Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/13/2018 03:15 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 | |
| HB325 | |
| Indirect Expenditure Hearing | |
| HB400 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 400-FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
5:13:22 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to the collection
of fees by the Department of Public Safety for fire and
explosion prevention and safety services."
[Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB
400. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the forthcoming Amendment 2,
labeled 30-LS1490\A.2, Bannister, 3/13/18, which read: [The
text of Amendment 2 is listed at the end of the 3/13/18 minutes
of HB 400.]
5:14:00 PM
DAVID TYLER, Director State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire and
Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed
that his staff suggested that DFLS use the "fix-it ticket"
concept. [Testimony was suspended due to audio difficulties.]
5:15:39 PM
LLOYD NAKANO, Assistant State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire and
Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed
that he is unable to describe the amendment because he has not
seen it.
5:16:07 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, prime sponsor of HB 400, noted that
the forthcoming Amendment 2 is a modification of the amendment
introduced during the 3/8/18 committee hearing on HB 400. She
stated that the new amendment addresses the concern of committee
members that it would be unfair to charge for an inspection and
immediately issue a fine for violations. Under Amendment 2, a
correctable citation would be issued, called a "fix-it ticket";
this would be like being ticketed for driving without a license
and given the option of paying the ticket or showing the court a
copy of the driver's license to allowing the ticket to be
waived. She maintained that Amendment 2 would utilize the same
scheme: if a person is cited for a fire code violation upon
inspection, the person would have 30 days to provide DPS with
proof that the problem was corrected and that he/she is now in
compliance with the fire code. Subsequently, DPS will contact
the court and waive the ticket. She referred to Section 3,
subsection (k), on page 2 of the amendment, lines 23-29.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE addressed the concern that DPS would be
motivated to impose fines to put money into the DPS budget. She
explained that the amendment is written so that the money
generated by the fines go to the Alaska Court System (ACS) and
ultimately to the general fund (GF) and would not be designated
for DPS.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his appreciation with the changes
to the amendment. He stated that he is still concerned with the
fine levied per day of noncompliance and asked how that would
coordinate with the 30 days. He maintained that for a small
operator, a "per day" fine may be severe. He stated that he
supports giving the fire marshal and fire safety people the
authority to fine to pressure people into compliance.
5:19:55 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System (ACS), stated
that ACS's position on Amendment 2 is neutral; it would require
ACS court to establish a schedule of bail amounts, as stated in
Section 3, subsection (m), on page 3, lines 4-8. She cited the
language on page 1, lines 12-14, which read: "Each day that the
violation or noncompliance continues is a separate offense."
She offered that the provision may impose a logistical problem:
when someone gets a ticket, it is immediately electronically
filed with the court and can be paid online or later; however,
the ticket is for the amount on the ticket, and ACS would not be
counting days and assessing an amount more than what is on the
face of the ticket. She suggested that the language may be a
remnant of when a violation was a Class B misdemeanor. She
maintained that the wording is not wording that she has seen in
conjunction with a citation.
MS. MEADE continued by saying that ACS can accommodate a
procedure that involves people correcting violations and
demonstrating proof of correction to DPS, and DPS notifying ACS.
She stated that the "30 days" is the same timeframe that ACS
allows for people to pay the citation, before sending a warning
letter. She maintained that shortening the period in the
amendment would allow ASC to avoid sending warning letters to
people who are correcting their violations within the 30 days.
She concluded that ACS can comply with everything else in the
amendment; there are some redundancies, but they are drafting
issues.
5:23:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL relayed that depending on the type of
infraction and the remedy required, 30 days may or may not be a
long time. He suggested that instead of shortening the period
allowing for a correction, the "fining" process be started after
the 30 days if no correction has been made, which would avoid
letters being sent unnecessarily.
MS. MEADE answered that she does not know if DPS could comply
with that procedure, since personnel use hand-held devices that
perform automated downloads to ACS at the end of their shifts.
She stated that she is not certain if they can reverse citations
written so that the citations are not filed with ACS. She added
that the warning letter, sent to a person who has not paid or
responded to a fine, goes out 30 days after a citation and it is
required by statute; the person must get a warning within 30
days before ACS can issue a default against the person. She
suggested that the citation could be dismissed after the 30
days, if DPS notifies ACS that the violation has been corrected;
however, warning letters would have been issued unnecessarily.
5:25:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that he supports issuing the
warning letter right at 30 days; the person with the violation
has 30 days to correct it and submit the proof; if that doesn't
happen then the letter serves as a reminder and notifies the
person that penalties are forthcoming. He maintained that
smaller violations could be remedied in a few days or a week;
violations regarding larger commercial fire extinguishing and
retardant systems may take longer.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed that the proposed legislation is
a step in right direction. He asked whether there is a scenario
under which HB 400 would impose multiple-day fines. He asked if
his understanding is correct: the language that "each day is a
separate offense" is incorrect; an infraction incurs only one
fine for up to $500; and the fines do not accumulate over
multiple days.
MS. MEADE responded that the language with respect to citations
is new to her; ACS does not typically impose fines that way; and
under HB 400, ACS would be setting the fines for each of the
violations listed in AS 18.70. She reiterated that in her
experience, she hasn't seen an "escalation" clause or "rolling"
clause; ACS will set the appropriate fines and the person
receiving the fine will owe the dollar amount shown on the
citation, and not a multiple of that fine based on the days of
noncompliance.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that the amendment could be
corrected to reflect that concern.
5:28:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her understanding of the
amendment: if the person does not correct the violation within
the 30-day period, he/she is charged up to $500 per day. She
cited page 1, lines 12-13, which read: "Each day that the
violation or noncompliance continues is a separate offense."
MS. MEADE replied that she does not believe that sentence
belongs in the proposed legislation because it is incompatible
with ACS establishing a bail schedule and setting an amount for
an offense, that is, one citation with a single dollar amount.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the language could be
revised under a new amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to DPS downloading citations at the
end of a shift using an automated devise. He asked if that is
the case for fire marshal inspections. He stated that his
recollection is that upon inspection of his business, he was
given a hand-written booklet by a fire inspection person, which
is different than being stopped and cited by an Alaska State
Trooper (AST) on the highway. He asked if fire marshals use
handheld automatically downloadable devices.
MS. MEADE answered that her understanding is that the proposed
legislation would be the first law that gives fire marshals the
authority to issue citations, as opposed to charging violators
with misdemeanors.
5:30:59 PM
MR. NAKANO replied that currently DFLS does not have a process
for issuing citations; however, if HB 400 passes, it will use
the same process that AST uses, since deputy fire marshals that
conduct fire inspections are police officers. They will use two
electronic devises: one to conduct the fire inspection and one
to issue the citations.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that the bail amounts cited on
page 3, lines 4-8, would be set by ACS, and the language on page
1, lines 12-14, would be "cleaned up" to clear up the "per day"
issue. He asked if his understanding is correct: the set
dollar amount is for the citation and the bail schedule is for
the misdemeanor charge.
MS. MEADE referred to the language on page 3, lines 4-8, which
read: "The supreme court shall establish a schedule of bail
amounts." She stated that the meaning of the word "bail" in
this context is probably 100 percent different from what
Representative Knopp is expecting in terms of criminal
procedures. She said that it would be more appropriate to refer
to it as "fine amounts," but for historical reasons it is
referred to as "bail amounts." She maintained that ACS
establishes fine schedules; for example, it does so for traffic
violations and for Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
violations; the legislature has directed ACS to establish fine
amounts. She stated that under HB 400, ACS would establish the
fine amounts for all the offenses listed in AS 18.70.010 through
AS 18.70.100, and the fines would be $500 or less.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS summarized by saying that the legislature
delegates the responsibility of setting the fine amounts to ACS.
MS. MEADE concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether fire marshals were more
suitable than ACS for setting fine amounts for the different
levels of violations.
MS. MEADE responded, "That's right." She said that when ACS is
assigned this task by statute, it exclusively works with the
agency involved. She maintained that ACS does not have the
expertise to determine appropriate fines; therefore, it would
create the bail schedule in conjunction with the agency
involved.
5:34:50 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE offered that the amendment was written [giving
ACS the task of setting the bail schedule] because there were
concerns about regular updates to the fire code; if the fines
were set in statute, the legislature would have to review the
statutes every year; if ACS sets the bail schedule in
conjunction with DPS, it can keep abreast of the current fire
codes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether ACS revises these schedules
on a regular basis.
MS. MEADE answered, "No and yes." She said that ACS is passive
and receptive to requests from agencies. She explained that
typically ACS responds to an agency's request for a fine to be
updated; the request becomes a project assigned to staff,
accompanied by a series of meetings and preparation for the
revision.
The following amendment to HB 400 was either discussed or
adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in
the main text only.]
AMENDMENT 2 [30-LS1490\A.2, Bannister, 3/13/18]
Page 1, line 2, following "services;":
Insert "and relating to penalties for violating
fire protection and safety requirements and orders"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 18.70.100(a) is amended to read:
(a) A [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (c) OF THIS
SECTION, A] person who violates a provision of
AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 or a regulation adopted under
those sections, or who fails to comply with an order
issued under AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100, is guilty of a
violation and shall be punished as provided in
AS 12.55 by a fine of not more than $500. Each day
[CLASS B MISDEMEANOR. WHEN NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,
EACH 10 DAYS] that the violation or noncompliance
continues is a separate offense.
* Sec. 3. AS 18.70.100 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) A peace officer or an employee of the
department who is authorized by the commissioner of
public safety to enforce AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 may
issue a citation to a person who commits a violation
identified under this section.
(e) A citation issued under this section must
comply with the standards adopted under AS 12.25.175 -
12.25.230. A person receiving the citation is not
required to sign a promise to appear in court.
(f) The time specified in the notice to appear
on a citation issued under this section must be at
least 35 working days after the issuance of the
citation.
(g) The commissioner of public safety is
responsible for the issuance of books containing
appropriate citations and shall maintain a record of
each book and each citation contained in the book. The
commissioner of public safety shall require and retain
a receipt for each book issued to an employee of the
department designated by the commissioner of public
safety to provide investigative services to enforce
provisions of AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100.
(h) On or before the 10th working day after
issuance of a citation, a peace officer or an employee
issuing a citation under this section shall deposit
the original or a copy of the citation with a court
having jurisdiction over the alleged offense. Upon the
deposit of the citation with the court, the citation
may be disposed of only by trial in the court or other
official action taken by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor. The peace officer or employee who issued
the citation may not dispose of the original or copies
of the citation or of the record of the issuance of
the citation except as required under this subsection
and (i) of this section.
(i) The commissioner of public safety shall
require the return of a copy of each citation issued
under this section and of the copies of each citation
that has been spoiled or on which an entry has been
made and not issued to an alleged violator. The
commissioner of public safety shall also maintain in
connection with each citation issued a record of the
disposition of the charge by the court in which the
original or copy of the citation was deposited.
(j) A citation issued under this section is
considered to be a lawful complaint for the purpose of
prosecution.
(k) If a person to whom a citation is issued
under (d) of this section provides proof to the
department within 30 days after the issuance of the
citation that the person has corrected the condition
for which the citation was issued, the person may not
be convicted of the violation. The department shall
notify the court if the department, within 30 days
after the issuance of the citation, receives
sufficient proof from a person to whom a citation is
issued under (d) of this section that the person has
corrected the condition for which the citation was
issued.
(l) Unless the citation has been voided or
otherwise dismissed by the magistrate, judge, or
prosecutor, or bail has been forfeited under this
section, a person who fails to appear in court to
answer a citation issued under this section,
regardless of the disposition of the charge for which
the citation was issued, is guilty of failure to obey
a citation under AS 12.25.230(b).
(m) The supreme court shall establish a schedule
of bail amounts. The maximum bail forfeiture amount
for a violation may not exceed the maximum fine
specified under (a) of this section for that
violation. The issuing peace officer or employee shall
write on the citation the amount of bail forfeiture
applicable to the violation.
(n) If a person cited for a violation for which
a bail forfeiture amount has been established under
(m) of this section does not contest the citation, the
person may, within 30 days after the date of the
citation, mail or personally deliver to the clerk of
the court in which the citation is filed by the peace
officer or employee
(1) the amount of bail indicated on the
citation for that offense; and
(2) a copy of the citation indicating that
the right to an appearance is waived, a plea of no
contest is entered, and the bail is forfeited.
(o) When the cited person has forfeited bail
under (n) of this section, the court shall enter a
judgment of conviction. Forfeiture of bail is a
complete satisfaction for the violation. The clerk of
the court accepting the bail forfeiture shall provide
the offender with a receipt stating that fact if
requested.
(p) A person cited under this section is guilty
of failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230(b) if
the person fails to pay the bail amount established
under (m) of this section or fails to appear in court
as required.
(q) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if
a person cited for a violation for which a bail
forfeiture amount has been established under (m) of
this section appears in court and is found guilty, the
court may not impose a penalty that exceeds the
forfeiture amount for that violation established under
(m) of this section.
(r) In this section, "department" means the
Department of Public Safety."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 18.70.100(c) is repealed."
[End of Amendment 1 - HB 400 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB400 Sponsor Statement 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 ver A 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Fiscal Note DPS 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment 1 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment2 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB325 Sponsor Statement 2.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Sectional Analysis ver A 2.5.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 ver A 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Fiscal Note DOC 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document-Letter DHSS 2.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document testimony, T Eames CCTHITA 2.15.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Letter of Support- Michelle Overstreet 3.14.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325- Opposing Document- Letter from AACOP 3.30.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| H STA Indirect Expenditure Hearings 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |