/93 827 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/16/93 827 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FAILED Y11 N9 03/16/93 827 (S) THIRD READING NEXT CALENDAR 03/18/93 851 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 105 (JUD) 03/18/93 852 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT 03/18/93 852 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/18/93 852 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 03/18/93 852 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 CSSB 105(JUD) AM 03/18/93 853 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE VOTE SAME AS PASSAGE 03/18/93 858 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 03/18/93 858 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DUNCAN 03/18/93 858 (S) RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY UNAN CONSENT 03/18/93 859 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18 N- E2 03/18/93 859 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE VOTE SAME AS PASSAGE 03/18/93 864 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/19/93 702 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/19/93 702 (H) JUDICIARY 03/19/93 717 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS 04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 188 SHORT TITLE: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/01/93 489 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/01/93 490 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/01/93 490 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS, LAW) 3/1/93 03/01/93 490 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-56, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m., on April 7, 1993. A quorum was present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would address HB 122 first. HB 122: CHILD CUSTODY PROCEDURES Number 028 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated that the House Judiciary Committee had introduced HB 122, at the request of the Supreme Court. He said that the bill was a very simple, non-controversial piece of legislation. He commented that in 1988, the legislature had directed the court system to investigate potential benefits of mediation. A task force was formed, he added, and issued a report in 1990. The report recommended a change, which was contained in HB 122, he said. MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that present statutes required that the court, when determining whether or not to grant shared custody of a child, consider among other things, the findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator. House Bill 122, he stated, would eliminate that requirement. He said that the task force had concluded that this particular requirement endangered the mediation process and ran counter to the view that mediation proceedings should be kept confidential. MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that the present accepted view of mediation did not envision a mediator making recommendations about the resolution of a dispute, should mediation terminate without an agreement. The mediator's role, he added, was to guide parties to a mutual decision, not to impose a decision on them, even in the form of a recommendation. MR. CHRISTENSEN expressed his opinion that when the statute in question was first drafted, the terms "arbitration" and "mediation" had been confused. An arbitrator, he said, was supposed to listen to both sides of a dispute, and then make a recommendation to the parties or a judge. A mediator, however, was supposed to help two parties come to a mutual agreement. Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND commented that a requirement that the court merely consider the findings of a mediator did not seem like a huge imposition. Number 098 MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that the problem was that the statute required the court to consider a list of things, one of which it was not appropriate to consider. An ethical mediator, he noted, would not make a recommendation. He said that current law confused both mediators and judges. Number 115 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER commented that current law set up an impossible task. Number 122 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 122 out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 119 next. HB 119: AUTHORIZE USE OF DAY FINES IN MISD. CASES Number 153 ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, mentioned that his agency had researched day fines and written a report on them. He said that the concept of day fines was not new, particularly in Europe, but was new to Alaska. He noted that HB 119 envisioned using fines, rather than incarceration or other sanctions, as punishment for certain non-violent misdemeanors. He said that day fines were based on both the seriousness of a crime and the income of the offender. He added that day fines were the primary penalty used in Germany, Sweden, and other European countries. Number 168 MR. SNOWDEN noted that the Court System believed using day fines would have several advantages. Unlike incarceration, he said, fines would generate revenue for municipalities and the state. Also, he said, fines would be inexpensive to administer, compared to jail time or other sanctions. Additionally, fines were already used in some form in most courts, he said, so the additional burden of day fines would be small. Number 183 MR. SNOWDEN indicated the Court System's support for HB 119. He stated that it currently took the Court System eleven months to get a misdemeanant into jail in Anchorage, due to prison crowding. He said that such unsure punishment would not deter anyone from doing anything. He said that the judicial system was frustrated in trying to carry out the laws passed by the legislature. However, he said that the judicial branch felt that not every crime demanded incarceration. MR. SNOWDEN mentioned that the use of day fines was being experimented with in several counties in the United States. He said that Alaska was facing a prison crisis, and should look into using day fines. Number 237 REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 119, stated that the bill would provide an additional option to sentencing judges. She said that day fines would be used for misdemeanors other than crimes against a person. She noted that one rationale behind HB 119 was to get money flowing into the treasury, instead of out of the treasury and into the correctional system. She mentioned the current bed shortage in Alaska's prisons, and said that ten out of twelve of the state's prisons were full. The state had to do many things to relieve the pressure, she said. The imposition of day fines was one of those things, she stated. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that European countries had employed day fines for years. Those countries incarcerated less, and had stiffer fines than the United States did, she said. She commented that day fines would teach individuals that crime did not pay. She questioned whether rehabilitation was accomplished by incarcerating an offender for several months. She expressed her opinion that day fines were especially appropriate for non-violent, first offenders. Number 302 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN believed that day fines would have a deterrent effect. However, he expressed concerns about how day fines would work for unemployed or cyclically- employed offenders. Number 312 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER thought that day fines would work, regardless of when a person was employed. Number 321 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Snowden to address what would happen if a welfare recipient received a day fine. Number 325 MR. SNOWDEN responded that day fines were so named because they were tailored to a particular individual's income. The current system imposed similar fines on offenders for specific offenses regardless of their ability to pay. Consequently, he said, many fines now went unpaid. He said that for welfare recipients, community service could be performed, in lieu of a monetary fine. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that the Court System's study of day fines found them to be effective, even for low-income offenders. REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked Representative Ulmer if the state had attempted to implement a day fine program in the past. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied in the negative. Number 352 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND thought that day fines were a good idea. He expressed his opinion that static fines were ineffective. He questioned whether the Court System would be able to collect the day fines. Number 363 MR. SNOWDEN noted that the Court System was currently not very successful in its efforts to collect fines. Many people were unable to pay fines, he said, especially when they were incarcerated. He said that the Department of Law now employed an attorney whose job it was to collect fines of over $250. He noted that some day fines would definitely fall into that category. Additionally, he said that the Court System was attempting to impose "electronic executions," whereby fines of even less than $250 could be paid through electronic transfers, reducing collection costs. MR. SNOWDEN believed that the Court System would be more successful in collecting day fines than it currently was in collecting other types of fines. He commented that in one study, researchers had found that 85% of day fines were paid in full, compared with 70% of other types of fines. He hoped, if the day fine experiment worked, in the future non- violent class C felonies might be added to the list of crimes covered by day fines. Number 404 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that day fines were a very good idea. Number 409 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER called the committee's attention to a PROPOSED AMENDMENT, dated March 10, 1993, included in their bill packets. She said that the amendment would try to address a concern that the legislature was giving too much latitude to the Court System in devising the day fine system. The amendment would create a two-tiered day fine system, to reflect class A and class B misdemeanors. She commented that she was willing to leave creation of the program up to the Court System's discretion, but she did not oppose adoption of the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER noted that the amendment addressed questions raised by the Legislative Affairs' Agency's Division of Legal Services. Number 434 MR. SNOWDEN stated that the Court System supported the amendment. He said that any new pilot project should have strict guidelines, which could be loosened in the future. Number 440 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated March 10, 1993. There being no objection, the AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED. Number 452 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Court System would be precluded from employing other sanctions, if it chose to use day fines. Number 456 MR. SNOWDEN hoped day fines would be used as a primary penalty, but said that the Court System would not be precluded from employing other sanctions as well. Number 467 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that a day fine would be an option for a judge, and part of a long list of sentencing options. She stated that if the day fine option was chosen, it was envisioned as a "stand alone" sentencing choice, as opposed to being in addition to another type of sentence. Number 480 CHAIRMAN PORTER understood that day fines were intended to serve as an alternative to jail time. He could, however, see day fines working in concert with community work service. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said that such a combination would not be precluded. MR. SNOWDEN commented that other types of fines would not be precluded, either. Number 487 CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed concerns about imposing day fines on "youthful offenders," aged 18-25. He commented that in many cases, parents paid fines for these youthful offenders. He asked if the Court System could assess such situations and make day fines commensurate with a parent's income, instead of the youthful offender's. Number 495 MR. SNOWDEN did not know the answer to the Chairman's question, but suspected that the Court System could not impose a day fine commensurate with a parent's income in that situation. Number 510 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that HB 119 required that fines be paid within 180 days of their imposition. He commented that, for very large fines, 180 days was a pretty short period of time. Number 518 MR. SNOWDEN replied that the Court System wanted the day fines to "hurt." Spreading a fine out over a longer period of time would make it hurt less, he said. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 119 (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Number 532 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that HB 119 required the Department of Corrections (DOC) to submit an annual report on the day fine system. He asked why the DOC was being asked to submit the report. Number 538 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied that the Court System might be a more appropriate agency to write the report. She also suggested requiring that the first report be filed two years from the bill's enactment, instead of one year, as it would take some time for results to be known. Number 548 MR. SNOWDEN agreed with changing the reporting agency from the DOC to the Court System and delaying the date of the first report until two years after enactment of HB 119. Number 553 CHAIRMAN PORTER OFFERED A CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT making those two changes. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER and MR. SNOWDEN expressed their support. Number 555 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED the AMENDMENT. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was any problem with the amendment showing 365 day units as a possible fine which needed to be paid within 180 days. Number 568 MR. SNOWDEN replied that, in his opinion, the language did not present a problem. Number 571 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that Representative Green was referring to the formula used for calculating day fines. Number 579 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 119 (JUD), as amended, out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 65 next. HB 65: FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVT. CHERYL FRASCA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB), OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, commented that when the governor's office was working on the budget, a number of different departments suggested repealing out-of-date statutes and changing certain fee amounts. She said that HB 65 pertained to many different state agencies. She called the members' attention to a sectional analysis in their bill packets. She stated that the bill had been heard by the House Labor and Commerce Committee and later the House State Affairs Committee. MS. FRASCA urged the committee to return to the House Labor and Commerce version of the bill. Number 632 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that Ms. Frasca explain HB 65, section by section. Number 646 MS. FRASCA first referred to sections 1-32 of the House State Affairs Committee substitute for HB 65, which related to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board. She said that currently liquor licenses were issued annually. House Bill 65 proposed to change that so that licenses would be issued biennially. The change, she said, would result in the ABC board's workload evening out. License fees would be doubled, she noted, because they would only be issued every two years. The bill did not increase the license fees, she added. She indicated that she was not requesting the committee to make any changes to these sections of the bill. MS. FRASCA then addressed sections 33-35 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. She said that those sections would allow the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to charge fees for public guardian services, based on an individual's ability to pay. The OMB was not requesting any change to these sections, either, she noted. She stated that section 36 was also added by the House State Affairs Committee. Currently, she said, receipts from the sale of fish and game licenses were deposited into the fish and game fund. MS. FRASCA added that vendors were then paid for the sale of the licenses from the general fund. Section 36 provided that the fish and game fund both received the proceeds from license sales and be used to make payments to vendors. The OMB was requesting no change to this particular section, she said. Number 680 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concerns with section 36, from an accounting standpoint. Number 686 MS. FRASCA stated that each vendor kept $1 from the sale of every fish and game license. Accounts were adjusted quarterly, she added. Number 694 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued to express concerns with the program's budgeting and accounting procedures. MS. FRASCA stated that the effect of section 36 was simply to change the fund source from the general fund to the fish and game fund. She said that she would have a representative from the Department of Fish and Game contact Representative James to discuss the matter further. Number 707 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED to section 36, for accounting reasons. She called the accounting "deceptive." Number 718 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the ability to discern the difference between vendor payments and revenues still existed. Number 720 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman, but said that expenses taken out of the proceeds were not recognized in the budget process. Number 727 MS. FRASCA noted that the House State Affairs Committee had eliminated two sections from HB 65, which authorized the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) to assess a 1% loan guarantee fee. This, she said, would help to offset losses resulting from student loan debt cancellation due to the death, disability, or bankruptcy of the student. She asked the House Judiciary Committee to reinsert these provisions. She said that the provisions were estimated to generate approximately one-half of the revenues lost every year by the ACPE. Number 738 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the ACPE had not set the fee at an amount commensurate with the anticipated losses. Number 745 MARY LOU MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ACPE, said that because the ACPE historically had charged no fees at all, it was felt that a 1% fee would be fair. Number 753 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that she would like to see the section reinstated. She added that the ACPE should be notified that if it wished to increase the fee at a later date, it should alert the legislature. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what the House State Affairs Committee's rationale for deleting the section had been. Number 759 MS. FRASCA replied that there had been no discussion on the matter. Number 762 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that it was standard operating procedure for loan funds to include a fee to cover losses. She said that it was responsible of the ACPE to institute the 1% fee. Number 767 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Phillips that most loan programs implemented a fee to cover losses. However, she said, student loans were very small, and every dollar counted. In that light, she said, it was unfair to make students who paid back their loans pay for those who did not. Number 775 MS. MADDEN commented that students could increase the amount of money they requested from the ACPE, in order to cover the cost of the 1% fee. She pointed out that federal student loan programs instituted a 6% fee to cover losses. Number 792 MS. FRASCA commented that sections 39-43 in the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 contained a similar 1% fee provision, but for other programs operated by the ACPE. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 36-38 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 795 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if recipients of loans addressed in sections 39-43 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 could also increase the amount of their loans to cover the cost of the 1% fee. MS. MADDEN replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 39- 43 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. TAPE 93-56, SIDE B Number 000 MS. FRASCA called the members' attention to sections 44-46 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65, which had been deleted by the House State Affairs Committee. She asked the committee to reinstate all three of the sections. Those sections pertained to the Department of Labor's (DOL's) ability to adopt regulations to establish fees for the issuance of certain certificates. Additionally, she said, the sections would change the time cycles for issuing the certificates. Number 020 MS. FRASCA stated that section 44 would allow the DOL to set a fee for administering examinations and processing applications for special boiler and pressure vessel inspector commissions. Currently, she said, there was no charge for these services. Number 028 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN PROPOSED an AMENDMENT to section 44, but subsequently WITHDREW it after he realized that his amendment did not pertain to the section under discussion. Number 068 MS. FRASCA mentioned that the DOL currently issued plumber and electrician certificates for one or three years, as provided in statute. Section 45, which was deleted from the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, would give the DOL the authority to set the time period by regulation. The DOL's intent was to issue the certificates every two years, she said. The effect of reinstating section 45 would be to even out the revenues taken in by the DOL, she noted. Number 082 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification of the effect of reinstatement of section 45. Number 102 DON STUDY, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND SAFETY, DOL, stated that reinstatement of section 45 would even out the flow of program receipts into the DOL. Number 122 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to compare the change proposed in section 45 with the change made to the ABC licensing procedures. Number 124 MS. FRASCA commented that section 46 of the House State Affairs Committee substitute to HB 65 provided for a phased- in implementation of the ABC license provisions, so that revenues would flow evenly into the general fund. Number 136 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the House State Affairs Committee had deleted sections 44-46. Number 140 MR. STUDY did not have any idea why the sections had been deleted. Number 143 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT indicated that, as a member of the House State Affairs Committee, he knew that many of the changes made to HB 65 were part of a policy to limit the agencies' regulatory authority. Members of the House State Affairs Committee had expressed concern that agencies might establish unreasonable fees for certain services. Number 165 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that specific dollar and percentage amounts were included in HB 65, thereby limiting the latitude granted to the agencies. Number 176 MS. FRASCA stated that there was a philosophical debate regarding whether fees should be set in statute or by regulation. Recent trends had been to establish fees by regulation, she said. She noted that the regulatory process included public participation. She said that it was up to the House Judiciary Committee to decide whether fees should be set by regulation or in statute. She noted that the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 established the fees in statute. Number 195 MR. STUDY commented that, if the committee decided to set fees in statute, a transition period should also be provided for in statute. Number 205 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES supported phasing in programs, as it would level out workloads and revenue flows. She mentioned that setting fees in statute would make it more difficult to change those fees later. On the other hand, she said, the legislature did not have the authority to repeal regulations. Until that happened, she was inclined to establish fees in statute. Number 223 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Frasca to explain what the House State Affairs Committee had done to sections 44-46. Number 226 MS. FRASCA replied that the House State Affairs Committee had deleted everything. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the Senate's version of HB 65 set fees in statute. MS. FRASCA noted that DOL Commissioner Charles Mahlen had submitted proposed language for the committee's consideration. MR. STUDY commented that the AMENDMENT would put language into HB 65 that was nearly identical to language included in the Senate version of the bill. Number 265 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment would allow the DOL to set fees by regulation. MS. FRASCA stated that the first amendment in Commissioner Mahlen's submission appeared to be similar to section 44, which enabled the DOL to set fees for special inspector commissions, for which there currently was no charge. Language would have to be drafted to put the fee in statute, she said. The amendment pertaining to section 38 would take the place of section 45, she noted. Number 272 CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed his support for the resolution allowing the legislature to repeal regulations. He preferred leaving the House State Affairs Committee's substitute for HB 65 as it was, realizing that it would have to eventually be melded with the Senate's version of the fees' bill. Number 288 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman. She commented that setting fees by regulation would be more efficient than setting them in statute. However, she said, without legislative oversight for regulations, she preferred to set them in statute. Number 303 MR. STUDY commented that the fees set forth in sections 44- 46 were included in the DOL's FY 94 budget. He mentioned the impact of budget cuts on the DOL's programs, and said that if the fees included in sections 44-46 were disallowed, elevator and amusement ride inspections would probably be discontinued. Number 326 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Study to comment on the Senate's proposals regarding the DOL fees. Number 330 MR. STUDY replied that the Senate had proposed an additional cut to the Division of Labor Standards and Safety. Number 333 MS. FRASCA commented that the Senate's version of the fees' bill would set fees in statute, thereby generating the fees which Mr. Study was discussing. She added that the DOL faced a different reduction, from a cut made by the Senate Finance Committee. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Senate version of the fee bill would put the DOL back at the appropriate funding level for certain programs. MS. FRASCA replied in the affirmative. Number 346 MR. STUDY stated that his division dealt with public safety and worker safety issues. Budget cuts would, at some point, increase injuries and fatalities, he said. Number 358 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 44 and 45 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 375 MS. FRASCA noted that section 46 pertained to the generation of program receipts, and would allow fees to be set by regulation. Number 383 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about rushing through the sections of HB 65. She was uncomfortable with section 46's authorization for the DOL to charge a new, nonrefundable application and examination fee. Number 400 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that both the House and Senate leadership wanted to pass an omnibus fees' bill. He said that there would be a meeting of the House version of the bill and the Senate version. Number 407 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the Chairman's comments had given her some comfort; however, she still wanted to give HB 65 adequate consideration. Number 412 CHAIRMAN PORTER understood Representative James' concerns. But, he said, no matter what the committee did to HB 65, he knew that the bill would be subsequently discussed and perhaps amended in a conference committee. For that reason, he did not want to put an inordinate amount of effort into working on the bill, knowing that it would be tinkered with later. He expressed his support for maintaining the House State Affairs Committee's deletion of section 46. Number 424 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recommended that the committee reinstate section 46. He said that, as the state cut back paying for services out of the general fund, important safety services needed to continue, and had to be paid for somehow. He made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 46. CHAIRMAN PORTER OBJECTED. Number 436 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Nordlund that certain services could not be continued forever, without the state charging fees for those services. He questioned what amount the state should charge for certain services, given that there had been no fees in the past. He was uncomfortable referring to fees without knowing the amount of those fees. Number 451 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that there were dollar figures in section 46. She supported for Representative Nordlund's motion. She cited the public process inherent in the regulation adoption process. She noted that the agencies knew how much to charge for services, as they were directly involved in the provision of those services. Number 463 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about the effect of the lengthy regulation writing process on the DOL's budget. Number 472 MS. FRASCA commented that section 59 of CSHB 65 (L&C) allowed departments which would be promulgating regulations to get a "head start" on the regulation writing process. A roll call vote on reinstatement of section 46 was taken. Representatives Nordlund, Phillips, and Green voted "YEA." Representatives Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, the MOTION FAILED. Number 491 MS. FRASCA explained that section 47 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 authorized the Alaska Police Standards Council to issue regulations to establish fees for processing applications for state certification of police, probation, parole, and correctional officers. The fee was expected to be $50, she said. She indicated that this provision was also included in the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. Number 498 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Frasca who would pay the $50 fee. Number 499 MS. FRASCA replied that the individual applicants would pay. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that a municipality could pay the fee, if it so desired. There being no objection, section 47 REMAINED in the bill. Number 505 MS. FRASCA explained that section 48 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 had been deleted by the House State Affairs Committee. Currently, she said, there was a $10 permit application filing fee for employment agencies. Section 48 would increase that fee to $100, she added. She was not aware of why the section had been deleted by the House State Affairs Committee. Number 515 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that the House State Affairs Committee had discussed the exorbitant increase contained in section 48. Number 519 MR. STUDY commented that the fee had not been increased in 40 years. CHAIRMAN PORTER added that the House Labor and Commerce Committee had agreed that it would be impossible to process an application for $10. Number 523 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that the fees suggested in HB 65 were not out of line. But, she expressed concern that those fees could be increased later. She believed that $100 was a fair fee for employment agency permit applications. There being no objection to reinstating section 48, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 534 MS. FRASCA explained that section 49 in the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 amended the definition of "program receipts." Currently, she said, Aetna reimbursed the state for administering the state employee health insurance program. Those reimbursements had been previously defined as "general fund program receipts." Section 49 would change the definition to "benefit systems receipts," she said. MS. FRASCA explained the effect of sections 50 and 51 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. She said that currently, the federal government paid the state monies which the state used to pay risk management premiums. She added that the federal government had criticized the state because the state deposited some of the monies into the general fund and some of the monies into a reserve account. Sections 50 and 51 would have the effect of complying with the federal government's requirements. If they were not included in HB 65, she said, the state might have to give some of the federal money back. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to clarify her remarks. MS. FRASCA stated that the federal government wanted the state to put more of the money into the catastrophe reserve account than it had been. Number 571 SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (DOA), said that these monies currently all flowed into the general fund. The monies were then appropriated for various purposes. But, she said, the federal government had appropriated those monies for insurance purposes and wanted the monies to go back into the state's insurance program. By putting the monies into the catastrophe fund, they would be used for the settlement of extraordinary claims in the future. Number 591 MS. FRASCA explained section 52 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. She said that the section clarified the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's) ability to accept cash or other donations to support parks. Section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 was deleted by the House State Affairs Committee, she said. It would authorize the DNR to promulgate regulations to set fees for day use of state parks, admission to visitor centers, sale of firewood, and a number of other activities. Number 602 CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a document in their bill packets which pertained to this section. Number 605 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about whether the DNR would need to hire personnel to go out and collect these fees. Number 613 DAVID STEPHENS, CHIEF, PLANNING OPERATIONS/SERVICES, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DNR, commented that such fees would be collected by an "iron ranger" (collection box), on an honor system. Volunteer campground hosts exerted subtle pressure on park users to deposit their fees in the "iron ranger." Very little staff time would be devoted to the emptying of the "iron rangers." He said that the existing system enjoyed good compliance. Number 629 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if reinstating this section would take care of the concerns addressed by Neil Johannsen, Director of the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative. Number 634 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 637 MS. FRASCA commented that section 54 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 pertained to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). She said that the section would allow the DEC to charge fees for services which it currently provided, but for which it did not currently have the authority to charge fees. Number 644 CHAIRMAN PORTER had heard concerns expressed that the DEC would use this particular section to recover monies lost to budget cuts. Number 647 JANICE ADAIR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEC, stated that her agency could not receive and expend the funds to which section 54 pertained, without legislative authority. She said that her agency currently had no plans to establish fees authorized under section 54. But, she said, if it came down to a choice between losing general funds or losing "primacy" for the solid waste program, the DEC might opt to establish fees. She indicated that a similar situation might exist for the hazardous waste program. Number 668 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Adair if fees would flow back to the DEC, or if they would go into the general fund. MS. ADAIR replied that all of the fees would be deposited into the general fund. The DEC would then identify them in their budget submission to the OMB as "general fund/program receipts." Number 673 MS. FRASCA commented that while the DOL's budget anticipated program receipts, the DEC's present FY 94 budget did not reflect receipts anticipated, under this particular section of HB 65. She reiterated Ms. Adair's comment that the DEC would need to come back before the legislature to request the authority to receive and expend the funds. Number 681 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the legislature had, the year before, authorized the DEC to increase permit fees. She had received comments from constituents regarding these increases. Number 687 MS. ADAIR explained that when permit fees had been increased, the DEC had held numerous public hearings, and had sent out thousands of pieces of mail on the subject, in addition to running advertisements in newspapers. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why section 54 was necessary, since the DEC had increased its permit fees last year. MS. ADAIR stated that the fees to which Representative Phillips was referring were for restaurant inspections and seafood inspections. Number 693 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what the fees in section 54 were for. MS. ADAIR replied that section 54 expanded the fees program, so that the DEC could establish fees for solid waste permits and hazardous waste permits. Number 697 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS recommended that the DEC, when sending out bills for permit fees, include an explanation of what the fee was for. TAPE 93-57, SIDE A Number 003 MS. ADAIR acknowledged that there had been some problems with billings for restaurant inspections. Number 020 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that several departments might be charging the public for work on a single permit. Number 040 MS. ADAIR replied that no department other than the DEC had authority to assess fees on the permits under discussion. She added that a municipality could undertake some of the permitting activities; if a municipality chose to do so, she said, then the DEC was statutorily precluded from charging a permit fee, as it would not be issuing the permit. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the DNR would charge any fees for the permits under discussion. MS. ADAIR responded that the DNR would not charge any fees for these particular permits. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the permitted entities would require business licenses. MS. ADAIR replied that certain facilities would probably require business licenses. MS. FRASCA explained that sections 42 and 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 should be deleted, as amendments to other sections of HB 65 made the sections moot. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42 and 43 from the bill. Number 103 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about a boat launching fee on a river in her district. She made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's action on reinstating section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. Number 162 MS. FRASCA stated that section 53 would allow the DNR to set fees by regulation. She noted that the House State Affairs Committee had taken existing regulation fees and put them into statute. Additionally, she said, that committee had reduced boat launching fees. Number 172 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES preferred to have a particular portion of the House State Affairs Committee's section 42 included in HB 65. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED, on the grounds that if the state maintained a boat launching ramp, someone needed to pay for that maintenance. Number 195 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the ramp she was concerned with had been built by private individuals, but was maintained by the state. The people who built the ramp objected to having to pay to use it, she said. CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative Phillips that, because the state maintained the ramp, user fees should help to pay for that maintenance. Number 214 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification on charges for visiting historic sites. Number 224 MR. STEPHENS replied that the state park system maintained only a handful of historic sites. He said that historic sites along the side of the road were not administered by the state park system. Number 237 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that the language in HB 65 was unclear as to which historic sites were covered. He asked if the DNR intended to put its temporary fees in regulation. Number 250 MR. STEPHENS replied that it was the DNR's intention to add the temporary fees to existing regulations. The temporary fees would allow the DNR to get a head start on collecting the fees, before the regulation writing process was completed. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it was the DNR's intention to turn the temporary fees into permanent fees. MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative. Number 275 MS. FRASCA mentioned that public input would influence the amount of fees set by the DNR. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there was a big difference between the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 53 and the House State Affairs Committee's section 42. Number 314 CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative James that the two sections were very different. A roll call vote on rescinding the committee's action on the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 53 was taken. Representative James and Kott voted "YEA." Representatives Nordlund, Phillips, Green, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, the MOTION FAILED. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42 and 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that deleting sections 42 and 43 was essentially a conforming action. A roll call vote on deleting sections 42 and 43 from the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 was taken. Representatives Phillips, Green, Kott, Nordlund, and Porter voted "YEA." Representative James voted "NAY." And so, sections 42 and 43 were DELETED. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED. Number 380 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OFFERED an AMENDMENT relating to page 15, lines 7-8 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. He said that his amendment would implement a user fee for oil spill contingency plan review of $1 per gallon based on the realistic maximum oil discharge described in a contingency plan, but not to exceed $2,500. He expressed support for amending his amendment to include a minimum fee, also. Number 436 MS. ADAIR commented that the House State Affairs Committee's section 44 took existing DEC authority to set fees by regulation, put those fees in statute, and lowered them significantly. Due to this section, she said, the DEC had submitted a $789,000 general fund fiscal note to HB 65. She said that contingency plans were based on barrels, not on gallons, and that only facilities with more than 10,000 barrels of oil had to have a contingency plan. She indicated the DEC's opposition to Representative Green's amendment, as the revenue generated would not cover the agency's costs. Number 485 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Adair if the amendment would assist the DEC, in the event that HB 238, Oil and Hazardous Substances Release Response Fund, passed. Number 491 MS. ADAIR replied that it would not. She expressed concerns about the amendment's impact on small businesses. Number 501 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the amendment would not be of assistance to small operators, as fees were on a sliding scale. Number 505 MS. ADAIR reiterated her concern that Representative Green's amendment would not cover her agency's costs. Number 512 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if it would be possible for the DEC to review like oil spill contingency plans together. Number 520 MS. ADAIR noted that there were some similarities in some plans. However, she said that the DEC was very sensitive to criticisms that it did not adequately review contingency plans. In that light, she said, the DEC would still need to review each plan separately. Number 534 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he was not suggesting that the DEC short-circuit the review process. Number 548 MS. ADAIR commented that regulations developed to implement former HB 567 had set out a format for contingency plans. A contingency plan, she said, was a total document, and needed to be thoroughly reviewed by the DEC. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the issue before the committee was whether to set these fees in statute, as the House State Affairs Committee had done, or to allow the DEC to set them by regulation, as the House Labor and Commerce Committee had done. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that he had made a motion to reinstate the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54. OBJECTION was heard. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND AMENDED his MOTION to REINSTATE the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54 to also INCLUDE the DELETION of the House State Affairs Committee's section 44. MS. ADAIR said that even if section 44 was deleted, the DEC already had the authority in current law to establish fees for contingency plan review. That, she said, would not change. It was her understanding that Representative Green's amendment would reestablish the DEC's authority to set contingency plan review fees in regulation. Number 638 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN WITHDREW his AMENDMENT. A roll call vote on Representative Nordlund's motion was taken. Representatives Green, Nordlund, and Porter voted "YEA." Representative Kott voted "NAY." And so, the MOTION PASSED. Number 680 MS. FRASCA asked the committee to reinstate the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 55, which would authorize the DEC to set fees to recover its indirect costs of administering the air quality permit program. She noted that this change was required by the federal government. Currently, she said, the DEC could recover direct costs, but not indirect costs. Number 686 MS. ADAIR stated that a similar provision was contained in HB 167, Air Quality Control Program, but was also included in HB 65, as a "safety net" in the event that HB 167 did not pass the legislature this year. Number 693 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if section 55 would not be necessary, if HB 167 did pass. Number 699 MS. ADAIR said that the Chairman was correct, but said that the DEC wanted to be safe rather than sorry. Number 709 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if, in the event that HB 167 did not pass, section 55 would in some manner satisfy federal requirements. Number 711 MS. ADAIR replied that it would satisfy the federal government to a great extent. Number 721 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if section 55 would conflict with comparable provisions in HB 167, in the event that both became law. Number 723 MS. ADAIR expressed an opinion that, if both bills passed, HB 65's section 55 would simply become moot. Number 730 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the committee should write a letter of intent which said that if HB 167 passed, section 55 of HB 65 would not be enacted. Number 732 GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, stated that could be accomplished through an additional section in HB 65. Number 735 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 55 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65, and to add a section to the House Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 65 that stated that if HB 167 passed, section 55 would be repealed. There being no objection to the motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 755 MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 56 was retained in the House State Affairs bill, and included technical amendments related to the OPA and the DOA's accounting system. She asked that the Committee not make any changes to this area of HB 65. MS. FRASCA explained that another component of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 56 was retained by the House State Affairs Committee in section 45 of its version of HB 65. This section repealed the DNR's authority to promulgate regulations to set fees for park use. She asked that the committee delete this particular provision. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE section 45 of CSHB 65 (STA). An "at ease" was called at 4:20 p.m. The committee reconvened at 4:22 p.m. There being no objection to Rep. Nordlund's motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED. MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 57 established the DNR's temporary fee schedule for parks, which the committee had discussed earlier. The House State Affairs Committee had deleted this section from the bill; Ms. Frasca requested that the committee reinstate it. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 57 of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 58 was a conforming amendment regarding ABC licenses. This section was also included in the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, she said. The committee had no objection to maintaining that section. MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 59 (the House State Affairs Committee's section 47) allowed agencies which would be promulgating regulations to get a head start on that process, instead of waiting for the effective date of HB 65. The committee had no objection to maintaining this section of the bill. MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 60 (the House State Affairs Committee's section 48) pertained to the OPA. She said that this section stated that the amendments which authorized the OPA to charge fees for public guardians have the effect of amending a court rule. The committee had no objection to maintaining this section. Number 825 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee's sections 61-64 (the House State Affairs Committee's sections 49-51) included the effective dates of HB 65's provisions. There being no objection to including the effective dates, they were MAINTAINED in the bill. Number 830 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee had before it a Judiciary Committee substitute, which was an amended version of the House Labor and Commerce Committee substitute. TAPE 93-57, SIDE B Number 019 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested amending an existing statute which pertained to section 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. He said that it might be better to offer his amendment on the floor. He noted that the DNR currently issued, free of charge, a state camping permit to disabled U. S. veterans. He said that his amendment would change that policy to offer that benefit to Alaska residents only, rather than all U. S. citizens. Number 090 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment could be more easily made in committee than on the floor, as a Judiciary Committee substitute had to be drafted anyway. Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that Representative Kott could bring the amendment to the attention of the House Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that he would do that. Number 128 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that a Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 65 was now before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED to PASS CSHB 65 (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 128 next. HB 128: EARLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY Number 197 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 128, explained that the intent of HB 128 was to assist the state in its efforts to collect child support payments. She read a sponsor statement, a copy of which is on file in the House Judiciary Committee, Room 120, Capitol Building. In summary, she said that non-support of children was a national epidemic. She said that her bill would require a paternity acknowledgement form be used at the time of birth. She stated that there was a very small fiscal note attached to HB 128, for a one-time upgrade of certain forms. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that passage of HB 128 would allow the state to apply for federal funds for the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED). She mentioned that the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) supported the bill. Number 282 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to PASS CSSSHB 128 (HES) out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up SB 105 next. SB 105: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS & BUYERS' AGENTS Number 321 JOE AMBROSE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, PRIME SPONSOR of SB 105, testified that SB 105 had been introduced in response to a constituent concern. In early January, he said, an auto broker had abruptly shut down his business and left customers without vehicles for which they had paid, or without titles, or being dunned by automobile dealers when they thought they had already paid for their cars. He stated that SB 105 differentiated between a dealer and a buyer's agent. MR. AMBROSE said the bill required that any car sold as new include the manufacturer's certificate of origin. That would prevent a car from being sold a second time while being represented as new, he said. This was important for warranty reasons, he added. He mentioned that SB 105 required purchase agreements which fully disclose warranty terms between buyer's agents and buyers. Warranties would remain with the vehicle and pertain specifically to the vehicle, he said, resulting in consumer protection. MR. AMBROSE noted that SB 105 created a "paper trail" of any transaction between a buyer's agent and a buyer, with specific records' retention requirements. He noted that the bill increased penalties for violation of the law from a current $300 fine to a class B misdemeanor, or up to a $1,000 fine. He indicated that the sponsor had reviewed a House Judiciary Committee draft committee substitute for SB 105 and supported it. He added that SB 105 would not result in a fiscal impact to the state. Number 362 STEVEN ALLWINE, representing the ALASKA AUTO DEALERS, testified in support of SB 105. He mentioned that there had been a significant number of instances in which customers purchased automobiles, but received cars different than what they had expected. Additionally, he said, customers sometimes bought cars that were supposed to be new, but in fact were used. These situations resulted in warranty problems for the customers and for auto dealers. MR. ALLWINE commented that manufacturers had expressed concern over this method of car distribution, particularly in relation to warranty coverage, product safety, and recall issues. He noted that the Senate had unanimously passed SB 105. The draft committee substitute provided an additional safeguard for consumers, by implementing a bonding requirement for buyers' agents. He urged support for the bill. Number 418 MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a draft committee substitute for SB 105 dated April 6, 1993. She said that the draft committee substitute took SB 105, as amended on the Senate floor by Senator Al Adams, and added new material which had been suggested for inclusion by the Alaska Auto Dealers. She noted that Senator Adams' amendment could be found on page 2, lines 3-5, and addressed situations in which a car was purchased and subsequently shipped to a rural area. In such a situation, she said, it might not be feasible to have a dealer perform warranty work. The language allowed a buyer and a dealer to reach agreements regarding repairs and payment. MS. HORETSKI commented that new language began at line 31 on page 2, and continued through line 25 of page 4. She said that this new language required registration and bonding of buyer's agents. She noted that the amount of the bond was the same as the amount that automobile dealers had to put up under existing law. She stated that language on page 4, lines 26-28 was also new, and added a requirement that before a buyer's agent negotiated on behalf of a buyer the purchase of a motor vehicle from a dealer, the buyer's agent had to have a written contract with the buyer. MS. HORETSKI said that in reviewing SB 105, she did not find any legal problems. She called the members' attention to a potential problem on page 2, line 28, which made changes to existing law relating to penalties. She said that a reference to class B misdemeanors was added. Also, she said, the old statute used the culpable mental state of "willfully," which was no longer a part of the Alaska criminal code. For that reason, she asked the drafters to change the term "willfully" to "knowingly," which was the closest equivalent culpable mental state. MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 6, line 7, where a new penalties section referred to "criminal negligence." That, she said, was a different culpable mental state than that on page 2, and resulted in the law containing different culpable mental states for buyer's agents and dealers. She stated that the committee could either leave the language as it was, or change it to make the required culpable mental state the same for both dealers and buyer's agents. Number 499 CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested making the two culpable mental states the same. Number 505 MS. HORETSKI reviewed the four culpable mental states in criminal law, from least serious to most serious: criminal negligence, recklessly, knowingly, and intentionally. Number 521 CHAIRMAN PORTER recommended using "knowingly" for both dealers and buyer's agents in SB 105. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE "with criminal negligence" from page 6, line 7 of SB 105 and to INSERT "knowingly." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. He asked to hear from the sponsor's representative. Number 532 MR. AMBROSE stated that the sponsor would concur with the change. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT REMOVED his OBJECTION. Then, without further objection, the AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED. Number 550 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 105 (JUD), as amended. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 554 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked the members if they felt that buyer's agents should put up a larger bond than dealers. He said that $10,000 seemed like a very small amount. Number 569 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES echoed Representative Kott's concern. She said that dealers were usually stationary, whereas buyer's agents were more transient, creating more risk for buyers. However, she said that dealers were probably much more able than buyer's agents to come up with $10,000. Number 585 MR. AMBROSE stated that the bill's sponsor did not intend to make SB 105 punitive. He said that there were many communities within Senator Taylor's district which did not have auto dealerships. He said that the bill simply made buyer's agents comply with the same requirements as automobile dealers. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that $10,000 would not go far to help a consumer who had purchased a $25,000 car from an unscrupulous buyer's agent. But, he understood Mr. Ambrose's desire not to place too many restrictions on buyer's agents. Number 608 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that a "crooked" individual would not be able to get a bond at all, unless they put up cash for the bond. She thought that the bonding requirements in SB 105 were sufficient. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 105 (JUD), as amended, out of committee with a zero fiscal note and with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED, and then REMOVED her OBJECTION. There being no further objections, CSSB 105 (JUD) MOVED OUT COMMITTEE. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.