Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/30/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB259 | |
| HB11 | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to sex trafficking; establishing the
crime of patron of a victim of sex trafficking;
relating to the crime of human trafficking; relating
to prostitution; relating to sentencing for sex
trafficking, patron of a victim of sex trafficking,
and human trafficking; establishing the process for
vacating judgments for certain convictions of
prostitution and misconduct involving a controlled
substance; relating to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to permanent
fund dividends for certain individuals whose
convictions are vacated; and providing for an
effective date."
8:10:46 PM
ANGIE KEMP, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced herself and her colleague, Ms. Kate Tallmadge,
who was the assistant attorney general at the Department of
Law (DOL). She explained that Ms. Tallmadge was available
to provide a sectional breakdown of the bill if the
committee desired. She relayed that human and sex
trafficking was a $32 billion industry worldwide, ranking
as the second most profitable criminal enterprise after the
illicit sale of controlled substances. She emphasized that
the industry specifically targeted vulnerable individuals,
with young girls often entering the sex trade at ages as
early as 12 to 13. The age was even younger for boys and
was typically between 11 and 13 years old. The statistics
came from a study conducted by the federal Department of
Justice (DOJ) in conjunction with the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
Ms. Kemp explained that it was challenging to estimate the
number of individuals affected by sex and human trafficking
each year as it was difficult to quantify. However,
estimates from DOJ and organizations such as the Polaris
Project suggested that as many as 27 million individuals
were affected in the United States alone. The number of
prosecutions related to human and sex trafficking had been
rising. She explained that DOJ had seen a 61 percent rise
in referrals for trafficking cases from 2011 to 2020. There
was also a growing recognition of the severity of the
problem.
Ms. Kemp explained that human and sex trafficking did not
occur in a vacuum. She emphasized that traffickers preyed
on individuals from various walks of life, including those
who were dependent on controlled substances, immigrants,
runaways, homeless individuals, and those with mental
health concerns. Many of the components in the bill
overlapped with these various factors. She explained that
traffickers constantly adapted their methods, including
finding victims through social media platforms like
Instagram that specifically targeted youth.
Ms. Kemp relayed that the Governor's Council on Sex and
Human Trafficking had been focused on tackling the issue.
In Alaska, efforts to address trafficking included
increasing education and awareness, providing support
services for victims, enhancing law enforcement, and
improving prosecution efforts through legislation and
policy.
Ms. Kemp relayed that the bill addressed many of the issues
she had mentioned. She explained that it elevated the most
serious aspects of sex trafficking crimes to a higher
classification. For example, sex trafficking in the first
degree, where force was used to induce a person into
engaging in a commercial sex act, was raised to an
unclassified felony offense, which was the most serious
felony in the state.
Ms. Kemp highlighted that the bill introduced specific
definitions and examples for recruitment into sex
trafficking, emphasizing that the language used in the bill
clarified what was meant by "inducing" a person into
trafficking. The bill also moved sex trafficking offenses
from AS 11.66, to AS 11.41, a move that she argued was
important for a variety of reasons.
8:16:31 PM
Ms. Kemp explained that the change would allow for
additional protections for victims, such as limiting the
ability for the defense to request psychiatric or
psychological evaluations of the victims. The move also
allowed for the appointment of a guardian ad litem when a
victim was under the age of 16. Additionally, the bill
prevented bail for individuals charged with offenses under
AS 11.41, prohibited negotiated sentences between victims
and defendants, and eliminated the ability for defendants
to earn credit for time served through electronic
monitoring.
Ms. Kemp shared that the bill was also focused on the
demand side of trafficking and it would introduce new
classifications for sex trafficking, including first,
second, and third-degree sex trafficking. The bill would
also create a new crime: patronizing a sex trafficker. The
changes were designed to target the demand that fueled the
trafficking industry. She reiterated the importance of the
legislation in combating sex and human trafficking in
Alaska, emphasizing that the bill intended to address both
the supply and demand aspects of the issue and increase
penalties across the board for various offenses. She
explained that the bill recognized the importance of severe
deterrence and consequences for those involved in
trafficking. She highlighted components of the bill aimed
at assisting victims of sex trafficking, such as allowing
victims to have prostitution charges removed from their
records. She noted that this was a rare provision in
criminal law and offered a unique opportunity for
individuals who had been trafficked to move forward with
their lives.
Ms. Kemp emphasized that the bill was one of many efforts
in the state's broader strategy to address sex and human
trafficking. She recognized that the bill was part of a
multifaceted approach to tackle the widespread problem,
raise awareness, and provide support for victims who sought
it. She offered to go through the sectional analysis, which
would take about 20 minutes. She suggested hearing public
testimony before proceeding further.
8:19:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
8:20:34 PM
AMBER NICKERSON, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND
PROTECTION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), stated that she
opposed HB 68. She did not think that the bill adequately
addressed sex trafficking. She argued that allowing the
state to charge a sex worker with a Class B felony for
prostitution was problematic. She noted that a Class B
felony included serious crimes like first-degree burglary
and extortion and carried a sentence of up to 10 years in
prison and up to $100,000 in fines. The fiscal note
associated with the bill, which listed no additional cost
for the Alaska Bureau of Investigations (ABI), was
unrealistic. She argued that adding felony-level
prostitution offenses would result in increased costs for
the state, particularly for investigations and prostitution
stings, which she claimed would disproportionately affect
marginalized individuals.
Ms. Nickerson was also concerned about the proposed
penalties for clients of sex workers. If someone was
convicted three times within a five-year period for
prostitution in the third degree, the individual would face
a Class B felony charge and it would result in a five-year
prison sentence. She argued that the increased penalty
could discourage clients from reporting criminal activity.
She was concerned that the bill's focus on prosecuting
clients would undermine efforts to encourage witnesses to
report violent offenders in the community. She added that
the bill did not address sex trafficking, as it lacked
references to force, fraud, or coercion, which were
essential elements of trafficking. She expressed her belief
that the bill's provisions on prostitution stings would not
address the root causes of sex trafficking and would
instead criminalize individuals who were often the most
vulnerable. She was also concerned about publicly
condemning individuals without due process, specifically
pointing out the practice of listing arrests in the news
and papers before individuals have been found guilty.
Ms. Nickerson relayed that she disagreed with the
criminalization of sex work. She noted the discrepancies
between the criminal charges for different prostitution
offenses. The bill would create harsher penalties for sex
workers and clients while offering sex for a fee in the
fourth degree was classified as a Class D misdemeanor. She
questioned whether the committee cared about the safety of
sex workers. She stated that HB 68 would only increase the
stigma and violence faced by sex workers and further
criminalize them. She claimed that the bill did not address
sex trafficking and criticized the fiscal notes for being
unrealistic. She concluded by stating that the bill was
harmful and would not effectively address the issue of sex
trafficking in Alaska. She also raised concerns about the
discredited statistic regarding the age of entry into the
sex industry, which she stated had been debunked by
multiple sources, including the Washington Post and The
Atlantic in 2014.
8:25:56 PM
TERRA BURNS, ADVOCATE, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND
PROTECTION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), shared that she
was sex trafficked as a minor and now worked as an
advocate. She had been involved in research at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) that contributed to
policy changes in related to prostitution and sex
trafficking laws under SB 91, which was passed into law in
2016. She currently also worked as the Research and Policy
Director at an organization called Call Off Your Old Tired
Ethics (COYOTE), Rhode Island, where she conducted
participatory action research with sex workers and
trafficking survivors.
Ms. Burns expressed opposition to HB 68, stating that it
would only exacerbate sex trafficking in Alaska. She also
addressed the discredited statistic regarding the age of
entry into the sex industry, which she explained had been
debunked by major publications. She questioned why the
government would create laws that could increase sex
trafficking under the guise of addressing it and questioned
the bill's focus on the sex industry over other industries
with higher rates of trafficking, such as the fishing
industry in Alaska.
Ms. Burns acknowledged that the bill was too complex to
address in full within a few minutes. She argued that
creating a new provision for felony prostitution and make
it a Class B felony would criminalize sex workers who
shared hotel rooms for safety, a common practice among sex
workers to protect themselves from potential harm. She
explained that while current law applied to those who
profited from prostitution, it did not apply to sex workers
sharing a space for mutual protection.
Ms. Burns shared a personal account of being trafficked as
a minor in Fairbanks by her father, noting that houses of
prostitution at the time operated with regular payments to
police, allowing for safer conditions where victims could
seek help from others. She stressed that laws like HB 68,
which criminalized safety measures in the sex industry,
would leave vulnerable individuals like herself as a child
without support systems, thus isolating victims and
exacerbating their exploitation.
Ms. Burns argued that the bill would criminalize clients,
even those who merely solicited, but did not follow
through, for serious felonies. She warned that
criminalization would discourage clients who might
otherwise help identify and report cases of real sex
trafficking from contacting law enforcement, which would
hinder efforts to combat actual trafficking. She reiterated
that the bill would have negative financial implications
and would drive sex trafficking further underground and
impose substantial costs on the state. She urged the
committee to oppose HB 68.
8:30:06 PM
MAXINE DOOGAN, COMMUNITY UNITED FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was a member of Community
United for Safety and Protection (CUSP), a group composed
of current and former sex workers, sex trafficking
survivors, and their allies. She shared her personal
experience as a sex worker with over 35 years in the
industry, stating her intention to continue working for the
foreseeable future. She expressed strong opposition to HB
68, primarily due to its fiscal irresponsibility and the
negative impact it would have on sex workers and
trafficking survivors.
Ms. Dugan relayed that the bill would allow administrative
subpoenas for suspected sex trafficking, which would be
primarily used against sex workers and trafficking
survivors. She argued that the provision violated the U.S.
Constitution's Fourth Amendment's privacy protections and
would result in significant legal costs for the state. The
bill would also allow Alaska's Violent Crimes Compensation
Board to order restitution from sex workers and trafficking
survivors, such as compensation to families of customers
who died while engaging in prostitution. She argued that
the provision would unfairly penalize individuals who
engaged in safety practices within the industry that would
be criminalized under the bill. She was also concerned with
the bill's definition of "fee" and thought that it was too
ambiguous particularly relating to the exchange of sex for
housing rather than money. She questioned whether the bill
intended to exempt clients who paid with housing rather
than money, or if it would provide sex workers with clarity
on how to define "reasonably appropriated" housing
expenses. She urged the committee to not waste additional
state resources on prostitution sting operations that could
result in the arrest of sex trafficking victims rather than
perpetrators.
8:33:21 PM
Representative Galvin noted that many of the testimonies
had come from people affiliated with the same organization,
and she was curious about potential alternatives or
solutions. She asked Ms. Doogan if she had any suggestions
for legislation that could address the issue, especially
since it seemed that she believed HB 68 would not resolve
the problem. She acknowledged the global scale of the
trafficking industry and wanted to pursue ideas for
effective action.
Ms. Doogan responded that CUSP supported the
decriminalization of prostitution, similar to a prior
approach in Alaska where prostitution was not criminalized
and laws were not enforced. She emphasized that
decriminalization allowed individuals in the sex industry
to work together in a safer environment, particularly in
places like Fairbanks. Historically, the approach had
allowed for better communication among sex workers and
safer practices, including sharing information about
clients who might be dangerous. The conflation of
prostitution laws with sex trafficking offenses was
problematic. She argued that by criminalizing safety
measures like sharing spaces with other sex workers, the
legislation was pushing individuals further into danger.
She stressed that the focus should be on helping
individuals who wanted to get out of the industry, but
criminalizing aspects of the sex industry under the
umbrella of sex trafficking was not the solution.
Representative Galvin thanked Ms. Doogan for her
perspective. She did not think there was a clear answer on
how to specifically address sex trafficking.
8:36:45 PM
LYNN TOBEY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
introduced herself and explained that the issue was so
important to her that she took the day off work in order to
testify. She had been following the legislative process
since 2015 and she felt the issue was too important to
ignore. She opposed HB 68 as it was currently written.
Ms. Tobey shared a deeply personal story, explaining that
her 26-year-old daughter was currently a victim of sex
trafficking. She expressed concern that the bill would
eliminate opportunities for her daughter to find safety if
a sex customer did not report a dangerous situation for
fear of being charged with a crime. Her daughter had
experienced repeated trauma after being trafficked, and the
experience had taken an emotional toll on them both. She
described one of the most harrowing recent encounters with
her daughter. On March 30, 2024, she had received a call
from an unknown number, hearing her daughter's voice and an
intense argument in the background. The call was quickly
ended. After several attempts to call back with no
response, an hour later, she received a text message from
the same number, requesting Ms. Tobey to come pick up her
daughter from a local gas station. When she arrived at the
gas station, her daughter was not there. As she frantically
searched, she eventually found her daughter walking in the
parking lot of a nearby hotel, with a bloody nose and
visibly shaken. Once her daughter entered the vehicle, she
urgently asked to leave the area. Her daughter then
disclosed that she was being prostituted and that the
perpetrator had tried to kill her. In shock, her daughter
was unwilling to talk about her current situation, a direct
result of the conditioning she had experienced.
Ms. Tobey relayed that she had offered to get her daughter
medical help, but her daughter declined, only asking to
take a shower and change into clean clothes. She also
requested to rest in a safe place and eat. Despite her
offer to take her daughter to safety, her daughter
requested that the trafficker pick her up, as she was going
into heroin withdrawal.
Ms. Tobey highlighted that Alaska lacked sufficient
resources for victims of sex trafficking, particularly
those who have suffered into adulthood. There were no
emergency shelters or specialized counselors available to
serve the unique needs of such victims. She was strongly
opposed to HB 68 and she thought that incorrectly charging
victims of sex trafficking with felonies would further
inhibit their chances of recovery and reintegration. She
urged that there should be increased awareness about what
human trafficking looked like and hoped the committee would
oppose the bill.
8:41:09 PM
AJELA BANKS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
indicated that she was a survivor, not a victim. She
explained that she was representing a lineage of silent
women who had been manipulated into appearing as victims
within their communities. She thought that HB 68 would
perpetuate the harmful dynamic, making it harder for women
to escape their situations. She shared that while she
agreed with some aspects of the bill, she could not fully
support it. She felt that the approach being used to combat
sex trafficking was disingenuous, describing it as
"gaslighting." She had repeatedly spoken to the FBI, police
officers, and other agencies, but she had not been helped.
Many of her clients were military police officers and she
felt that individuals who were meant to be responsible for
helping her were not recognizing their own roles in
enabling trafficking.
Ms. Banks shared that her experiences with authorities led
to further victimization, ultimately resulting in her being
convicted of conspiracy to sex traffic at the age of 19.
She expressed frustration that those who were supposed to
help her were instead contributing to her victimization.
She had only been known in the community of Anchorage as a
sexually exploited, missing foster child. Her case was part
of a task force operation involving both state and federal
police. She expressed frustration that the standard process
for handling her case was neglected. She thought that HB 68
would make it easier for perpetrators to act in a
misogynistic manner and avoid facing consequences for their
actions. She relayed that she was still seeking relief,
though she felt she had gained a better understanding of
the issues at hand.
8:44:22 PM
MICHELLE OVERSTREET, FOUNDER AND CEO, MY HOUSE, WASILLA
(via teleconference), relayed that she was the founder and
CEO of My House, a homeless youth drop-in center in
Wasilla. Her organization offered wraparound services, case
management, transitional housing, and job training, along
with a human trafficking awareness and service program. She
shared that there were programs in Alaska designed to help
young people escape human trafficking, with her
organization working specifically with clients aged 14 to
26. She explained that while only 3 percent of new clients
initially reported being trafficked, the figure increased
to approximately 13 percent as clients engaged further with
the services. She mentioned that in February of 2023, seven
new intakes occurred, and among them, two-thirds reported
experiencing trafficking.
Ms. Overstreet was in support of HB 68 because it would
increase penalties for trafficking and provide important
legal protections for trafficking victims. She emphasized
the need for more legal protections for young people being
groomed and recruited for trafficking, as well as for those
attempting to escape it. She stressed the importance of
offering survivors support tools, such as expunging low-
level criminal records, job training to help survivors
secure self-sustaining careers, and expanding educational
curricula to raise awareness about the dangers of grooming
and safe online practices.
Ms. Overstreet relayed that she strongly disagreed with
arguments from individuals in the prostitution business who
opposed HB 68, suggesting that their ultimate goal was to
legalize prostitution. She argued that in areas where
prostitution had been legalized, human trafficking had
increased, and the bill was a necessary step for Alaska.
She thought that HB 68 would help protect Alaska's most
vulnerable populations by addressing serious issues like
child sexual abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and
addiction.
8:48:33 PM
STACI YATES, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING RECOVERY
SERVICES, MY HOUSE, WASILLA (via teleconference), shared
that she was a survivor of sex trafficking the Director of
Human Trafficking Recovery Services at My House. She also
chaired the Alaska Stop Human Trafficking Alliance (ASHTA)
and sat on the Governor's Council on Human and Sex
Trafficking. She strongly supported HB 68, emphasizing the
bill's importance in protecting victims' rights. There were
alarming statistics about child abuse and sexual assault in
Alaska. She referenced a 2019 FBI Uniform Crime Report,
which indicated that Alaska's rate of sexual assault was
nearly four times the national average, and child sexual
assaults were nearly six times the national average.
Ms. Yates shared that a 2012 World Development Study found
that countries that legalized prostitution tended to
experience higher rates of human trafficking. She explained
that while there was a theoretical opposing effect where
demand for trafficked might decrease, the actual effect was
that legalized prostitution expanded the prostitution
market and increased prostitution. She argued that
prostitution was not a victimless crime, as many involved
individuals had been sexually abused as children. She
thought that HB 68 was crucial because it held buyers of
sex accountable, especially when they exploited trafficked
individuals or children.
Ms. Yates explained that HB 68 would empower survivors to
testify against perpetrators and would also include age-
appropriate education on trafficking and online safety for
youth. She stressed that it was important to teach children
early on how to recognize grooming tactics and protect
themselves. The bill would also offer vital support to
survivors by expunging their criminal records, which would
help survivors regain access to employment and housing
opportunities. She urged support for the bill.
8:52:19 PM
DELAYNA WEST, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), expressed
her support for HB 68. She echoed Ms. Yates' sentiments and
thought that while the bill might not be a perfect
solution, it was a crucial first step toward protecting
survivors and victims of trafficking. She argued that HB 68
was a positive move in the right direction. She relayed
that it was important to address the issue of human
trafficking in Alaska. She acknowledged that while it might
not be possible to fix the problem on a global scale,
Alaska could take action to make a significant difference
for its women and children. She urged the committee to
support the bill.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there were some individuals who
had been waiting to present fiscal notes and there was
interest in reviewing the sectional analysis of the bill.
He proposed beginning the next morning's meeting at 8:30
a.m. and not 9:00 a.m. to accommodate the additional agenda
items.
8:54:21 PM
AT EASE
8:54:44 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the committee would proceed
with the fiscal notes, ensuring that those who had waited
for hours would have their time respected. Public testimony
would remain open in case additional individuals wished to
testify the following morning. The sectional analysis and a
summary of the bill's changes would also be reviewed in the
morning.
8:56:05 PM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration (DOA) with OMB component 43 and control code
vNSYs. He explained that there were several ways the fiscal
note could have been approached, but he had ultimately
decided to add a defense investigator position at a cost of
$128,600. He noted that while it was difficult to predict
how many cases would come to the agency, the cases that did
would have serious penalties, requiring investigative
services.
Representative Tomaszewski asked why the OMB component was
the same as the OMB component in the fiscal notes for HB
11, despite having a different control code.
Mr. Stinson responded that OMB component 43 was always
attached to fiscal notes for the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA) and that he had never seen a different one used.
Representative Josephson asked why the department needed
half the amount of money as was needed for HB 11 when HB 68
was much longer.
Mr. Stinson responded that there were multiple crime bills
currently circulating and he was not sure which ones would
pass or in which order. He erred on the conservative side
for his estimates for HB 68 because it seemed as though HB
11 and HB 68 were moving at a similar pace. He explained
that HB 68 was extensive, but much of the conduct was often
captured by the federal government and he was uncertain how
many cases the state would receive. He relayed that the
state would need in-house defense investigator services. He
noted that an agency could quickly become overwhelmed by a
variety of crime bills.
Representative Galvin asked how many sex trafficking cases
there were in 2024.
Mr. Stinson responded that the question would probably be
better suited for the court system, as it maintained the
total number of filings in the state. He explained that he
could pull OPA's internal data, but would need to follow up
with the information. He could obtain the number of
unclassified felonies that had come to the agency and
identify which of those were sex offenses. He noted that
the bill would involve creating new conduct and enhancing
penalties, which contributed to the concern regarding the
workload of the bill.
Representative Galvin understood that it was difficult to
assess the impact without knowing the specifics of the new
crime proposed by the bill. She asked if her understanding
was correct.
Mr. Stinson responded in the affirmative. He explained that
it was unclear how many of the offenses would ultimately
reach the agency, but the cases that did would be serious
and require a significant amount of work. He suggested that
the court system provide additional insight on the matter.
9:01:13 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA STATE COURT SYSTEM,
stated that she had data on the number of sex trafficking
cases, convictions, and charges over the last ten years.
She relayed that there had been very few such cases. The
Federal U.S. Attorney's Office handled some sex trafficking
cases in Alaska, but the state had experienced between one
and four cases per year. She pointed out that in 2017,
there had been seven cases, which were likely the result of
a single case with multiple charges. The range of cases had
generally been between one and four each year.
Representative Galvin asked why it would be necessary to
add an entire defense investigator position in order to
implement the bill considering that the average number of
cases over the past ten years had been only two per year.
Mr. Stinson explained that the issue was not solely the
number of cases but also the existing backlog and the
ongoing workload. He emphasized that without adding fiscal
notes to address the anticipated workload, the agency would
quickly become overwhelmed. Committees generally preferred
to avoid indeterminate fiscal notes, as failing to
appropriately resource the agency would exacerbate existing
challenges. He explained that OPA operated as multiple
independent law firms under one central administrative
umbrella. There were some sections within OPA that had as
few as two attorneys, which further complicated resource
allocation and underscored the need for additional support.
The major crime unit in Anchorage was lacking an in-house
investigator and the fiscal note addressed an existing need
that would be exasperated by an additional bill.
Representative Galvin agreed that it would not be wise to
grow in the area of unfunded mandates.
9:04:20 PM
TERRANCE HAAS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), reviewed
the fiscal impact note from DOA with OMB component 1631 and
control code QYxCX. He explained that PDA was requesting a
single staff position to address the administrative burden
created by the increased registration requirements.
However, the fiscal note reflected the realities of several
bills that had been considered together.
SYLVAN ROBB, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS,
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the zero
fiscal impact note was for OMB Component number 2360 and
control code MRisl. She explained that the bill required
the board to deny a license, prevent the renewal of a
license, and revoke a license for life for anyone convicted
of certain crimes, for 15 licensed professions. She
anticipated that the Division of Corporations, Business,
and Professional Licensing could absorb the workload
created by this bill.
TERI WEST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), reviewed the fiscal
impact note from the Department of Corrections with OMB
component 1381 and control code Mhybr. She explained that
the fiscal note submitted was indeterminate, as the
department was unable to predict how many people would be
convicted of the offense or how long the actual
incarceration time would be. The department would track and
monitor the impacts on population growth within their
institutions.
9:07:31 PM
KELLY MANNING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND
EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and EARLY
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), stated that Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) had submitted a
fiscal impact note with control code SuqIJ that included
costs for year one and out-year costs associated with the
development of curriculum related to human and sex
trafficking. She specified that the year one cost for the
fiscal note was $66,000, which would be used for the
development of the course. There would be a number of one-
time costs associated with the development of the course,
such as working with stakeholders to engage in content
development and collaborating with the e-learning content
provider to integrate the course content into an
appropriate e-learning delivery model for the learning
management system. She specified that $25,000 had been
allocated for the process, as well as stipends for the
participants involved in the development. There would also
be an estimated $6,000 in legal costs to update teacher
certification requirements. The educational content would
be loaded onto the e-learning platform in two delivery
methods: one for educators and one designed for student
safety that educators could use to teach students. She also
mentioned that $5,000 per year would be allocated for
course updates, as the department regularly reviewed and
updated its e-learning content to ensure it remained
current and relevant.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the fiscal note corresponded to
OMB component 2796. He relayed that the next fiscal note
was meant to be presented by Ms. Deb Riddle, but she was
not available. The committee would return to the fiscal
note the following morning.
9:10:23 PM
Ms. Kemp relayed that DOL had submitted a zero fiscal note
for OMB component 2202 with control code hqUCq. The
department could absorb the litigation without the need for
additional positions.
Representative Galvin asked if the department anticipated
more cases, given the impact on other departments, and
wondered whether it was feasible for DOL to absorb these
potential cases.
Ms. Kemp responded that the department's zero fiscal note
was consistent with the court system's description. She
explained that the number of sex trafficking or human
trafficking cases referred to DOL in the past four years
had been low, with only 10 cases in total according to the
case management system. She clarified that sex trafficking
was not a commonly charged statute and the department
believed it could absorb any additional litigation
resulting from the bill. She offered assurance that the
department would continue to assess the situation.
Representative Galvin understood that some departments
anticipated an increase in cases, while others did not. She
asked if the term "indeterminate" might better describe the
situation.
Ms. Kemp responded in the affirmative. The department
thought that it presently could absorb the litigation. She
explained that any case that entered the system required
DOL's involvement, but based on the numbers, the department
felt confident in its ability to manage the cases. She also
noted that while the case numbers reflected referrals, the
court system's numbers only included cases that were
formally charged, which meant there might be referrals that
were never formally charged but still required the
department's review.
9:12:57 PM
Ms. Purinton stated that the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) had three fiscal notes. The first was related to OMB
component 3200 with control code pGFih and would fund the
Criminal Justice Information Systems Program. She explained
that the program was within the Division of Statewide
Services and managed the state's criminal history
repository. She relayed that a key aspect of the bill
included the option for a "vacation of judgment," which
would allow individuals to have certain prostitution
charges withheld from being displayed on certain background
checks. In order to implement the change, the state's
repository would need to be reprogrammed as it currently
operated on a legacy mainframe system. As a result, DPS
would need to contract the work to specialized contractors.
The one-time cost for reprogramming would be $42,000, based
on the department's prior experience in contracting for
similar changes to the mainframe.
Ms. Purinton continued that the second fiscal note, for OMB
component 521 with control code pHrKv, related to the CDVSA
and was a zero fiscal impact note. The department did not
expect the bill to have any significant impact on CDVSA's
operations.
Ms. Purinton relayed that the third fiscal note, for OMB
Component 2744 with control code TYvwB, related to the
Alaska State Troopers and the Alaska Bureau of
Investigation. The department did not anticipate a
significant fiscal impact from the bill and it was
confident that it could absorb any additional costs with
existing resources.
9:15:22 PM
Ms. Meade reviewed the fiscal note from the Alaska Court
System for OMB component 768 and control code psCmq. The
provisions of the bill related to enhanced crimes and the
reclassification of sex trafficking crimes would not have a
significant fiscal impact on the court system as the number
of cases were not expected to rise due to the provisions in
the bill. However, the provision that would allow a person
with an existing conviction for prostitution to seek to
vacate the conviction if the individual could establish
that they had been a victim of sex trafficking would have a
fiscal impact. She explained that the court system would
need to hire a temporary four-month attorney for a one-year
cost of $37,700 in FY 25 to implement the procedure. The
attorney would be responsible for developing forms related
to the new procedure and possibly handling hearings related
to the cases.
Co-Chair Foster noted that there was one fiscal note
remaining which would be covered in the following morning.
He reiterated that public testimony would remain open and
the committee would address both the fiscal note and
questions tomorrow.
HB 68 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reminded the committee that the amendment
deadline was tentatively set for Friday, May 3, 2024, at
5:00 p.m. He intended to recess the meeting until the
morning.
[The meeting reconvened at 8:32 a.m. on May 4, 2025.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 11 Assault in the Presence of a Child Presentation.pptx |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Alaska Family Services Letter of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 WISH Letter of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 68 Sex and Human Trafficking Sectional 5.3.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Summary of Changes 5.5.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB068 - Public Testimony Letters of Support (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB068 -Public Testimony Letters of Opposition (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 259 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042924.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 259 |
| HB 68 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042924.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |