Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/04/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB158 | |
| HB190 | |
| HB163 | |
| HJR3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 163-DPS LAW ENFORCE. SVCS: AGREEMENTS/FEES
4:07:08 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act authorizing the Department
of Public Safety to enter into agreements with nonprofit
regional corporations and federal, tribal, and local government
agencies to provide law enforcement services; authorizing the
Department of Public Safety to collect fees for certain law
enforcement services; and providing for an effective date."
4:07:28 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:07 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.
4:10:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) has proposed a committee substitute (CS) for HB 163.
4:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 163,
Version 30-GH1811\D, Martin, 3/30/17, as a working document.
There being no objection, Version D was before the committee.
4:11:00 PM
WALT MONEGAN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), explained that the only change under Version D is the
addition of a sentence in the paragraph entitled "APPLICABILITY"
under Section 3 of HB 163. The new sentence states that nothing
in the section requires a nonprofit to enter into an agreement
with DPS. He asserted that this change would assure the
nonprofits that DPS would not force them to pay [for law
enforcement services}. He added that DPS is anticipating a
meeting with the Governor's Tribal Advisory Council (GTAC) to
further discuss the language in the proposed legislation.
4:12:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the language in the
"APPLICABILITY" paragraph of Version D, Section 3, which states
that a contract with DPS is only allowed for an entity with no
local police force. She said that she did not understand the
rationale behind not allowing an entity with a local police
force to supplement its services through a contract with DPS.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that DPS does not want to compete
with existing police agencies; it will always augment or assist
them if requested. He stated that the proposed legislation
addresses DPS entering into a contract with agencies and
charging them. He maintained that DPS wants to avoid having
communities dissolve their police departments and ask DPS to
"take over."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she did not understand why
DPS, which does not want to contract with communities having an
organized police force in the future, would agree to contract
with communities with an organized police force as of the
effective date of the [bill]. She said that her understanding
was that the proposed legislation could address the Girdwood
situation. She said, "I still don't get it."
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN replied that the Girdwood situation is
unique: Girdwood is part of the Municipality of Anchorage
(MOA), which has an organized police force, and there is a
mechanism in place for the Anchorage Police Department (APD) to
provide services. Girdwood taxed itself to pay for services,
but the amount was not enough for what APD required; appropriate
charges are still being determined. He stated that the only
other areas for which he has concerns are areas like Bethel: a
number of police officers walked off the job [in Bethel] a few
years ago, and because there was a crisis, DPS had to assist
with the state charges. It did not assist with city charges.
He maintained that DPS intends to explore the possibility of a
charge.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed that DPS is concerned about
communities like Bethel, for which DPS is called upon to assist
without the ability to charge. She suggested that the
prohibition for contracting with an entity with no organized
police force should be eliminated from the language of the
proposed legislation.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that there was a situation in
which DPS was requested to provide a Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSO) to a community to augment its law enforcement; as
soon as DPS did so, the community fired its tribal and village
police officers to save money. He maintained that it is for
that reason that DPS is hesitant to engage initially with an
entity that already has a police force, and he said he suspects
that DPS would act on a case by case basis. He reiterated that
DPS has seen communities take advantage of the department's
willingness to assist them.
4:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asserted that the question is: Are DPS and
the Alaska State Troopers (AST) obligated to provide law
enforcement services outside of organized areas that have their
own law enforcement, such as the City of Fairbanks, the City of
North Pole, MOA inside the police service area, and across the
state? He stated his concern regarding the lack of law
enforcement on the Seward Highway for the people of the Kenai
Peninsula and the municipality. He mentioned that legislators
have been advised that DPS intends to move the state troopers
from the area after May 2.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered that the municipality can tax
itself. He added that DPS's dilemma is that trooper staffing
level is such that it is a struggle to staff areas with no
police availability at all. He stated that it is a moral
dilemma for DPS; in the Bush, where there is no alternative,
there are over 100 communities with no law enforcement presence
at all. He reiterated that MOA can tax itself; it partially
does tax itself; but it didn't "buy the whole APD package." He
maintained that it is incumbent upon the community, not the
state, to address that.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he respectfully disagrees. He
relayed that the legislature is seated as an assembly under the
Alaska State Constitution for the areas outside of organized
municipalities and boroughs with law enforcement. He maintained
that outside of the city service areas, there is no provision
for police service. Residents can vote to organize a borough
and enlist police services; the city of Bethel could do so; and
it takes time to do so. He said he takes umbrage with the issue
that only 52 of 76 funded VPSO positions are filled; there are
24 vacancies; therefore, money is available to provide the law
enforcement services. He concluded that the legislature needs
to consider its ultimate responsibility for public safety. He
maintained that the Seward Highway between Anchorage and the
Kenai Peninsula with its heavy traffic cannot be ignored.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred that the issue is a legislative
and budgeting issue in terms of DPS resources.
4:21:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that several different problems have
created the situation. The first was the Girdwood situation:
Girdwood had an APD trooper; trooper funding was cut; and APD
"pulled back" officers from Girdwood. He said that consequently
the community of Girdwood, wanting law enforcement coverage,
contracted for it with its own funds. He stated that the second
problem involved the situation in Bethel: because of a lack of
personnel, troopers came into Bethel. He restated Commissioner
Monegan's fear that Bethel would fire its police force and rely
on the troopers. Since Bethel is an organized community, AST is
not responsible for law enforcement in Bethel. He stated the
third problem: the lack of officers in the AST force. He
referred to Commissioner Monegan's testimony in the 3/28/17
House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting that these
troopers would typically be retired troopers brought back into
the work force.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asserted that the problem is multi-layered:
there is a shortage of troopers and a shortage of funding except
for VPSOs. He maintained that DPS would not want to expend
resources in one area, when they are needed in other areas. He
asked Commissioner Monegan if in the Bethel situation - helping
Bethel out by providing officers - temporarily buys it time
until it can secure more officers, at which time DPS can
reallocate resources.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that in the Bethel situation that
was exactly what would happen. He relayed that AST filled in to
handle life threatening situations; there were only two Bethel
police officers at the time; and even the chief of police had
"walked off the job." He stated that AST provided assistance
until the Bethel Police Department (BPD) was able to rebuild its
police force and take over again.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN relayed the history of the Girdwood
situation as it relates to the proposed legislation: Girdwood
offered to contract with DPS to retain troopers in the
community; it was during these discussions that DPS realized it
did not have the receipt authority to enter into a contract with
Girdwood; and HB 163 was introduced to address this. He stated
that DPS wishes to expand its presence and provide services at a
higher and more quantitative level than currently - especially
in the rural areas. He offered that it is for this reason DPS
will resist a reduction in the number of VPSOs; it is hoping to
"turn around" on the recruiting and training issues for both
VPSOs and troopers. He opined that it would be short sighted to
"rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, especially if Paul had the
ability to find better and more readily available trained police
officers to them versus someplace else that has none." He
mentioned that the answer is "tangled" because the situation is
tangled, and there is not one answer to satisfy everyone. He
added that HB 163 is an attempt to give DPS receipt authority,
and DPS can work toward perfecting the process as it progresses.
4:26:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON relayed that she appreciates the problem
and the attempt to solve the problem through the proposed
legislation. She said that she recognizes that Alaska has a
shortage of troopers. She expressed her belief that the
proposed solution does not fundamentally "fit" the problem and
creates an "upside down" situation. She relayed that local
government would be asked to contract with DPS for a trooper to
provide police services and then would oversee the state
officers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there are police service areas
like there are road service areas and fire service areas.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that the answer to Representative
Johnson's question is yes. He relayed that it takes a vote of
the people to have a police service area - the same as for a
water service area, a sewage service area, or a fire service
area. He asserted that if a location is outside of an area,
that means that the residents have not voted to have the service
area. He added that historically the void has been filled by
the State of Alaska, which is responsible for the unorganized
boroughs and all the areas outside of service areas.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN, in response to Representative Johnson,
relayed that troopers with whom a community contracts would
still answer to trooper commanders, enforce state law and city
ordinances, and through the contract, get direction from the
community about its concerns. He said that DPS would use
retired troopers under long-term, non-permanent ("non-perm")
positions for these contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON mentioned that troopers at the trooper
post in Palmer have worked outside of their service area under
an agreement. She stated that providing public safety is a
fundamental function of state government; if a location is not
in a public safety service area, then it is the responsibility
of the troopers to provide services; and if a city has a public
safety service area, then they established it through a tax
base. She expressed her concerns with the proposed legislation:
it would introduce complicated scenarios of the state
contracting with non-profits and tribal organizations; it would
mix requirements of the state with the requirements of other
entities; and it would be fraught with many other issues.
4:31:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why any part of a municipality is
required to be in a service area. She stated that she lives in
Muldoon and, therefore, must pay for police protection from APD.
Hillside is not part of the service area; therefore, Hillside
residents do not have to pay for police protection by way of
property taxes. She asked why, if Hillside gets police
protection from the state troopers, she must pay for police
protection, but Hillside residents do not.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded that Anchorage consisted of a
city and a borough, and when they were unified, service areas
were identified. Police and fire services were not area-wide;
schools were area-wide. He stated that the service areas
represented subsets of the larger municipality; service areas
were established through an affirmative vote by the municipality
annexing an area and an affirmative vote by the area being
annexed; and a tax was levied. He said that Girdwood residents
are not paying for police services because they are outside the
service area, and he mentioned that he believes the service area
stops at Potter Marsh. He added that what is being discussed is
the state highway from Potter Marsh past Girdwood to its city
limits at Portage. He said that outside the service area, it is
the state's responsibility to provide law enforcement services.
He maintained that with only 52 positions filled out of 76
funded DPS positions, there is much money available to reassign
to public safety for troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asserted that state troopers patrol
Hillside without cost to the residents, because the residents
have not voted for a police service area.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded that is incorrect. Hillside is
in the [APD] service area; it was added many years ago under
former Mayor [Rick] Mystrom.
4:36:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON added that residents of the unorganized
borough do not pay taxes, and they receive trooper services;
whereas, another area might have to tax itself to pay for
trooper services. She said, "It's very mixed up here."
4:36:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked Commissioner Monegan if the troopers
have an obligation for patrolling federal and state highways
regardless of service areas.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered that there are no federal highways
in Alaska; federal highways are interstate highways. He
explained that troopers have the authority to patrol state and
local highways, and it is by agreement with the municipality
which areas are covered.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that DPS has evolved and grown over
time. In the past public safety predominantly addressed highway
corridors, but currently it maintains an investigative unit, a
cold case unit, and other units. He asked if the Girdwood issue
was about providing public safety services along the highway
corridors or about the [special] units he just mentioned.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN replied that was a point of contention:
Girdwood wanted to contract with DPS; the DPS decided that it
could provide the services for $600,000; but the Girdwood
[Valley Service Area] Board of Supervisors (GBOS) did not want
the Girdwood funded troopers to be on the highway or leave the
Girdwood valley. He said that was a "deal-breaker" for DPS
during negotiations even before DPS determined it had no ability
to collect funds from Girdwood for the services. He said that
subsequently Girdwood got [MOA assembly] approval to tax itself;
it has collected the tax; and it has contracted with the City of
Whittier [for police services]. He relayed that there are
ongoing discussions between APD and the City of Whittier, as
well as, between APD and the communities on the [Seward Highway]
to establish a fee schedule. He said that eventually APD will
support Whittier (indisc.) for the major crimes.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN asserted that "all this was really, truly
brought on" due to DPS staff reduction. He claimed that without
the reduction, these issues would not have occurred. He said
that DPS has lost troopers and VPSOs, and it makes more sense
for DPS to provide the rare services to communities (indisc.--
coughing).
4:41:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his relief that the communities
that no longer have troopers did not pay for them through state
taxes. He mentioned Commissioner Monegan's reference to
"retired or non-perm officers" being employed under contract
with DPS to provide services to an area in need of them. He
asked if the language in the proposed legislation could include
"retired officers". He stated that if a retired trooper was
providing public safety services to a community that contracted
with DPS for the services, then his concern for losing a trooper
to a community that is paying would be alleviated. He said he
did not know the prevalence of retired officers willing to work
on a contractual basis, and possibly many would prefer that type
of work. He offered that some of the communities wanting to
contract for police services just want a [public safety]
"presence." He suggested that there be language in the proposed
legislation that specifically identified retired or non-perm
officers for fulfilling long-term contracts. He emphasized that
he is not referring to short-term crisis management, like in the
Bethel situation.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that in discussing the proposed
legislation with Colonel [James] Cockrell (Director, AST, DPS),
Colonel Cockrell expressed his belief that the proposed
legislation could provide mentoring for new troopers; troopers
just released from training would benefit from working with
seasoned veterans of AST. He said that DPS tries to afford the
"baby troopers" as much exposure to the various types of
criminal investigations and activities as possible before being
transferred to a remote area. He contended that if only
retirees were considered under the proposed legislation, then
DPS would lose the benefit of retirees in other areas. He said,
"We would bring on the brand-new fellows and gals into these
contract areas - the long-term." He opined that the use of
retirees is best decided internally by DPS. He maintained that
the crux of the proposed legislation is for DPS to have receipt
authority and enter into agreements with entities that wish to
contract for services, and it is not about how staffing will be
accomplished. He mentioned that Nikiski has approached DPS
about contracting for additional troopers.
4:45:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to page 2, lines 8-9, of Version
D, and said that he has a question about the language, which
proscribes the ability for DPS to contract with an entity that
already has a police force. He offered to discuss that question
out of committee meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to different contracting agents -
armed security in federal buildings, security at the Port of
Anchorage (POA), and security in city buildings. He asked what
experience DPS has in contracting with qualified law enforcement
personnel who are equivalent to a full-fledged trooper but are
at a "secondary level of law enforcement or security services."
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that the personnel utilized under
the proposed legislation would only be troopers or "special
commissions." He said that the troopers that would be
considered by DPS would be retired certified police officers,
who could handle any situation in the community, just like
troopers do. He stated that security guards and private police
are a different category and not what DPS would consider.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 163 would be held over.