Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/01/2002 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 472-PAWNBROKERS/SECONDHAND DEALERS CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO. 472, "An Act relating to persons who buy and sell secondhand articles and to certain persons who lend money on secondhand articles." Number 2132 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), version 22-LS1519\J, Bannister, 3/19/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version J was before the committee. Number 2150 LAURA ACHEE, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Green, sponsor of HB 472, explained that Version J addresses two concerns brought up at the last hearing. One relates to tightening the definition of a secondhand dealer so that garage sales and swap meets aren't included. The other was brought up by a pawnshop owner who felt he shouldn't have to list items that he'd paid $1 to purchase. She said she'd worked with pawnbrokers and police officers to come up with clearly defined guidelines for what needs to be recorded: any item that has a serial number; any item that has a resale value of $75 or more; or an item presented in a lot of ten or more similar items, except for books, in a seven-day period by one individual - for example, compact discs (CDs) that can be stolen and resold easily. Number 2219 MS. ACHEE noted another change in Version J: removal of the requirement to have the name of the purchaser be recorded. She explained that subsection 2(c) allows for records to be maintained by computer and specifies that the dealer "shall use a system that guarantees that a record cannot be eliminated after entry". She pointed out that Section 6, added at the request of the Anchorage Police Department (APD), requires that all items that fall under the reporting guidelines be held for 30 days after the item is received. And Section 7 clearly defines pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers. Number 2285 CHAIR MURKOWSKI, referring to Section 6, noted that under AS 08.76.040 there are provisions for holding goods for a specific period of time before selling them. She asked if [AS 08.76.040] was revoked or repealed, or whether Section 6 is in addition to the current statute. MS. ACHEE conveyed her understanding that it would be in addition to the existing statute. She said she believes the current statute includes guidelines for holding items after they've been pawned so that the person who pawned them has an opportunity to come back. CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered her understanding that AS 08.76.040 is the "Disposition of unredeemed property" and will stay in statute, and that Section 6 would be an additional requirement. MS. ACHEE clarified, "Just items that are sold outright." Number 2334 CHAIR MURKOWSKI mentioned that she thought the definition of secondhand dealer was a person who "regularly engaged in" the business of purchasing. MS. ACHEE explained that the word "regularly" isn't included in the actual statute. She said some other states' statutes refer to people who go to swap meets, and how many times a year they do so. She said she'd intentionally left the word "regularly" out of [Version J] for clarity. TAPE 02-46, SIDE B Number 2350 DAVID HUDSON, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference, noting that he'd spoken with Detective Bridges with the APD today regarding [Version J]. He stated, "Certainly, I believe that there's been excellent inroads made into the intent and the purpose of [HB 472]." REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked, "Does any department not do this?" He offered that this issue "boils back to what things the state should do and what things the state shouldn't do." He said he doesn't understand the purpose of [HB 472], and asked whether the changes made in [Version J] addressed his concerns from the last hearing. Number 2309 MS. ACHEE explained that Anchorage is the only place in Alaska where pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers are required to report at all. She said she wouldn't have encouraged [HB 472] to move forward if there were opposition from any police department in the state. She said the police departments "seemed very happy to work with me on it." REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked who pays for any additional costs to police departments associated with passage of HB 472, and whether it could be considered an unfunded mandate. Number 2270 MS. ACHEE replied, "To a small degree, I think this could be classified as an unfunded mandate for the pawnshop owners and the secondhand dealers." She said the police departments that are receiving the reports have the option of not doing anything with those reports - and the cost would be zero - or they can enter the reports into a database and, depending on how they received [the reports], the costs would vary. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about the effective date and how it will affect a pawnshop owner in rural Alaska who hasn't been reporting thus far; she noted that a testifier from Delta Junction had raised this concern at the last hearing. MS. ACHEE responded that the concern wasn't resolved in [Version J]. She noted that the pawnshop owner in Delta Junction, under state law, should have been recording every item that came into the store, even if the owner wasn't reporting. She offered that the issue of reporting would be to simply provide the records that should have been kept up to date. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if pawnbrokers or secondhand dealers must start submitting written reports as of the effective date, or if they will be required to provide a full inventory of the store [of items received before the effective date]. MS. ACHEE replied that "retroactive reporting" is not addressed in HB 472. Number 2160 CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the purpose of the statute is to make sure that the goods coming into a pawnshop have not been stolen, and a pawnbroker or secondhand dealer shouldn't have to report on an item that has sat on the shelf for the last year and a half. She surmised that beginning with the effective date, someone would be required to submit records which, prior to this time, that person might not have been obligated to submit. She asked if this is the sponsor's intent. MS. ACHEE replied in the affirmative, and noted that pawnshops are required to have these records already, whereas secondhand dealers haven't had to do this yet. Number 2107 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Captain Hudson if a antique dealer would be considered a secondhand dealer, by definition. CAPTAIN HUDSON conveyed his understanding that some secondhand dealers aren't obligated to report in Anchorage. He gave an example of a business in Anchorage named Play It Again Sports: prior to a change in ownership, it was required to report to the APD; recently, the new owner and the city have questioned whether it is necessary for the store to report. Number 2046 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if a secondhand bookstore would be required to report also. CAPTAIN HUDSON deferred to the sponsor, but added that if one is in the business of purchasing secondhand articles for resale, then that would include bookstores and antique dealers. MS. ACHEE said she'd discussed this issue with Detective Bridges, who was unable to testify today; in the case of a bookstore, most items are not going to fall under the guidelines in Section 1 because [the item] won't [have a serial number] or a resale value of $75. She mentioned that it is the same issue with regard to antique dealers. Number 1972 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that he has been through antique shops, and said it "would be a nightmare to try to inventory and keep a record of." He said there could be a Coke bottle that is worth more than $75 dollars. He said he has no problem with pawnshops' reporting, but there could be some potential issues with trying to regulate secondhand stores. He asked if this has been done in the past. MS. ACHEE replied that the Municipality of Anchorage did have statutes regulating secondhand merchants. She said she has put a lot of thought into this issue and agrees with Representative Rokeberg that "we're getting into a lot of gray areas, and we're getting into a lot of places where people who didn't have to keep records or do reporting before are going to have to." She noted that pawnshop owners whom she has spoken with have expressed that secondhand dealers should be required to record and report also. She said the $75 limit was a figure she came up with after averaging out all the different recommendations she'd received from pawnshops and police officers. She said that figure is "open to change." REPRESENTATIVE HAYES stated that he was uncomfortable with [HB 472] because of the unfunded mandate issue. Number 1864 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report CSHB 472, version 22- LS1519\J, Bannister, 3/19/02, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. MS. ACHEE offered to work with Representative Rokeberg and his staff on any concerns before HB 472 is heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee [which Representative Rokeberg chairs]. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested with regard to "secondhand" that either there should be exemptions or it should be tightened up somehow. CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that current statutes don't define either a pawnbroker or a secondhand dealer. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it isn't appropriate to put pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers "under the same regime." He proposed that [Ms. Achee] consider that [before HB 472 is heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee]. Number 1795 CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that there being no objection, CSHB 472(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|