Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/09/2018 09:00 AM 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 | |
| SB78 | |
| HB216 | |
| HB129 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 9, 2018
9:07 a.m.
9:07:08 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Sponsor; Pete Fellman, Staff, Senator
Click Bishop; Representative Chuck Kopp, Sponsor; Eric
Cordero-Giorgana, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp; Kate
Hudson, Executive Director, Violent Crimes Compensation
Board, Department of Administration; David Teal, Director,
Legislative Finance Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Bruce Dale, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game; Steve Hall, Director, Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety; Aaron
Peterson, Attorney IV, Criminal Division, Office of Special
Prosecution, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
HB 129 FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
HB 129 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 216 TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES
CSHB 216(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Law; one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration; one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Administration for Fund
Capitalization; one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Corrections; one new
indeterminate note from the Alaska Judicial
System; two previously published zero fiscal
notes from the Department of Health and Social
Services: FN2 (DHS) and FN3 (DHS); and one
previously published fiscal impact note from the
Department of Revenue: FN7 (REV).
SB 78 PERM FUND DIVIDEND CONTRIBUTIONS/LOTTERY
SB 78 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster discussed housekeeping.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 78(FIN)
"An Act creating the education endowment fund and the
dividend raffle fund; authorizing donations from the
permanent fund dividend for educational purposes and
to enter the permanent fund dividend raffle; relating
to transfers from the dividend raffle fund and the
education endowment fund; relating to the duties of
the Department of Revenue; relating to the definition
of 'gambling'; and providing for an effective date."
9:08:16 AM
SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill. He shared that his heart and soul were in
education and workforce development. He relayed that 120
testifiers had stressed that need for education funding and
the lack of the raise in the average daily memberships
(ADM). He hoped one day the bill would be fully funded and
would be injecting new money into education; supporting
Pre-K, workforce development, STEM programs, and others. He
believed that the bill was a vehicle that used the power of
earnings as a renewable resource to help fund education in
the state.
Representative Grenn asked about the number of participants
and the average donation. He referenced a sheet titled
"Random Sample at 50,000 Participants giving $200 each"
(copy on file). He wondered what data the expectation of
participation was based on.
PETE FELLMAN, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, he replied that
the Legislative Finance Division had created the models for
the legislation. He said that another model used 10,000
participants. There was no way to know the number of people
would choose to participate in the raffle. He stated that
roughly 400,000 adults received permanent fund dividends
but that it was unknown how many people would choose to
donate to education.
Representative Grenn wondered about a marketing number or
promotions amount to generate interest in the lottery.
Mr. Fellman pointed to administration cost on the
spreadsheet, which were solely from the lottery portion of
the donations; the program was self-funded. He said there
would be minimal start up costs. He stressed that the
program would be self-sustaining after the first year.
9:14:12 AM
Representative Grenn was looking for a promotion cost. He
noted that the Department of Revenue fiscal note reflected
a cost of $10,000 for FY 19, under "services." He
reiterated his desire to understand the costs associated
with promotions and advertising.
Mr. Fellman answered there would be a cost to put the
raffle on the webpage, but the cost was not expected to be
significant.
9:15:33 AM
AT EASE
9:16:33 AM
RECONVENED
Mr. Fellman would follow up with the startup advertising
cost. He noted there had been a fiscal note from the
previous year that had been updated.
Representative Guttenberg understood that the raffle would
be created under the assumption that the payouts would be
don automatically. He asked what part of the raffle money
was subject to legislative appropriation.
Mr. Fellman replied that a legal opinion had been drafted
that addressed the issue of appropriation. The opinion said
that because they were private donations donated for a
private purpose, a court could say that the donations had
to be used for the purpose donated - education and a
raffle. According to a March 31, 2017 legal opinion from
Legislative legal Services (copy on file) donations made
for a specific purpose had to be used for the purpose for
which they were donated. He said that this did not mean
that the legislature could not attempt to appropriate the
funds, but that doing so would be a bold step that could be
challenged in court.
9:20:26 AM
Representative Guttenberg maintained discomfort with the
issue.
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Fellman to review the changes in
the CS.
Mr. Fellman complied. The first change reduced the cap on
the lottery in order for money to be more quickly put into
education. The changes were on Page 5 and deleted $500
million and inserted $300 million. The Education Endowment
Fund at $300 million in order for the fund to grow at a
quicker rate. The second change, on Page 6, reduced the
payout percentage for prizes to allow more money to be put
forward for education. The change on Line 5 of the page
deleted 10 percent and inserted 8 percent; on line 7,
deleted 5 percent and inserted 4 percent; on Line 9,
deleted 3 percent and inserted 2 percent; on Line 11
deleted 2 percent and inserted 1 percent. He stressed that
the bill was an effort to set up a system for extra
education funding. The effective date had been changed on
page 6, line 14.
9:23:43 AM
Representative Guttenberg queried the assumptions that
showed how long it would take for the fund to reach $300
million.
Mr. Fellman replied there was no way to know how much money
would move until it hit the cap and they did not know how
long it would take to hit the cap. When the $300 million
was hit, everything above that amount in the raffle balance
would flow into the education endowment fund.
Representative Ortiz asked whether the changes in the
reduction of the percentage of payouts the were based on an
intuition that they could reduce the incentive to
participate. He asked if the sponsor assumed that
participants would be people who really wanted to donate to
education or people who were attracted to participating in
a game of chance.
Mr. Fellman responded that in modeling the program over a
ten-year timespan, there came a point once the cap was hit
of the possibility that more money could be paid out than
was being put in or that little would remaine in the
endowment. He said that the reduction would leave more
money in the raffle fund. He thought that the motivation
for playing the raffle was a moot point since the money
ultimately went to fund education. He reiterated that as
the program matured, money would be put into education
every year and a small percentage of the raffle fund would
be used to pay out prizes. He elaborated on the powerful
way that the multiplication of earnings on the endowment
would benefit education funding in the state.
9:28:34 AM
Representative Ortiz supported the bill. He thought that
the level of participation based on the reduced pay-out
should be considered.
Representative Wilson understood that participation in the
raffle was limited to the once a year dividend application.
Mr. Fellman answered in the affirmative. A participant had
to be 18 years of age and they could not use their
children's money to donate to the raffle. He added that
playing could only be done with PFD money and a person had
to be a resident. They could participate in $100
increments. Every $100 got a person one raffle ticket in
the bucket. They could use their entire PFD in $100
increments.
Representative Wilson recalled that the University of
Alaska had a raffle program.
Mr. Fellman answered that with the college fund a person
could donate and get a scholarship; another program put
their name in a raffle for a chance to double their
dividend. He agreed that there were similar programs
working in the state.
9:31:22 AM
Representative Wilson asked for examples in other locations
where lotteries had positively impacted education.
Mr. Fellman answered that many states were using lottery
money to help fund education. He said that the success rate
varied for different programs in different states. He
stated that some states used 70 percent of lottery money
for education funding, while other states supplemented
education funding with lottery monies. He said that it was
not a guarantee that the lottery money would not supplant
other general fund money, but some states had been able to
reduce the amount of state money that was put into
education because of lottery funding.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 78, Work Draft 30-LS0534\Y (Martin,
3/14/18). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:33:34 AM
Vice-Chair Gara believed Senator Bishop wanted more money
for education and job training. He had two concerns that he
believed could be addressed. If they wanted the money to
supplement education funding he thought it needed to be
addressed in the bill. He worried that the fund would
supplement general funds dollars, rather than increasing
education funding. He stressed the importance that donors
receive assurances that the money they donate will go to
increase education spending. He understood that no money
would go into education until the endowment reached $300
million.
9:35:52 AM
Mr. Fellman replied in the negative. He explained that
every year 50 percent of the raffle funds would go directly
to education; 25 percent of all donations would go into the
endowment fund and 25 percent would go into the raffle
fund. Everything above the $300 million cap would go
directly to the endowment.
Vice-Chair Gara reiterated his desire that language be
written into the bill that defined whether the fund would
be used as additional funding or supplemental funding.
Mr. Fellman answered that the money would go to education.
He said that he had no control over how the legislature
would appropriate to education in future operating budgets.
He said that the level of funding for education in the
future would be established by formulas in statute and the
choices made by the legislature. He stressed that the money
would help the state. He was not sure how guarunte4es could
be written into the language that funding for education
would increase as a result of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed that it was not possible to bind
future legislatures. He thought that the legislature used
"may spend" language often and that a provision could be
written into the bill that distributed the raffle fuds
through the foundation formula. A future legislature could
decide to honor or not honor the decision. He wanted to let
people know that their money may only be going to supplant
other funding to education.
Mr. Fellman thought that the issue garnered further
discussion and believed that language could be crafted that
addressed the concern.
9:39:57 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Fellman to review the sectional
analysis.
Mr. Fellman complied, stating that Section 1 amended
gambling laws. Section 2 gave priority over donations - if
people were donating to other things the raffle was at the
bottom of the priority list. Section 3 created the
endowment fund and the dividend raffle fund. The effective
date was January 1, 2019.
SB 78 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to transfers from the dividend fund;
creating the restorative justice account; relating to
appropriations from the restorative justice account
for payments for and services to crime victims,
operating costs of the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board, operation of domestic violence and sexual
assault programs, mental health services and substance
abuse treatment for offenders, and incarceration
costs; and providing for an effective date."
9:42:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
and introduced himself.
ERIC CORDERO-GIORGANA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP,
introduced himself.
Representative Kopp stated that the bill would reset in law
the legislative purpose for making certain persons
ineligible to receive a dividend; those who have been
incarcerated on a felony during their qualifying year,
those that have been convicted of a felony during their
qualifying year, or those that have been convicted of a
misdemeanor but have a prior felony or two prior
misdemeanors. He said that the dividends that would
otherwise be paid to those Alaskans would provide funds for
services and payments to crime victims and operating costs
through he Violent Crimes Compensation Board. Secondly, the
funds would be used to pay restitution owed to crime
victims. Thirdly, the fund would provide for grants to non-
profits for crime victims, for mental health services and
substance abuse treatment for offenders, to provide funds
to the Office of Victims Rights (OVR) to help people get
restitution payments, and to provide fund to the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) for grants to
victims. He added that the bill included obtaining
reimbursement for some costs to the Department of
Corrections related to probation and incarceration. He said
that the bill would establish the Restorative Justice
Account as a separate account within the dividend fund and
allowed the commissioner to make a transfer each year from
the dividend fund to the Restorative Justice Fund in an
amount equal to the amount that would have been paid during
the previous fiscal year to individuals who were ineligible
for dividends. The bill established a priority order and
percentages of payment. He believed that the bill brought
back the original purpose of the fund. He said that the
fund was not considered dedicated and that the legislature
could still make appropriations at they deemed fit.
9:47:20 AM
Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available for questions.
Representative Kawasaki noted that a previous version of
the bill looked at priority order of payment and the
current bill looked at percentages of payment. He thought
that the dedicated fund issue had become murky and quoted
the legal opinion from the legislative Division of Legal
and Research Services from April 7, 2018:
However, you should be aware that creating a
requirement that a certain percentage go towards a
specific purpose can make the fund look more like a
dedicated fund, carrying a greater risk that a court
could find the appropriation is not intended to be
discretionary.
Representative Kawasaki asked Representative Kopp to
address the point raised in the memo.
Representative Kopp thought that there was a long history
of similar practice through the state's technical and
vocational programs; percentages were set in statute for
varying technical programs in the state. He said that it
had never been challenged.
9:49:55 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-
LS0572\L.1 (Martin, 3/28/18) (copy on file):
Page 1, lines 6 - 7:
Delete ''relating to contributions from dividends;"
Page 8, line 7, through page 9, line 20:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Grenn explained that he supported the
original intent of the bill. He shared that the original
intent of the Pick.Click.Give program was to focus on
501(c)(3) nonprofits that were the safety net for many
Alaskans. He worried that adding programs like the on under
the bill could divert support from those nonprofit, non-
government organizations. He expressed concern that the
program did not have an audit provision. He thought that
the words Pick.Click.Give should be removed from the
legislation.
9:52:40 AM
Representative Kopp shared that the amendment did not
hinder the bill. He was neutral on the amendment and
believed it stayed consistent with the legislation's
intent.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED to the amendment. She
explained her reasoning.
Representative Grenn replied there were over 600 statewide
nonprofits that Alaskans could donate to in order to help
victims of violent crimes. He listed other nonprofits
focused on helping victims.
Representative Wilson said her understanding was that the
organizations did not help the individual who had been
victimized. She did not believe that Pick.Click.Give would
be affected by the legislation as written.
9:56:27 AM
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether there were
auditing requirements for the compensation fund similar to
the ones required of Pick.Click.Give organizations.
Representative Grenn could not speak to the administrative
process of the account. He did not believe that the fund
worked within the parameters of the nonprofits under the
Pick.Click.Give umbrella. He thought that sticking with the
original intent of the Pick.Click.Give program would be the
best practice for the state.
Representative Wilson hoped to clarify the conversation
about how the compensation funds were being spent and to
quell assumptions that no one was being held accountable to
how the funds were being spent.
KATE HUDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIOLENT CRIMES
COMPENSATION BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, answered
that a performance report was completed and submitted to
the federal government every quarter, in addition to an
annual performance report. She said that there was no
requirement to perform a state audit on a regular basis,
but that one had been performed roughly 12 years ago. She
said that the records could be easily audited should that
ben requested. She stated that several agencies were
covered by the legislation, which presented the question of
how they were presented on the Pick.Click.Give page.
10:00:08 AM
Representative Wilson asked whether the needs for violent
crime compensation were currently being met with funding.
Ms. Hudson answered that it varied from year to year. She
said that some years all the money was spent and bled into
the next fiscal year, and some years not all the money was
spent. She said that the issue was that the board was very
small, and that funding had remained flat for many years;
the board knew for a fact that they were not meeting the
needs of all the crime victims in the state and wondered
whether victims were even aware of the fund. She said that
homicides that involved dependent children required a lot
of funds. She said that there were eligibility restrictions
of the fund which were offset by other programs like
domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers that to
meet some of the needs that the compensation board could
not.
Representative Kawasaki wondered how the compensation board
would advertise itself under Pick.Click.Give.
Ms. Hudson stated that she was not entirely sure. She
assumed that advertising would be done on the
Pick.Clik.Give website and possible public service
announcements would be done.
Representative Grenn answered that one of the requirements
for the application for Pick.Click.Give was a 990. He asked
Ms. Hudson whether her organization used that particular
tax form.
Ms. Hudson replied in the negative.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg,
Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (8/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Gara was generally supportive of the bill but
had questions. He asked about the backfill amount for the
various programs that would no longer be receiving as much
money from the funds. He agreed they wanted to move money
to the items specified in the bill, but he was concerned
about items that would receive less funding.
Representative Kopp replied that the bill would establish a
priority order and not a dollar amount. He said that the
percentages were a valuable approach because it would allow
DOC to receive their maximum percentage. He said that OVR
would be allowed to facilitate restitution orders, which
was the greatest need in helping victims get back on their
feet. He stated that the minimal increase would streamline
the restitution process.
10:07:16 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
suggested placing the fiscal notes in order beginning with
the Department of Law note (LAW), OMB component 2717. He
directed committee attention to Page 2:
The Department of Law used to collect restitution for
victims. This program was defunded in 2017. The court
system now collects restitution for victims. Because
the Department of Law no longer collects restitution,
the department anticipates no fiscal impact if the
bill becomes law.
He noted that Page 2 of the bill stated that LAW would
still be involved in the collection of funds, which made
him question the fiscal note. He thought that there could
be fiscal impact in the future.
10:10:10 AM
Representative Kopp relayed that LAW had in the past a
Victims' Restitution Unit, which was removed in 2017. He
said that with that removal the department was still giving
notice to victims about eligibility to receive assistance
from the state but that the court had step in to assist
with receiving payments and helping to facilitate those
payments. He stressed that under the bill, OVR would step
up to facilitate those payments.
10:11:09 AM
Mr. Teal agreed with the sponsor. He stated that there
could be some confusion because LAW could step in if the
victim chose to get help from the department. He thought
that the issue could be addressed in the future. The second
fiscal note was from the Alaska Court System, OMB component
769. He explained that the addition of OVR to the equation
would require coordination, which would have fiscal impact
if the office paid restitution. He pointed to the money for
a data entry person, but no money for the payment of
restitution.
Representative Kopp interjected that the money for
restitution was subject to legislative appropriation. He
said that the most common restitution figure was $1000; the
restitution order had not traditionally been a part of the
OVR budget, so an appropriation to help pay restitution
orders would be needed. He did not believe that huge
amounts of money would need to be appropriated.
10:13:50 AM
Co-Chair Foster listed additional invited individuals
available to testify.
Representative Wilson asked how long the position would be
needed.
Mr. Teal answered that the appropriation for the position
did not have to be used for the position but could be used
for operating costs, including the payment of restitution.
He said that the position was intended to set up the
coordination between the court and OVR to be sure that
their databases aligned. He stated that once the
coordination occurred, the position may no longer be
required. Whether the money was taken away or used for
restitution in the future was up to the legislature.
Representative Wilson thought that it was unusual that the
duration of the position was ambiguous.
10:16:17 AM
Mr. Teal reviewed the Department of Revenue fiscal note,
OMB Component 981. he relayed that the department was
requesting $20 thousand in FY19, and $15 thousand each year
after for management fees associated with the new sub-
account of the dividend fund. He felt that there was little
need to pay for the fees with general funds, he thought
that the new fund could be charged for the management fees.
The bill did not currently stipulate that one of the
purposes of the fund was to allow for the payment of
managing fees. He said that the general fund was
appropriate, given the way the bill was drafted, but that
could be amended.
Representative Wilson asked if the fiscal note pertained to
Amendment 1.
Mr. Teal answered in the negative. He said that when a fund
of any kind was established, the department needed to track
the funds. He said that money would be flowing in and out
of the fund continually, which the department needed to
track.
Mr. Teal reviewed the Department of Health and Social
Services fiscal note, OMB Component Number 2134, with zero
impact.
10:18:38 AM
Mr. Teal addressed the Department of Health and Social
Services fiscal note, OMB Component Number 3099, with zero
impact. Fiscal note 6 was for the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board, OMB Component 2694. The note requested
$178.7 thousand to pay the restitution for victims of
crime. He said that the number was in the range of
allowable percentages. He continued to the Fund
Capitalization note, OMB component 2936, which matched the
previous note. He said the fund would first be capitalized
and then the money went from the Crime Victim Compensation
fund, to the board, which in turn made payments from the
fund.
10:20:46 AM
Mr. Teal reviewed the fiscal note for the Court System, OMB
Component Number 769, which showed a fund source change
with one position added. He said that the change would take
away $167.6 in general funds and replaced it with money
from the Restorative Justice Fund of $251 thousand; the
change resulted in a net gain of $83.8 and would pay for
the 1-year position. He said that if more money became
available, DOC would get less fund and would need
offsetting general fund dollars. The last fiscal note was
for the Department of Corrections, OMB Component Number
2952. He stated that if more of the fixed amount of money
was used for purposes other than behavioral or physical
health within the department, DOC would need money to
offset the fund taken from them and used for other
purposes. In FY19, the fiscal noted were lower than what
was called for in the legislation, which could change in
the future. He related that for 2019, the net cost would be
$262 thousand, primarily in the Crime Victim Compensation
Fund and then the fund source change in OVR. He concluded
that $282 was the net general fund spend associated with
the bill.
10:23:41 AM
Vice-Chair Gara requested further clarification on the
fiscal notes.
Mr. Teal explained that more money would be spent for
victim compensation, which would result in less of the
restorative justice funds available to DOC. The DOC funds
would need to be replaced at the cost of $262 thousand in
general funds, plus $20 thousand in administrative fees,
totaling $282 thousand.
Vice-Chair Gara asked which fiscal note was under
discussion.
Mr. Teal clarified he was speaking about all the fiscal
notes combined.
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the fiscal note for DOC, OMB 2952.
He understood that $430 thousand was being added for DOC.
Mr. Teal replied in the affirmative. He explained that DOC
had $11,493.4 in restorative funds in their budget for
physical healthcare costs. He said that because those
restorative funds would be used for other purposes, the
department would receive $11,063 from that fund source.
They will need $430 thousand undesignated general funds to
replace the money being used elsewhere. He furthered that
the $282 thousand versus $430 thousand was because of the
negatives in OVR where general funds were being taken away
from the agency; the net of what was being taken from the
agency and replaced with restorative funds was $83.8 and
added up to $282 thousand.
10:27:30 AM
Vice-Chair Gara asked about an additional $11 million being
put in during conference committee.
Mr. Teal hoped that would not be the case.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that if
nothing changed the following year there would still be a
gain of $282 thousand required.
Mr. Teal answered it was not a single fiscal note totaling
$282, rather the sum of all notes. He said that in the next
year the legislature may decide to fund some of the things
that were currently a zero fiscal impact at present. There
were grants through the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) that were a zero in FY19. He relayed that
CDVSA had not prepared a note because they were expecting
money anyway. He stated that there were some grants through
DHSS that were zero in FY19, and according to the bill, the
minimum percentages for those purposes was 1 or 2 percent.
He said that as those things were funded in the future it
would take money form DOC, which would mean that the UGF in
DOC would need to be increased to make up for the loss.
Representative Wilson asked about a scenario where nothing
changed, and everything continued to be funded under the
status quo. Aside from the $20,000 for administrative
purposes - how would the fiscal impact increase.
10:30:29 AM
Mr. Teal replied that the $282 thousand was the FY19 cost.
He said that if nothing changed from the distribution in
FY19 then there would be no change. He related that the
money that was lost by departments to fund the payments
would need to be replaced. He concluded that the future
cost of the legislation may be just the $179 thousand, plus
the $20 thousand in administrative cost.
Co-Chair Foster believed there would be forthcoming note
from Judiciary.
Mr. Teal replied that the note misstated the fund name and
would be corrected.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 216(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 216(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Law; one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Administration; one new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Administration for Fund
Capitalization; one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Corrections; one new indeterminate note from
the Alaska Judicial System; two previously published zero
fiscal notes from the Department of Health and Social
Services: FN2 (DHS) and FN3 (DHS); and one previously
published fiscal impact note from the Department of
Revenue: FN7 (REV).
10:32:59 AM
AT EASE
10:34:11 AM
RECONVENED
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."
10:34:19 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the bill had been heard before
in committee and public testimony was CLOSED.
10:35:01 AM
AT EASE
10:35:33 AM
RECONVENED
BRUCE DALE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), deferred
questions to the Department of Public Safety.
STEVE HALL, DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), did not have
additional comments.
Co-Chair Foster listed additional individuals available for
questions.
10:37:07 AM
Representative Kawasaki noted that several sections of the
bill changed the consequence for violations from a
misdemeanor, upon conviction punishable by a fine, to a
Class A misdemeanor and punishable by a fine. He wondered
about the impact of the change in language.
AARON PETERSON, ATTORNEY IV, CRIMINAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF
SPECIAL PROSECUTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via
teleconference), responded that the original language in
the bill would have changed all the non-classified
misdemeanors in Title 16 to Class A misdemeanors with
standard Class A misdemeanor penalties laid out in AS
12.55. He said that the amended version made them Class A
misdemeanors with maximum fine amounts.
Representative Kawasaki understood that under the current
bill a charge for violation could be appealed in court.
Mr. Peterson answered in the affirmative.
10:39:43 AM
Representative Pruitt referenced Page 2, section 3:
(h) A peace officer presented with an electronic
device under (g) of this section is immune from any
liability resulting from damage to the device.
Representative Pruitt asked what would happen if the
electronic device was damaged in the presentation of said
device to a peace officer. He thought that utilizing the
electronic device was a good idea but expressed concern
about the meaning of "liability" in the subsection.
Mr. Hall answered that the provision was intended to
protect the department from liability. If a person chose to
store their fishing license on their phone, rather than
have a paper copy the department would not be held liable
for any damage to the phone or other device.
Representative Pruitt offered an anecdote where a person
was asked to show their license even though they had not
committed a violation. He worried that the public would
have no recourse if they were asked to present their
license and then something happened to their device. He
thought that the department should claim some liability for
damage. He threatened to offer a conceptual amendment to
have the language removed.
10:44:28 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was precedent
for Representative Pruitt's concern.
Mr. Peterson replied that the reason that the section was
in the bill was based on situations in other states. He
offered an example of a person fishing in the rain using
their phone to show their license to an officer. He said
that if the device got wet and was damaged while the
trooper was performing their duties, the state would not be
liable for damages to the device. He said that if the
officer was grossly negligent it could be an issue for the
civil division of law.
10:47:07 AM
Representative Guttenberg understood it was a civil law
issue.
Mr. Peterson explained that there was a duty of care that
law enforcement was required to exhibit when taking
possession of belongings, an impounded vehicle, for
example. He said that "due care" would be used by law
enforcement and the liability would depend on the facts of
the interaction.
10:48:39 AM
Representative Ortiz understood the concern; however, there
was a certain amount of acceptance of the risk of having
the only copy of the licenses in an electronic format. He
thought an individual had to calculate that risk when
deciding whether to carry a paper or electronic license. He
would oppose the conceptual amendment if offered.
Representative Wilson asked to hear from someone from the
Civil Division of the Department of Law. The language
stated, "immune from any damage to a device." She did not
think proper care had anything to do with it. She did not
think anyone should be completely immune to possible damage
of property.
Co-Chair Foster held the bill until the afternoon meeting.
Representative Wilson requested more information on the
issue. She thought the bill could be written in a better
way.
HB 129 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:52:56 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 a.m.