Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/15/2018 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 | |
| HB400 | |
| HB71 | |
| HB352 | |
| Presentation: Indirect Expenditures – Wwami | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 352 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 400-FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
3:20:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first 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."
[Due to their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB
400.]
3:20:08 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated members should have a proposed
amendment to HB 400 in their packets [referred to as Amendment 3
and labeled 30-LS1490\A.3, Bannister, 3/7/18]. He explained
that Amendment 3 would include changes that were discussed in
committee on [March 13, 2018]. He asked Mr. David Tyler, the
State Fire Marshal, to discuss the changes made in Amendment 3
to HB 400 and to provide his division's perspective on the
proposed amendment.
3:20:56 PM
DAVID TYLER, State Fire Marshal; Director, Division of Fire and
Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained
that at the last hearing [on March 13, 2018] the committee
removed the language in proposed Amendment 3 that indicated
[fines] for violations could be compounded daily. The revised
Amendment 3 [A.3] states that the violation will remain in
effect until the fine has been paid or the situation [causing
the citation] has been remedied. The division has the option to
reissue a citation if the person receiving the citation paid the
bail but did not fix the problem. He noted that Amendment 3
[D.3] streamlined the process to make the citation basically "a
fix-it" ticket.
3:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled when the bill was first proposed,
Mr. Tyler had mentioned the only "teeth" the division had was to
issue a misdemeanor, which the division had not previously done.
He further recalled that the current process the division has
been using has been to list violations in hopes that the person
or company would fix what was wrong, but if they did not do so,
the only option the division had was to issue a misdemeanor and
the party would have a criminal record. The idea of issuing
citations for fines up to $500 has been under consideration. He
related his understanding that the division thought issuing
citations would not be used quite often. This current iteration
would allow people 30 days to fix the problem. He asked whether
citations being issued would increase since people have 30 days
to fix it or how the division's procedures might change.
MR. TYLER answered that the procedures would not drastically
change. Currently, the division does not use the misdemeanor
process because the district attorney would not prosecute them,
since they are too busy with other things. He explained that
the division's options were to issue an order to correct, which
basically asks the party to please fix the problem. The next
realistic option would be to close the building, which is a
measure of last resort and not productive. He said he agrees
that warnings should continue to be issued. He was interested
in seeing how this would work because it was possible to put a
court date in for those residing in a remote area, for example,
if he knew it would take two months to have a sprinkler system
installed, he could set a court date two months out. In that
way, the business would not be held to a time line that it could
not possibly meet.
3:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that issue had arisen, for
example if someone's ANSUL system needed servicing or something
as simple as a restaurant hood cleaning might be hard to
schedule during a particularly busy time of the year. He
offered his belief that someone with an automatic auto handheld
device could be uploaded daily and after 30 days an automatic
warning would be sent out. In instances in which the Fire
Marshal gave an extended date for remedy, he wondered whether
people would get hung up in the fine system. He recalled that
the Alaska Court System said that uploads and warning letters
happened automatically. He recalled someone might pay a parking
ticket but two years later it was still in the system. He asked
for further clarification on the hand-held devices and the
process for automatic letters. He recalled previous testimony
that these devices were not yet in use.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL wondered if the hand-held devises were a
"new work in progress."
MR. TYLER agreed it was a "work in progress." He was unsure how
the court would issue its warnings if he wrote a court date for
60-90 days after the citation. He said the bill requires him to
give a minimum of a 35-day-notice for a court date and he has 10
days to file it.
3:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that HB 400 started out as a means
to collect more fees; however, it has now morphed into major
discussion as to whether the offenses should be violations or
misdemeanors. She recalled on the House floor that the
legislature passed a bill related to load limits and changed it
from violations to criminal conduct to account for
responsibility. She wondered why this needed to be changed.
She recalled the Fire Marshal did not charge someone with a
misdemeanor, so she was unsure why he did not use the authority
to do so. She expressed concern that the Fire Marshal might not
charge someone [and a fire could occur] and cause injury or
death. She was unsure why this would go from a misdemeanor to a
violation.
3:28:50 PM
MR. TYLER responded that a misdemeanor charge would not be a
high priority for the attorney general. The proposed citation
and fine under Amendment 3 to HB 400 would provide a more
useable tool. If the parties fix the fire safety issues, they
would not need to pay any fine and the division obtains its goal
of fire safety compliance.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that part of the bill retains a
violation for certain outcomes. If someone gets seriously hurt,
it would be a misdemeanor. He asked in an instance where
someone was killed due to the fire resulting from a dirty vent
hood, whether existing statutes cover the crime.
MR. TYLER answered that if someone was killed the responsible
person could be charged for negligence or other offense
determined by the attorney general.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that another bill [HB 259]
discussed on the House floor today related to specifying a crime
for unsecured loads for truck.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS responded that was not his understanding.
He recalled testifiers before the [House Transportation and
Judiciary] committees. One person was nearly killed in an
accident resulting from unsecured debris flying through her
windshield, but the police could not charge the driver with an
unsecured load with a crime.
3:32:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he was correct, that under the current
statute the law only applied to commercial operators. He
offered his belief that the legislature, in its actions on the
House floor, extended some of the penalties to private operators
and defined "gross negligence." He agreed this was not the
only bill before the legislature that sought to decrease
misdemeanor penalties to citations. This would make it easier
to collect and this bill was a trend for this administration.
3:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that at times the House Labor
and Commerce committee found misdemeanor penalties were onerous
and were reduced to citations to obtain compliance. The threat
of penalty was lighter and might be used more often, he said.
He expressed concern was that this approach might result in an
overabundance of citations. He was unsure of the consequences,
but time would tell.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, referring to Representative Wool's
scenario of a fire resulting from a dirty hood in a restaurant
that might get a "fix-it" ticket from the fire marshal. He
researched the law applicable to "fix-it" tickets: [Alaska
Statutes] AS 18.70.010-100. He was trying to get a sense of
whether a dirty hood would fall within the scope of a "fix-it"
ticket.
MR. TYLER stated that the division's performance measures strive
for 30 percent with no discrepancies. He offered that the
division reached 12 percent in 2016 and 25 percent last year.
He was having trouble hearing the question and asked to have it
restated.
3:35:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated the question.
MR. TYLER answered yes; that could be a citation. He mentioned
potential violations that could result in citations, including a
sprinkler or fire alarm system not in compliance, excess
hardware not functioning, box corridor, exit lighting, or
expired fire extinguishers.
3:36:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the division charged any fees
for inspecting systems.
MR. TYLER answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said an acquaintance built a new real
estate company and complained about the fees to have heating
ventilation or fire suppression checked. He was unsure of what
was inspected or the agency or private company that performed
the work. He related his understanding that this bill would
give the department some receipt authority and allow it to
establish fees for inspections and permitting. He asked for
further clarification on if a draft fee schedule exists
MR. TYLER responded that the fiscal note [analysis on page 2,
Department of Public Safety, Fire and Life Safety fees] provides
a potential method for developing fees. He stated one challenge
was to develop uniform fees even though inspection times may
vary, depending on who conducted the inspection. He cautioned
that charging a flat rate might not be the best approach since
small businesses could be assessed a larger proportional fee
than larger operations and he described an example (audio
difficulties).
3:38:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP noted the audio difficulties.
3:39:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for committee comments. He said
unless there were further questions, it was his intent to put
Amendment 3 forward and he was fine with the committee either
accepting it, not accepting it, or holding it.
3:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he thought the language was getting
better and he liked proposed Amendment 3. As Representative
LeDoux mentioned it started off as "fee for inspection" but has
morphed to a whole citation and fee system. He acknowledged
that this approach was also new to the Fire Marshal's office.
He recalled a previous testifier from the court system, Ms.
Mead, said the police currently have a hand-held system for
issuing motor vehicle citations. This was different since it
deals with building inspections. He did not necessarily think
he would like to lump citations for the fire inspections into
the system with police speeding tickets and that type of "fast
tracking." He was unsure that he would oppose a system of fines
for violations, and although he had some hesitation [Amendment
3] was an improvement over the previous version of the
amendment.
3:41:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was not convinced. She preferred
the original version of the bill.
3:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he was not likely to support the bill.
He did not support generating revenue through fees, which he
thought was bad public policy. He said the businesses were not
asking for these inspections. He acknowledged that the Fire
Marshal has always mandated inspections. He recalled [HB 114]
relating to boiler inspection, that independent contractors
would inspect and certify the system, perform any repairs, and
the owner pays the fee and files the paperwork. He preferred
the boiler inspection model for paying fees for inspections.
3:43:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, as a small business owner, related that all
the fees are increasing, including fees for business and
professional licenses, fire marshal inspections, and on and on.
He expressed concern because the state fire marshal could
threaten to shut someone down without having to go through the
district attorney's office. Perhaps fees could be assessed for
new construction. He was unsure and said that obviously the
committee was still wrestling with this.
3:44:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would not move to adopt proposed
Amendment 3 since the committee did not support it. He
suggested the state fire marshal could work with the next
committee of referral [the House Finance Committee] to adopt the
amendment, which would be fine.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS brought members back to HB 400, which had
not been amended since the committee only entertained an idea
with proposed Amendment 3. He asked for additional comments on
HB 400.
3:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she did not have any problem with
bill as written. She liked the idea and people receiving the
services will pay for them. She acknowledged Representative
Knopp's suggestion on private enterprise competing to provide
the services.
3:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her belief that government's job
was to provide fire safety and address fire and life safety
issues. She expressed concern that imposing a fee for fire
inspections might cause businesses to put off fire inspections.
She recalled the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
has dispensed with fees or reimbursement costs for spill
cleanup. Providing fire inspections to the public was more
important than waiving the spill cleanup fees, she said. She
related she has a commercial building and she has a tremendous
respect for the fire marshal's office and she does everything in
her power to be certain there are no fire hazards and she
requests annual inspections. She was unsure that all companies
were as diligent and adding fees would make it more difficult.
3:47:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he has worked with fire
inspectors, especially in rural Alaska and they always do a
tremendous job. He was familiar with plan reviews and
assessment for fees. He would like to give the bill a chance,
given the importance of good fire safety and inspection. He
recalled that for plan reviews when design professionals such as
architects and engineers are hired to design a building the
expectation is that the design will be to code. He offered his
belief that the review process for public facilities benefits
from a review capability that the fire marshal's office
provides.
3:49:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL disagreed with Representative Johnson that
some businesses would opt not to have inspections since the
inspections are not optional, and that businesses are given a
specific timeframe to remedy any fixes. He remarked that if the
state was not going to have an income tax, it was choosing to
charge fees to businesses for services instead.
3:50:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related that fresh water inspections for
businesses were done by private contractor instead of through
DEC. He acknowledged that mandatory annual inspections were in
place. He remarked it was difficult to pay fees to have someone
write the business a citation.
3:51:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX REPRESENTATIVE moved to report HB 400 out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP objected.
3:52:13 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wool, LeDoux,
Birch, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of moving HB 400 out of
committee. Representatives Johnson and Knopp voted against it.
Therefore, HB 400 was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
The following amendments to HB 400 were either discussed or
adopted during the hearing:
Amendment 4 [30-LS1490\A.3, Bannister, 3/7/18]:
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 this chapter 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 five 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 this chapter.
(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) 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).
(l) 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.
(m) If a person cited for a violation for which
a bail forfeiture amount has been established under
(l) 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.
(n) When the cited person has forfeited bail
under (m) 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.
(o) 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 (l) of this section or fails to appear in court
as required.
(p) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if
a person cited for a violation for which a bail
forfeiture amount has been established under (l) 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
(l) of this section.
(q) 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."
| 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 |
| HB400 Amendment3 3.14.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB 71 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB71 ver O 3.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Explanation of Changes 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB352 Sponsor Statement 2.15.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Sectional Analysis 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB0352 ver A 2.16.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB352 Fiscal Note DOE 3.12.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB352 Fiscal Note DOR 3.12.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Amendment March 7 2018.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Doc NEW voter Opt-Out Mailer.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Doc UPDATE voter mailer.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document - DOE bullets points.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document - Election Policy Work Group Report.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document - Excerpt from 2017 DOE Fiscal & Policy Challenges Report.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB 352 Supporting Document 15PFVR-Statement-of-Costs.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| HB352 Letter of Support_Speaker Edgmon.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 352 |
| H STA Indirect Expenditure Hearings 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |