Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/11/1996 08:20 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 11, 1996
8:20 A.M.
TAPE HFC 96-111, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-111, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-112, Side 1, #000 - #248.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:20 a.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley
Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin
Representative Brown Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Kohring
Representative Navarre was absent from the vote.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jerry Mackie; Representative Ed Willis; Ron
King, Chief, Air Quality Improvement, Department of
Environmental Conservation; Tom Williams, Staff, Senator
Frank; Juanita Hensley, Chief Driver Services, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety; Bill Parker,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections.
SUMMARY
HB 2 An Act allowing courts to require certain
offenders as a special condition of probation to
complete a boot camp program provided by the
Department of Corrections; making prisoners who
complete the boot camp program eligible for
discretionary parole; providing for incarceration
of certain nonviolent offenders in boot camps
operated by the Department of Corrections;
allowing the Department of Corrections to contract
with a person for an alternative boot camp
program; creating the Boot Camp Advisory Board in
the Department of Corrections; and providing for
an effective date."
HB 2 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1
SB 226 An Act relating to biennial registration of motor
vehicles; imposing biennial registration fees on
motor vehicles and authorizing a scheduled
biennial municipal tax on motor vehicles; relating
to fees for motor vehicle emissions control
programs; and providing for an effective date.
HCS CSSB 226 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Department of Public Safety.
SB 250 An Act relating to the University of Alaska and to
assets of the University of Alaska; authorizing
the University of Alaska to select additional
state public domain land, designating that land as
`university trust land,' and describing the
principles applicable to the land's management;
and defining the net income from the University of
Alaska's endowment trust fund as `university
receipts' subject to prior legislative
appropriation.
SB 250 was rescheduled to another time.
SENATE BILL NO. 226
"An Act relating to biennial registration of motor
vehicles; imposing biennial registration fees on motor
vehicles and authorizing a scheduled biennial municipal
tax on motor vehicles; relating to fees for motor
vehicle emissions control programs; and providing for
an effective date."
TOM WILLIAMS, STAFF, SENATOR FRANK reviewed amendments
previously adopted by the Committee (see House Finance
Committee minutes 3/29/96). Amendment 1 was adopted as a
technical amendment to eliminate superfluous effective date
sections. Amendment 3 was also adopted. Amendment 3
provided that implementation of biannual registrations and
biannual emissions testing would begin January 1997. Co-
Chair Hanley noted that this date would allow the Department
time to implement the program.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment 7, 9-
LS1452\M.1, 4/9/96 (copy on file).
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE testified on behalf of Amendment
7. He explained that the amendment would provide that
registration at a contract office would not be subject to
the $10 dollar fee. He pointed out that rural areas of the
State do not have Division of Motor Vehicle offices. He
2
stressed that it is unfair for rural residents to pay the
extra $10 dollar fee to relieve crowding in urban areas.
Representative Martin asserted that those living in smaller
areas get away cheaper with personal contact. He spoke
against the amendment.
Representative Mackie spoke in support of Amendment 7. He
asked why people using contract offices should pay to
alleviate congestion when there is no congestion at these
offices.
In response to a question by Representative Therriault,
Representative Mackie stated that he supports the fee when
transactions occur at Division of Motor Vehicle (DMV)
offices. He emphasized that the State is trying to present
incentives for contract agents to take over some of the
responsibilities that the State cannot support. He noted
that the contract agents operate through local police
departments.
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY stated that the
Department does not support the amendment. She noted that
the amendment would set up two different types of programs.
She observed that rural communities where DMV offices exist
would have to pay the fee even if there is no congestion.
Other rural communities would not pay the fee if DMV
activities are performed by contract agents. She stressed
that the amendment would not be fair for the entire State.
She clarified that contract agents are not state employees.
They are city employees. The State pays 15 percent for
vehicle registration and 50 percent for driver's license
work to contract agents.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that if the disincentive to
renewing licenses in person goes away it will cost the State
more money. Ms. Hensley agreed and added that the State
still has to perform paper and computer work on collections
by contract agents.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Ms.
Hensley discussed HB 210. She noted that HB 210 would not
result in commissioned contract offices. She clarified that
a contract office opened under HB 210 would be exempt from
paying the $10 dollar fee without the adoption of the
amendment. She pointed out that commissioned contract
agents are paid by the State to perform DMV functions.
Contract agents under HB 210 and emissions testing do not
cost the State.
Representative Mackie emphasized that commissioned contract
3
agents need incentives to continue operation. He observed
that reimbursements to commissioned contract agents have
been reduced due to the addition of the $10 dollar fee. He
stressed that the State would have to pay more to maintain a
DMV office in small communities.
Ms. Hensley observed that some commissioned contract agents
are employed half-time. She noted that a half-time position
would cost DMV $18.0 thousand dollars. The State paid the
Craig police department $27,443 thousand dollars in FY 96.
The commission contract agent in Craig was paid $19,644
thousand dollars. She estimated that adoption of the
Amendment would result in a loss to the State of $31.0
thousand dollars and additional operating costs of $11.0
thousand dollars to pay for contract additions.
Representative Martin noted that there is a post office in
Craig.
Representative Mackie noted that there are commissioned
contract offices in Craig, Wrangell, Petersburg, Skagway,
Dutch Harbor, Dillingham, Naknek, Barrow, Anderson and
Seward. Ms. Hensley noted that of 13 commissioned contract
agents only five process vehicle registration.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
7.
IN FAVOR: Kohring, Mulder, Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly,
Foster
OPPOSED: Martin, Therriault, Brown, Hanley
Representative Navarre was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment 5, 9-
LS1452\M.2 (copy on file). He explained that the amendment
would allow municipalities to collect an additional fee for
the ambient air quality program to be collected along with
the motor vehicle emission control inspection fee.
Mr. Williams noted that the sponsor does not object to the
amendment.
RON KING, CHIEF, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SECTION, DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION observed that the Department
supports the amendment.
Ms. Hensley noted that the amendment would not affect the
Department of Public Safety.
4
Representative Martin spoke against the amendment. He
asserted that the municipality makes a lot of money
processing unnecessary paper.
Mr. King noted that both the Anchorage and Fairbanks have to
recover the cost of their inspectors and programs. He noted
that the volume of vehicles in Alaska is small in comparison
to the fixed cost that most be sustained. He explained that
of the $10 dollar fee, the vehicle emissions inspection
program costs a little over $7.50 dollars. The remaining
$2.50 dollars is attributed to the air quality program. In
Fairbanks the emissions inspection program costs
approximately $7 dollars and the air quality program $3
dollars.
Representative Brown read from a letter from Tim Rogers, to
Representative Mulder (not on file). She noted that Mr.
Rogers wrote that $295 thousand dollars of Anchorage
emissions inspection revenues are appropriated to the air
quality program as are required match for a $110 thousand
dollar pass through grant from the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Mr. King explained that the Anchorage air quality program
was funded with approximately $295 thousand dollars from the
general fund, as a grant match to $110 thousand dollars in
federal funds. Four years ago, the general fund obligation
was reduced through the substitution of the $2.75 cents
collected on a per car basis in the emissions inspection
program. He emphasized that Anchorage fronted $1.8 million
dollars to start the vehicle inspection program. The $2.75
dollars per car was being used to recover the start up
costs. The start up costs were not completed recovered
before the Anchorage Assembly made the decision to switch
the $2.75 dollars to the air quality program.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. King
agreed that the municipality will not be able to charge for
the air quality program without the adoption of amendment 5.
He summarized that there would be a budgetary shortfall to
the municipality of Anchorage of approximately $295 thousand
dollars. He noted that discussions are occurring regarding
the State's assumption of Fairbanks' inspection and air
quality programs.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that if the amendment is not adopted
Anchorage would have to increase property taxes to cover the
cost of the programs.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION on adoption of
amendment 5.
5
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Mulder,
Parnell, Therriault, Foster, Hanley
OPPOSED: Martin
Representative Navarre was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (9-1).
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment 8, 9-
LS1452\K.10 (copy on file). He explained that the amendment
would exempt rental vehicles from the two year registration
requirement. He noted that many rental companies have
seasonal fleets.
The Sponsor and the Department of Public Safety had no
objections to Amendment 8.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Ms.
Hensley explained that the Anchorage field office has a
fleet dealer unit that registers all vehicle fleets.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CSSB 226 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Brown OBJECTED for purposes of discussion.
She asked how the fiscal note would be affected by the
adoption of amendment 7. Ms. Hensley noted that there would
be a operating cost under contractual of approximately $5.5
thousand dollars. There would also be a loss of $31
thousand dollars in revenues. Discussion pursued regarding
the fiscal note. Co-Chair Hanley estimated that the
contract costs would show a slight savings, while the
revenue lost to the State would be 85 percent of 10 dollars.
Ms. Hensley noted that if 50 percent of those that are using
the mail now choose to go back into the contract offices
that the Division would need an additional $11 thousand
dollars to pay the commissions.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-111, Side 2)
Discussion regarding the fiscal note continued. Co-Chair
Hanley summarized that contract offices would also lose
revenues. He asked for an updated fiscal note.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Ms.
Hensley pointed out that half of the vehicles will be
registered the first year in a two year basis. The other
half would be registered in the next year. There will be an
increase in registration fees the first two years. The
6
legislation also contains a reduction of $2 dollars for a
two year period. This is shown in the future years as a
revenue loss.
Mr. Williams noted that the $2 dollar break was given to
provide an incentive. Representative Brown maintained that
the $2 dollar reduction is an unnecessary loss of future
income. She stressed the convenience of registering every
two years.
Ms. Hensley noted that there would be a savings in postage.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if there would be decrease in the
workload. Ms. Hensley noted that 60 percent of vehicle
owners mail their registration. She emphasized that the
legislation will allow the Division to operate more
efficiently. She estimated that the legislation will allow
lines at DMV offices to be smaller.
Representative Brown reiterated concerns with the $2 dollar
reduction.
Representative Martin WITHDREW the motion to move HCS CSSB
226 (FIN) from Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Brown MOVED to delete the $2 dollar
reduction. Representative Martin and Mr. Williams spoke
against the amendment. A roll call vote was taken on the
MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Brown
OPPOSED: Mulder, Therriault, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring,
Martin, Foster, Hanley
Representatives Navarre and Parnell were absent from the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (1-8).
Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CSSB 226 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CSSB 226 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Public Safety.
HOUSE BILL NO. 2
"An Act allowing courts to require certain offenders as
7
a special condition of probation to complete a boot
camp program provided by the Department of Corrections;
making prisoners who complete the boot camp program
eligible for discretionary parole; providing for
incarceration of certain nonviolent offenders in boot
camps operated by the Department of Corrections;
allowing the Department of Corrections to contract with
a person for an alternative boot camp program; creating
the Boot Camp Advisory Board in the Department of
Corrections; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS, sponsor of HB 2, spoke in support
of the legislation. He noted that the legislation was first
introduced in 1993. He asserted that HB 2 addresses the
needs of the Department of Corrections with regard to the
proposed program. He maintained that placing nonviolent
felony or misdemeanor offenders in a prison setting is not
the best way to accomplish rehabilitation of the offender.
He maintained that providing an alternative to prison time
and an opportunity to learn discipline and acceptable
behavior will offer these offenders a chance to avoid
further encounters with the law.
Representative Willis noted that HB 2 would offer boot camp
as an alternative program for convicted felons or
misdemeanant under the age of 26. Individuals convicted of
crimes such as homicide, assault, kidnapping, sexual
offenses, and offenses involving the use of a deadly weapon
would not be eligible for this option. The emphasis is on
nonviolent offenders. The Department of Corrections has
requested that the maximum age limit be raised to 30 years.
Representative Willis noted that at least 24 states, in
addition to the federal government, operate boot camp
programs. Each state offers the program to different
groups. For example, in 1993 Virginia's program was limited
to nonviolent male felony offenders 24 years of age or under
and did not allow felons convicted of murder, manslaughter,
kidnapping, sexual assault, etc., to participate in the
program. Massachusetts' program, in 1993, was for male
offenders under the age of 40. In recent testimony before
committees in the United States Congress, Kathleen Hawk of
the Department of Justice mentioned that as of 30 September
1994, over one thousand federal inmates had graduated from
the federal Intensive Confinement Center/boot camp program.
Representative Willis emphasized that the Department has
revised its 1995 fiscal note to zero due to the possibility
of federal funds for both construction and operating costs.
Savings from this legislation could be seen within two to
three years. The program involves intensive staff time and
follow-up through parole and probation. He maintained that
8
the expenditures are well spent if offenders learn how to
structure their lives and recidivism is reduced. He
stressed that a boot camp program has the potential of
providing many long-term benefits.
Representative Brown noted that the Committee was provided
with a proposed committee substitute, Work Draft 9-LS0016\M,
dated 4/10/96 (copy on file). She observed that the
proposed committee substitute would provide for the
operation of a boot camp from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997.
Representative Willis observed that the time frame may not
be sufficient.
Representative Brown pointed out that fiscal funds are
anticipated in the federal fiscal year 1996.
BILL PARKER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
anticipated that the program would be implemented with
federal funds. He did not know if the time frame could be
met.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that no general fund match is
requested. Mr. Parker stated that the Department
anticipates that the campus and buildings provided by the
State will be counted as the match.
Representative Mulder noted that the proposed committee
substitute is drafted so that if the federal government does
require a cash match that the State would not participate.
He noted that the Department received a $50.0 thousand
dollar federal grant to study the proposal.
Representative Mulder referred to page 2, lines 18 - 21. He
noted that regulations must include provisions requiring
prisoners to reimburse the Department for the costs of
participating in the boot camp program. Representative
Willis clarified that the program is voluntary. Mr. Parker
noted that prisoners who complete the program will be
eligible for parole earlier.
Representative Martin questioned if there would be many
volunteers. Mr. Parker noted that 50 prisoners could
participate. He acknowledged the percentage of indigent
prisoners. The cost of the program would be approximately
$85 dollars a day. He observed that regulations have not
been drafted. He agreed that most inmates could not afford
the program. Representative Kelly stressed that family
support may be possible. He spoke in support of the
program.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if other state's charge for
participation in boot camp programs.
9
Representative Brown noted that inmates are currently
charged for medical services in halfway houses. She
suggested that "must" be changed to "may" and the Department
be allowed to setup a system for reimbursement.
Representative Mulder agreed that the program should be
financially supported. He noted that families may be
willing to pay some cost. He stressed that the total amount
would too much for must families. He spoke in support of
the requirement that a reasonable portion of the cost be
reimbursed. Representative Kelly emphasized that the cost
should be reasonable so that inmates are not discouraged
from participation.
Representative Martin stated that the program would be more
costly than incarceration in other facilities.
Representative Willis stressed that savings will be realized
through the transfer from hard to soft beds. He added that
sentences will be shorted as a result of the program.
Representative Therriault stressed that the program will
help to rehabilitate inmates. Representative Mulder stated
that the program will be a cost avoidance measure if inmates
are rehabilitated and do not reenter the system. He agreed
that the per day cost per inmate will be greater.
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Work Draft 9-LS0016\M,
dated 4/10/96. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown MOVED to delete "must" and insert "may"
on page 2, line 19; and insert a "portion of" on page 2,
line 20. She explained that the amendment would
acknowledged that it is not reasonable for inmates to pay
the entire cost of the program, but that some reasonable
charge is appropriate.
Representative Therriault suggested that the change from
"must" to "may" was unnecessary. Representative Brown MOVED
to AMEND Amendment 1 by deleting the change from "must" to
"may". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Martin observed that a portion can vary. He
expressed concern with the requirement to charge for the
program.
Representative Brown noted that the Department "shall" adopt
regulations. She stressed the time needed to adopt
regulations. She asked if regulations are necessary for
implementation of a fee schedule. She stated that the
adoption of regulations could take at least 6 to 8 months.
She noted that the Department can operate if there is
10
statutory authority. Co-Chair Hanley added that regulations
would not be needed if payments are not required.
Representative Brown stressed that the most expedient way to
allow the Department to implement a pilot program would be
to state that the commissioner "may" adopt regulations and
that regulations "may" include charges.
Representative Brown WITHDREW her motion to amend HB 2.
Representative Mulder suggested that the completion dated be
changed to September 30, 1997 to match the federal fiscal
year on page 2, line 14 and page 3, line 17.
Representative Mulder MOVED to delete "June 30, 1997" and
insert "September 30, 1997" on page 2, line 14 and page 3,
line 17. Representative Brown spoke in support of a longer
extension. She added that the legislation could be subject
to the availability of federal funds. She maintained that
as long as the federal government is providing funding the
project should be fully developed. She observed that
renovations at the Wildwood Correctional Facility will cost
$2.0 million dollars. She suggested that the program be
tied to the availability of federal dollars and no limit or
a five year limit be added.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-112, Side 1)
Co-Chair Hanley noted that a conceptional amendment was
needed. He stressed that the intent is that the program be
implemented only if federal funds are available for the
entire program, including capital and operational costs.
Representative Willis noted that the Department has
requested that the age limit be changed from 26 to 30 years.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of the legislation.
He noted that permanent fund dividend payments could be
attached to pay for part of an inmates participation in the
program. He noted that previous programs have been
successful in Alaska. He agreed that federal funding is
critical.
Representative Brown emphasized that the legislation should
not preclude future opportunities. She suggested that the
legislature should be able to consider making an
appropriation.
Co-Chair Hanley spoke against the appropriation of general
funds. Representative Brown spoke in support of a 3 to 5
year sunset. She added that the legislation could be
11
subject to federal funds or a specific general fund
appropriation. She observed that prisoner payments could
provide the state match. She spoke in support of the
program. She maintained that one year is too short.
Mr. Parker stated that the Department now anticipates that
the federal government will provide capital and operational
costs.
Representative Mulder asked if the boot camp must be located
in a state correctional facility. He emphasized the
increased cost of a correctional facility. Mr. Parker felt
that the facility would have to be part of the correctional
system. He noted that the Department intends to locate the
camp in buildings outside of the fence at the Wildwood
Correctional Facility. He did not know if federal
guidelines require the camps to be a correctional facility.
Representative Brown pointed out that halfway houses are
correctional facilities under contract. The bill provides
for contract of operations on page 2, subsection (f).
HB 2 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
12
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|