Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/09/2018 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 | |
| HB129 | |
| HB233 | |
| HB399 | |
| SB165 | |
| HB306 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 233 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 399 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to
penalties for certain sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping license violations; relating to restrictions
on the issuance of sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping licenses; creating violations and amending
fines and restitution for certain fish and game
offenses; creating an exemption from payment of
restitution for certain unlawful takings of big game
animals; relating to commercial fishing violations;
allowing lost federal matching funds from the Pittman
- Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop - Breaux
programs to be included in an order of restitution;
adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and
providing for an effective date."
2:07:22 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee heard HB 129
earlier in the day. There had been a discussion on Section
3(h). The committee had worked with the Department of Law
and Legislative Legal Services to have an amendment
drafted.
Representative Wilson asked if someone from the Civil
Division was online.
2:08:17 PM
SUSAN COX, WORKERS' COMPENSATION ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference),
introduced herself.
Representative Wilson had a question regarding a liability
issue in HB 129. The example given in the earlier meeting
was her being pulled over in her boat by a trooper, handing
over her phone that contained her fishing license, and the
trooper dropping the phone into the water. The bill
indicated the trooper would have no liability for the
phone. She asked if the committee was reading the section
correctly referring to the bill on page 2, line 25. She
asked if the language provided immunity.
Ms. Cox responded that the language in the bill would
provide immunity from any liability regarding damage to the
devise which would include dropping it in the water.
Representative Wilson thought there should be some
responsibility on the part of the trooper. If someone had
their fishing license and hadn't broken the law, she
wondered if there was a way to take care of the issue.
Ms. Cox responded that the way the bill was written, it
provided immunity precluding any lawsuit. The language
could be changed to eliminate the immunity leaving a
possibility open. She understood there was an amendment
that had been drafted to prove an exception to the immunity
for intentional misconduct on the part of a peace officer.
Representative Wilson would wait to further address the
issue until the amendments were brought up.
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-
GH1687\J.1 (Bullard, 4/2/18) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained that the amendment deleted
material that was added by the House Judiciary Committee
regarding the verification of low income licensees - people
who were looking to get the low-income price for their
sport fishing license or hunting license. Initially, he
thought the amendment was a good addition. However, in
talking with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the
department would need to hire short-term non-permanent
staff to cover the peak season from June to September.
Since the department had already purchased their paper
license stock, they would have to buy and print new stock
costing the state an additional $31,000. Additionally, they
would have to enhance their computer system in the amount
of $8,000. He referred to the fiscal note with component
number 479. He thought Ms. Petraborg could provide
verification. Fraud had not been a problem in the past when
using these types of licenses. In talking with the
department, he reported they were not entirely sure that
external vendors like Walmart or Sportsman's Warehouse
would be able to sell low-income licenses due to their
inability to verify income levels. He thought the addition
in the House Judiciary Committee grew government too large
and increased the fiscal note for the bill. He opined the
state could do better without it.
Representative Kawasaki referred to page 2, line 27. He
wondered about the deletion of material. He asked if the
current costs for resident hunting, trapping, and
sportfishing licenses were deleted. Representative Grenn
responded that it ended on page 3, line 5.
2:13:30 PM
Representative Kawasaki relayed that starting on page 2,
line 28 it showed the resident hunting, trapping, and
fishing sport license fee at $75. Following the fee, the
bill talked about how a person could obtain a lower-income
license on page 2, line 29. It also outlined that proof of
eligibility was required. He suggested that by deleting the
section, it would also delete residential hunting,
trapping, and sport fishing licenses and the ability to
have a lower-income fee.
Representative Pruitt commented that the language that was
contained was already part of statute. He indicated that
only the highlighted portions on page 2 reflected the
changes made in the House Judiciary Committee. He suggested
that by deleting it, the committee would be deleting those
changes. The committee would not be deleting the statute
that currently existed. He pointed to Section 4 where it
stated that AS 16.05.034(a)(6) was amended to read. It
meant that the current statute was "X" and it was being
amended with the black line. Representative Grenn thought
it reverted back to current statute.
Representative Wilson was unsure how to get a low-income
license. She wondered if someone had to apply in person to
DFG. Representative Grenn deferred to Ms. Petraborg.
2:15:12 PM
CAROL PETRABORG, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), responded
that currently, the low-income licenses could be purchased
at any DFG vendor. There was an affidavit on the back of
the license where the licensee signed verifying that they
met the low-income requirements. If the changes in the
amendment were adopted, then the vendors would no longer be
able to issue licenses. It would move all of the traffic to
DFG where the department would have to verify the low-
income limits just like the department did with the
permanent identification cards. It could deter people from
purchasing a license. It would certainly slow down the
process, and there would be associated costs.
Representative Wilson asked about signing an affidavit. Ms.
Petraborg responded that the department did not typically
verify the information. However, they could be asked to
present the documentation by a trooper in the field.
Historically, the department had not seen gross negligence
in the issuance of such licenses. There were approximately
18,000 licenses sold each year.
Representative Wilson asked if a person would have to carry
proof of income with them while fishing. Ms. Petraborg
replied that the troopers might ask such questions. She was
unclear about a timeframe when the information would have
to be presented. She did not believe the person would have
to have low-income verification on their person.
Representative Wilson asked someone from DFG to review the
process. She was fairly certain troopers would not be
asking income questions in the field. She did not have to
have an explanation in the current meeting.
Vice-Chair Gara wondered about the meaning of "Delete all
material." He thought that all that would be deleted were
the changes. He asked Representative Grenn to triple check
the issue before the bill was heard on the floor.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-
GH1687\J.3 (Bullard, 4/4/18) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "30"
Insert "90"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to his amendment to Amendment 2.
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "in"
Insert "to"
2:20:31 PM
AT EASE
2:20:48 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Gara noticed when reviewing the bill, in order
to not be convicted, a person would have to present proof
in the office. A person might live in a community without
an office. He was hoping the person could send the
information to an office. The purpose of the amendment was
to also be able to send the proof to an office rather than
having to get on an airplane to travel to an office.
Representative Wilson asked if the committee could hear
from the department.
Co-Chair Foster asked if Ms. Petraborg was available.
2:22:15 PM
COLONEL STEVE HALL, WILDLIFE TROOPER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (via teleconference), reported that the change from
"in" to "to" on line 20 would satisfy Vice-Chair Gara's
intent. It was essentially what happened presently.
Representative Wilson asked if someone would be able to
send the information to any office to show proof of a
license on the date that they did not have their
verification with them.
Colonel Hall responded that it would allow them to send the
information to an office of the arresting agency such as an
office of the Alaska Wildlife State Troopers.
Representative Wilson had hoped the answer would be, "yes."
Colonel Hall responded that it was essentially a "yes"
answer, however, the difference between the DFG and the
Alaska Wildlife Troopers had to do with transfer of
information. The transfer of information would have to go
to an office of the arresting agency based on the rest of
the sentence.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara presented closing comments for Amendment 2.
He suggested that 90 days was a reasonable amount of time
to present information.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 as amended was
ADOPTED.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on
file):
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "any"
Following "devise":
Insert, "except that a piece officer may be
liable for civil damages that are the result of
the peace officer's intentional misconduct"
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment would
not provide complete and total immunity in a case where
there was misconduct. He asked the colonel whether a peace
officer would take physical hold of an electronic devise
displaying a person's license. He asked the colonel to
distinguish between the point of viewing a license versus a
point of search. He provided a hypothetical scenario.
Colonel Hall replied that a sequence of events could be
that an individual holds up their device to show their
license to a trooper keeping it in their hands. It might be
that an individual handed the device to a trooper to view
the screen. Depending on the size, the picture might have
to be expanded. The circumstance could occur either way
where it was in the trooper's hand or the owner's hand. He
deferred to the Department of Law.
2:28:22 PM
AARON PETERSON, ATTORNEY IV, CRIMINAL OFFICE OF SPECIAL
PROSECUTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference),
replied that in a scenario where a trooper was holding
someone's devise to view a license and a text came through
saying that a person took way over limit and the trooper
happened to know that person was down river, the trooper
could use the text as information to initiate proceedings
against the person that sent the text. It was akin to a
plain view search. It would be different if a trooper were
to go into the text messages without authorization. If
someone was worried that their friends were going to start
texting, they could put the phone in airplane mode or take
whatever remedial measures that might be necessary.
Representative Pruitt asked whether it was typical practice
for an office to take a device into their hands or to allow
the owner to hold the device for them.
Mr. Peterson responded that it depended on how DFG
developed the electronic license. Currently, there was no
electronic license, therefore, there was nothing to give to
a trooper. He could not speak from past experience what had
happened. A picture of a license was not technically a
legal license. He reported there had been several proposals
talked about in the bill and in committee. One of the ideas
was to have a QR code that popped on a person's phone that
then the troopers or just a picture of a license.
Everything in between the two ideas have been discussed. It
would really depend on what was developed such as an
application. He spoke about limited or no bandwidth being a
challenge.
Representative Pruitt surmised that not enough was known
yet. He thought the amendment did not do everything he
needed but was better than what was currently in the bill.
At least if there was some intentional misconduct, the
owner of the device would have some sort of recourse. He
asked members to support his amendment.
2:32:38 PM
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 3
was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal notes for HB 129. He
began with an indeterminate fiscal note, OMB Component
3134, from the Department of Administration (DOA). The
appropriation was Shared Services of Alaska and the
allocation was accounting. There was a slight change in
fines and restitution. The Department of Administration had
a roll in receiving the fines. The fiscal note was
indeterminate because people had never really kept track of
small amounts of money in the past.
Representative Wilson understood that no one kept track,
but she relayed that the indeterminate portion was in the
operating expenditure rather than the fund source. She did
not believe the bill changed such that the department would
be adding any positions or needing any extra money. She
could understand if the indeterminate portion was part of
revenue without any extra revenue.
Vice-Chair Gara responded that Representative Wilson was
correct. The explanation had to do with a change in
revenue. However, the fiscal note had to do with a change
in costs. He agreed it was correct to ask why, because it
was not explained in the fiscal note. He wanted to hear
from DOA.
2:35:03 PM
SYLVAN ROBB, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, explained that the fiscal note was
indeterminate because the role that Shared Services played
in the bill was that when fines and fees were assessed by
the court and not collected, they were transferred to
Shared Services of Alaska, which did debt collection for
the State of Alaska. Currently, all of the fines and fees
came over in the aggregate. The department did not track
which ones came from DFG or other departments where people
might accrue a debt to the State of Alaska. The department
had no way of knowing what percentage was from DFG,
therefore, she did not know what the increase might be as
the result of the bill.
Representative Wilson asked if it was possible DOA would
have to hire additional positions in 2020. She wondered if
the department saw any of the revenue. Ms. Robb responded
that debt to the State of Alaska that was collected was
returned to the general fund. The funds did not go to the
division or to the department that was owed. In the case of
the fiscal note, the fines and fees assessed by the court
system did not go to DFG.
Representative Wilson wondered if DOA would have to make a
budget request for additional people in the future. Ms.
Robb responded that they currently used a vendor to collect
debts. They operated on a fee basis. If they needed to hire
additional positions to collect the additional debts, there
would be no costs to the state. They took a portion of
whatever debt was collected.
Representative Wilson suggested that if a vendor was being
used, then the number would not be indeterminate. If the
vendor was basing it on fees there would not be any cost to
DOA. She thought that was what Ms. Robb had just stated.
Ms. Robb replied that DOA did not know what the impact
would be since she did not know the impact of the bill. Her
understanding was that the idea behind the increase in
fines was to deter people from breaking DFG's rules. There
were several unknowns in terms of what the impact might be.
Representative Wilson wondered how a vendor would be
impacted if the state was utilizing a vendor and the vendor
was charging a fee. She would do more research.
Vice-Chair Gara indicated that if the bill passed, no money
would be put into the budget, whether the fiscal note was
indeterminate or zero. He thought the fiscal note was
okay.it sounded like there would be no change in operating
costs for DOA. However, there might be a change in the
revenue received. He suggested Ms. Robb took a look at the
fiscal note when the bill moved along. He thought the
indeterminate portion needed to be in the revenue part
rather than the operating part.
Ms. Robb replied that the department would be happy to
reexamine the fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Gara moved to fiscal note, OMB Component 479,
from DFG. The appropriation was for Statewide Support
Services and the allocation was for administrative
services. He thought the fiscal note might be amended based
on the amendment from Representative Grenn. It had to do
with the administration of the low-income license fees. He
thought there might be a new fiscal note that followed the
bill.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed fiscal note 4, OMB Component 2746,
a zero fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). The appropriation was for the Alaska State Troopers
and the allocation was for the Alaska Wildlife Troopers.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the last fiscal note, OMB
component 2175, from DPS. The appropriation was for
Statewide Support Services, and the allocation was for the
Commissioner's Office. The note had a zero fiscal impact.
2:40:04 PM
Representative Tilton referred to page 6 of the bill which
indicated an inflation proofing measure every 5 years. She
did not see this noted in any of the fiscal notes. In a
previous bill the finance committee heard there was a cost
for inflation proofing in a fiscal note. She did not see a
cost for inflation proofing in the current bill. She
wondered if the cost was being absorbed.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if Ms. Petraborg could look into
Representative Tilton's point of whether fines could be
changed over time. He wondered whether there needed to be
any statement in the DGF fiscal note about revenue in later
years. Ms. Petraborg responded that they were all criminal
in nature. Therefore, none of the funds would go to DFG.
Rather, the funds would go into the general fund.
Vice-Chair Gara asked Representative Tilton to restate her
question. Representative Tilton relayed that on page 6 of
the bill it stated that beginning on July 2023 and every 5
years thereafter, the department recalculated and updated
by regulation the restitution amounts provided. Inflation
proofing occurred every 5 years. In a previous bill heard
by the committee, there was a cost to inflation proofing.
She wondered if such a cost would be shown on the fiscal
notes.
Mr. Peterson responded that he did not have any information
about the fiscal note or about what it would cost to adjust
for inflation. It was his understanding that there was a
method established in SB 91 [Legislation passed in 2016 -
Short Title: OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS] for
crimes that involved a financial threshold. He presumed the
same sort of method would be utilized.
2:42:39 PM
AT EASE
2:43:07 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster directed his staff to contact the creators
of the fiscal notes to see if an adjustment could be made.
Representative Wilson did not want it added to the fiscal
note. However, she suggested that his staff might want to
talk to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD). What she had seen in some of the fiscal notes was
that the department had already had done some of the work
regarding inflation. It was a mathematical computation and
would not take extra money. She did not want to encourage
another fiscal note.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 129 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 129 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with an
"amend" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note
from DFG; one new indeterminate fiscal note from the DOA;
and one previously published zero fiscal note: FN4 (DPS).
2:45:22 PM
AT EASE
2:45:26 PM
RECONVENED