Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/07/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cliff Davidson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 122 "An Act eliminating a requirement that a court
consider the findings and recommendations of a
neutral mediator when awarding shared child
custody."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 119 "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a
sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of
imprisonment on a defendant convicted of a
misdemeanor; directing the Alaska Supreme Court to
develop and implement a day fine plan; requiring
the Department of Corrections to report to the
legislature on the use of day fines; amending
Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 32; and
providing for an effective date."
CSHB 119 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 65 "An Act relating to the improvement of state
finances through reduction of operating costs of
certain state agencies and establishment of
certain fees; and providing for an effective
date."
CSHB 65 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 128 "An Act relating to early acknowledgement of
paternity for the child of an unmarried mother."
CSSSHB 128 (HES) PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
SB 105 "An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers and to
agents for motor vehicle buyers; and providing for
an effective date."
CSSB 105 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 188 "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain
property; and providing for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN
Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 264-8228
Position Statement: Supported HB 122
ART SNOWDEN
Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 264-0547
Position Statement: Supported HB 119
REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Court Building, Room 601
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-4947
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 119
CHERYL FRASCA, Director
Division of Budget Review
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P. O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-4681
Position Statement: Explained HB 65
MARY LOU MADDEN, Assistant Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Department of Education
P. O. Box 110505
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-6744
Position Statement: Explained HB 65
DONALD G. STUDY, Acting Director
Division of Labor Standards and Safety
Department of Labor
P. O. Box 20630
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4855
Position Statement: Explained HB 65
SHARON BARTON, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Administration
P. O. Box 110208
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-2277
Position Statement: Explained HB 65
DAVID STEPHENS, Chief
Planning Operations/Services
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
P. O. Box 107001
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: 762-2653
Position Statement: Explained HB 65
JANICE ADAIR, Assistant Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-5010
Position Statement: Explained HB 65
GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Explained HB 65 and SB 105
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Court Building, Room 600
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-3875
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 128
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Aide
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-3873
Position Statement: Explained SB 105
STEVEN ALLWINE
Alaska Auto Dealers
8725 Mallard Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-1386
Position Statement: Supported SB 105
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 122
SHORT TITLE: CHILD CUSTODY PROCEDURES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
TITLE: "An Act eliminating a requirement that a court
consider the findings and recommendations of a neutral
mediator when awarding shared child custody."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/93 215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/03/93 215 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
03/17/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/17/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/93 703 (H) HES RPT 8DP 1NR
03/19/93 704 (H) DP: VEZEY, G.DAVIS, BUNDE,
OLBERG
03/19/93 704 (H) DP: TOOHEY, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA,
BRICE
03/19/93 704 (H) NR: KOTT
03/19/93 704 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)
3/19/93
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 119
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE USE OF DAY FINES IN MISD. CASES
BILL VERSION: CSHB 119(JUD) AM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER,B.Davis,Davies,Brown,
Larson
TITLE: "An Act authorizing a sentencing court to impose a
sentence of a day fine instead of a sentence of imprisonment
on a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor; directing the
Alaska Supreme Court to develop and implement a day fine
plan; requiring the Alaska Court System to report to the
legislature on the use of day fines; amending Alaska Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/93 214 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/03/93 215 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
03/11/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/93 611 (H) STA RPT 3DP 3NR
03/12/93 611 (H) DP: ULMER, B.DAVIS, KOTT
03/12/93 611 (H) NR: VEZEY, OLBERG, SANDERS
03/12/93 611 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 3/12/93
03/12/93 611 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
3/12/93
04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVT.
BILL VERSION: CSHB 65(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to licenses, certificates, and
permits administered and fees charged by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board, the office of public advocacy, the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, the Department
of Fish and Game, the Department of Labor, the Alaska Police
Standards Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and
the Department of Environmental Conservation; relating to
the administration of the state insurance catastrophE
reserve account; relating to the provision of group life or
group health insurance for state employees; authorizing the
Department of Natural Resources to accept certain donations
for parks and recreation; relating to fiscal reporting and
accounting by the Department of Administration; extending
the suspension of certain tax credit provisions; and
amending Alaska Rule of Probate Procedure 16(d); and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 75 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 75 (H) L&C, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
01/15/93 75 (H) -8 FNS(2-DEC, 2-DHSS, LABOR,
DNR, DPS
01/15/93 75 (H) ADM) PUBLISHED 1/15/93
01/15/93 75 (H) -5 REVENUE FNS(DPS, 2-LABOR, 2-
DOE)1/15
01/15/93 75 (H) -5 ZERO FNS (3-ADM, LABOR, REV)
1/15/93
01/15/93 75 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/01/93 201 (H) -REVISED FN (DNR) 2/1/93
02/08/93 251 (H) -CORRECTED FN (DNR) 2/8/93
02/09/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/11/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/01/93 478 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 3DP
1NR
03/01/93 478 (H) DP: PORTER, SITTON, GREEN
03/01/93 478 (H) NR: HUDSON
03/01/93 479 (H) -REVENUE FN (DPS) 3/1/93
03/01/93 479 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/1/93
03/01/93 479 (H) -7 PREV FNS (2-DEC, 2-DHSS,
LABOR, DPS
03/01/93 479 (H) ADM) 1/15/93 PREV FN (DNR)
2/8/93
03/01/93 479 (H) -5 PREV REV FNS(DPS, 2-LABOR, 2
-DOE)1/15
03/01/93 479 (H) -5 PREV ZERO FNS(3-ADM,LABOR,
REV) 1/15/93
03/12/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/23/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/93 754 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE
3DP 4NR
03/24/93 755 (H) DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, SANDERS
03/24/93 755 (H) NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS, G.DAVIS,
KOTT
03/24/93 755 (H) -14 PREVIOUS FNS (SEE ABOVE)
03/24/93 755 (H) -6 PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (SEE
ABOVE)
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 128
SHORT TITLE: EARLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY
BILL VERSION: SSHB 128
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS,Toohey
TITLE: "An Act relating to early acknowledgement of
paternity for the child of an unmarried mother."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/05/93 235 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/05/93 235 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/08/93 569 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-
REFERRALS
03/08/93 569 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/15/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/15/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/16/93 (H) HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 106
03/17/93 691 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
03/17/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/17/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/93 704 (H) HES RPT CSSS(HES) 6DP 2DNP 1NR
03/19/93 704 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, BUNDE, B.DAVIS,
NICHOLIA
03/19/93 704 (H) DP: TOOHEY, BRICE
03/19/93 704 (H) DNP: KOTT, VEZEY
03/19/93 704 (H) NR: OLBERG
03/19/93 705 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 3/19/93
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 105
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS & BUYERS' AGENTS
BILL VERSION: HCS CSSB 105(JUD) AM H
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Duncan; REPRESENTATIVE(S)
Phillips
TITLE: "An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers and to
agents for motor vehicle buyers; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/93 284 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/08/93 284 (S) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/25/93 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM
203
02/25/93 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/26/93 501 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 4NR
02/26/93 501 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
03/10/93 (S) JUD AT 02:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/10/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/93 736 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2NR SAME
TITLE
03/11/93 736 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS
(DPS)
03/15/93 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM
203
03/15/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/16/93 824 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/16/93
03/16/93 826 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/16/93 827 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/16/93 827 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FAILED
Y11 N9
03/16/93 827 (S) THIRD READING NEXT CALENDAR
03/18/93 851 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 105
(JUD)
03/18/93 852 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN
CONSENT
03/18/93 852 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN
CONSENT
03/18/93 852 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/18/93 852 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 CSSB 105(JUD)
AM
03/18/93 853 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE VOTE SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/18/93 858 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/18/93 858 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DUNCAN
03/18/93 858 (S) RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY UNAN
CONSENT
03/18/93 859 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18
N- E2
03/18/93 859 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE VOTE SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/18/93 864 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/19/93 702 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/19/93 702 (H) JUDICIARY
03/19/93 717 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property;
and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/93 489 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/01/93 490 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/01/93 490 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS,
LAW) 3/1/93
03/01/93 490 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-56, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 2:10 p.m., on April 7, 1993. A quorum was present.
Chairman Porter announced that the committee would address
HB 122 first.
HB 122: CHILD CUSTODY PROCEDURES
Number 028
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
stated that the House Judiciary Committee had introduced
HB 122, at the request of the Supreme Court. He said that
the bill was a very simple, non-controversial piece of
legislation. He commented that in 1988, the legislature had
directed the court system to investigate potential benefits
of mediation. A task force was formed, he added, and issued
a report in 1990. The report recommended a change, which
was contained in HB 122, he said.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that present statutes required that
the court, when determining whether or not to grant shared
custody of a child, consider among other things, the
findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator. House
Bill 122, he stated, would eliminate that requirement. He
said that the task force had concluded that this particular
requirement endangered the mediation process and ran counter
to the view that mediation proceedings should be kept
confidential.
MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that the present accepted view of
mediation did not envision a mediator making recommendations
about the resolution of a dispute, should mediation
terminate without an agreement. The mediator's role, he
added, was to guide parties to a mutual decision, not to
impose a decision on them, even in the form of a
recommendation.
MR. CHRISTENSEN expressed his opinion that when the statute
in question was first drafted, the terms "arbitration" and
"mediation" had been confused. An arbitrator, he said, was
supposed to listen to both sides of a dispute, and then make
a recommendation to the parties or a judge. A mediator,
however, was supposed to help two parties come to a mutual
agreement.
Number 090
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND commented that a requirement
that the court merely consider the findings of a mediator
did not seem like a huge imposition.
Number 098
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that the problem was that the
statute required the court to consider a list of things, one
of which it was not appropriate to consider. An ethical
mediator, he noted, would not make a recommendation. He
said that current law confused both mediators and judges.
Number 115
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER commented that current law set up an
impossible task.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 122
out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 119 next.
HB 119: AUTHORIZE USE OF DAY FINES IN MISD. CASES
Number 153
ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
mentioned that his agency had researched day fines and
written a report on them. He said that the concept of day
fines was not new, particularly in Europe, but was new to
Alaska. He noted that HB 119 envisioned using fines, rather
than incarceration or other sanctions, as punishment for
certain non-violent misdemeanors. He said that day fines
were based on both the seriousness of a crime and the income
of the offender. He added that day fines were the primary
penalty used in Germany, Sweden, and other European
countries.
Number 168
MR. SNOWDEN noted that the Court System believed using day
fines would have several advantages. Unlike incarceration,
he said, fines would generate revenue for municipalities and
the state. Also, he said, fines would be inexpensive to
administer, compared to jail time or other sanctions.
Additionally, fines were already used in some form in most
courts, he said, so the additional burden of day fines would
be small.
Number 183
MR. SNOWDEN indicated the Court System's support for HB 119.
He stated that it currently took the Court System eleven
months to get a misdemeanant into jail in Anchorage, due to
prison crowding. He said that such unsure punishment would
not deter anyone from doing anything. He said that the
judicial system was frustrated in trying to carry out the
laws passed by the legislature. However, he said that the
judicial branch felt that not every crime demanded
incarceration.
MR. SNOWDEN mentioned that the use of day fines was being
experimented with in several counties in the United States.
He said that Alaska was facing a prison crisis, and should
look into using day fines.
Number 237
REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 119, stated
that the bill would provide an additional option to
sentencing judges. She said that day fines would be used
for misdemeanors other than crimes against a person. She
noted that one rationale behind HB 119 was to get money
flowing into the treasury, instead of out of the treasury
and into the correctional system. She mentioned the current
bed shortage in Alaska's prisons, and said that ten out of
twelve of the state's prisons were full. The state had to
do many things to relieve the pressure, she said. The
imposition of day fines was one of those things, she stated.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that European countries had
employed day fines for years. Those countries incarcerated
less, and had stiffer fines than the United States did, she
said. She commented that day fines would teach individuals
that crime did not pay. She questioned whether
rehabilitation was accomplished by incarcerating an offender
for several months. She expressed her opinion that day
fines were especially appropriate for non-violent, first
offenders.
Number 302
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN believed that day fines would have
a deterrent effect. However, he expressed concerns about
how day fines would work for unemployed or cyclically-
employed offenders.
Number 312
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER thought that day fines would work,
regardless of when a person was employed.
Number 321
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Snowden to address what would
happen if a welfare recipient received a day fine.
Number 325
MR. SNOWDEN responded that day fines were so named because
they were tailored to a particular individual's income. The
current system imposed similar fines on offenders for
specific offenses regardless of their ability to pay.
Consequently, he said, many fines now went unpaid. He said
that for welfare recipients, community service could be
performed, in lieu of a monetary fine.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that the Court System's study
of day fines found them to be effective, even for low-income
offenders.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked Representative Ulmer if
the state had attempted to implement a day fine program in
the past.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied in the negative.
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND thought that day fines were a good
idea. He expressed his opinion that static fines were
ineffective. He questioned whether the Court System would
be able to collect the day fines.
Number 363
MR. SNOWDEN noted that the Court System was currently not
very successful in its efforts to collect fines. Many
people were unable to pay fines, he said, especially when
they were incarcerated. He said that the Department of Law
now employed an attorney whose job it was to collect fines
of over $250. He noted that some day fines would definitely
fall into that category. Additionally, he said that the
Court System was attempting to impose "electronic
executions," whereby fines of even less than $250 could be
paid through electronic transfers, reducing collection
costs.
MR. SNOWDEN believed that the Court System would be more
successful in collecting day fines than it currently was in
collecting other types of fines. He commented that in one
study, researchers had found that 85% of day fines were paid
in full, compared with 70% of other types of fines. He
hoped, if the day fine experiment worked, in the future non-
violent class C felonies might be added to the list of
crimes covered by day fines.
Number 404
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that day fines
were a very good idea.
Number 409
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER called the committee's attention to a
PROPOSED AMENDMENT, dated March 10, 1993, included in their
bill packets. She said that the amendment would try to
address a concern that the legislature was giving too much
latitude to the Court System in devising the day fine
system. The amendment would create a two-tiered day fine
system, to reflect class A and class B misdemeanors. She
commented that she was willing to leave creation of the
program up to the Court System's discretion, but she did not
oppose adoption of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER noted that the amendment addressed
questions raised by the Legislative Affairs' Agency's
Division of Legal Services.
Number 434
MR. SNOWDEN stated that the Court System supported the
amendment. He said that any new pilot project should have
strict guidelines, which could be loosened in the future.
Number 440
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated March
10, 1993. There being no objection, the AMENDMENT WAS
ADOPTED.
Number 452
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Court System would be precluded
from employing other sanctions, if it chose to use day
fines.
Number 456
MR. SNOWDEN hoped day fines would be used as a primary
penalty, but said that the Court System would not be
precluded from employing other sanctions as well.
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented that a day fine would be an
option for a judge, and part of a long list of sentencing
options. She stated that if the day fine option was chosen,
it was envisioned as a "stand alone" sentencing choice, as
opposed to being in addition to another type of sentence.
Number 480
CHAIRMAN PORTER understood that day fines were intended to
serve as an alternative to jail time. He could, however,
see day fines working in concert with community work
service.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said that such a combination would not
be precluded.
MR. SNOWDEN commented that other types of fines would not be
precluded, either.
Number 487
CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed concerns about imposing day fines
on "youthful offenders," aged 18-25. He commented that in
many cases, parents paid fines for these youthful offenders.
He asked if the Court System could assess such situations
and make day fines commensurate with a parent's income,
instead of the youthful offender's.
Number 495
MR. SNOWDEN did not know the answer to the Chairman's
question, but suspected that the Court System could not
impose a day fine commensurate with a parent's income in
that situation.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that HB 119 required that
fines be paid within 180 days of their imposition. He
commented that, for very large fines, 180 days was a pretty
short period of time.
Number 518
MR. SNOWDEN replied that the Court System wanted the day
fines to "hurt." Spreading a fine out over a longer period
of time would make it hurt less, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 119 (JUD)
out of committee, with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal notes.
Number 532
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that HB 119 required the
Department of Corrections (DOC) to submit an annual report
on the day fine system. He asked why the DOC was being
asked to submit the report.
Number 538
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied that the Court System might be
a more appropriate agency to write the report. She also
suggested requiring that the first report be filed two years
from the bill's enactment, instead of one year, as it would
take some time for results to be known.
Number 548
MR. SNOWDEN agreed with changing the reporting agency from
the DOC to the Court System and delaying the date of the
first report until two years after enactment of HB 119.
Number 553
CHAIRMAN PORTER OFFERED A CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT making those
two changes.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER and MR. SNOWDEN expressed their
support.
Number 555
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED the AMENDMENT. There being no
objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was any problem with the
amendment showing 365 day units as a possible fine which
needed to be paid within 180 days.
Number 568
MR. SNOWDEN replied that, in his opinion, the language did
not present a problem.
Number 571
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that Representative Green was
referring to the formula used for calculating day fines.
Number 579
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 119
(JUD), as amended, out of committee, with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no
objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 65 next.
HB 65: FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVT.
CHERYL FRASCA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB), OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
commented that when the governor's office was working on the
budget, a number of different departments suggested
repealing out-of-date statutes and changing certain fee
amounts. She said that HB 65 pertained to many different
state agencies. She called the members' attention to a
sectional analysis in their bill packets. She stated that
the bill had been heard by the House Labor and Commerce
Committee and later the House State Affairs Committee.
MS. FRASCA urged the committee to return to the House Labor
and Commerce version of the bill.
Number 632
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that Ms. Frasca explain
HB 65, section by section.
Number 646
MS. FRASCA first referred to sections 1-32 of the House
State Affairs Committee substitute for HB 65, which related
to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board. She said
that currently liquor licenses were issued annually. House
Bill 65 proposed to change that so that licenses would be
issued biennially. The change, she said, would result in
the ABC board's workload evening out. License fees would be
doubled, she noted, because they would only be issued every
two years. The bill did not increase the license fees, she
added. She indicated that she was not requesting the
committee to make any changes to these sections of the bill.
MS. FRASCA then addressed sections 33-35 of the House State
Affairs Committee's version of HB 65. She said that those
sections would allow the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to
charge fees for public guardian services, based on an
individual's ability to pay. The OMB was not requesting any
change to these sections, either, she noted. She stated
that section 36 was also added by the House State Affairs
Committee. Currently, she said, receipts from the sale of
fish and game licenses were deposited into the fish and game
fund.
MS. FRASCA added that vendors were then paid for the sale of
the licenses from the general fund. Section 36 provided
that the fish and game fund both received the proceeds from
license sales and be used to make payments to vendors. The
OMB was requesting no change to this particular section, she
said.
Number 680
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concerns with section 36,
from an accounting standpoint.
Number 686
MS. FRASCA stated that each vendor kept $1 from the sale of
every fish and game license. Accounts were adjusted
quarterly, she added.
Number 694
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued to express concerns with the
program's budgeting and accounting procedures.
MS. FRASCA stated that the effect of section 36 was simply
to change the fund source from the general fund to the fish
and game fund. She said that she would have a
representative from the Department of Fish and Game contact
Representative James to discuss the matter further.
Number 707
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED to section 36, for accounting
reasons. She called the accounting "deceptive."
Number 718
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the ability to discern the
difference between vendor payments and revenues still
existed.
Number 720
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman, but said that
expenses taken out of the proceeds were not recognized in
the budget process.
Number 727
MS. FRASCA noted that the House State Affairs Committee had
eliminated two sections from HB 65, which authorized the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) to
assess a 1% loan guarantee fee. This, she said, would help
to offset losses resulting from student loan debt
cancellation due to the death, disability, or bankruptcy of
the student. She asked the House Judiciary Committee to
reinsert these provisions. She said that the provisions
were estimated to generate approximately one-half of the
revenues lost every year by the ACPE.
Number 738
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the ACPE had not set the
fee at an amount commensurate with the anticipated losses.
Number 745
MARY LOU MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ACPE, said that because
the ACPE historically had charged no fees at all, it was
felt that a 1% fee would be fair.
Number 753
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that she would like to see
the section reinstated. She added that the ACPE should be
notified that if it wished to increase the fee at a later
date, it should alert the legislature.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what the House State Affairs
Committee's rationale for deleting the section had been.
Number 759
MS. FRASCA replied that there had been no discussion on the
matter.
Number 762
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that it was standard
operating procedure for loan funds to include a fee to cover
losses. She said that it was responsible of the ACPE to
institute the 1% fee.
Number 767
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Phillips
that most loan programs implemented a fee to cover losses.
However, she said, student loans were very small, and every
dollar counted. In that light, she said, it was unfair to
make students who paid back their loans pay for those who
did not.
Number 775
MS. MADDEN commented that students could increase the amount
of money they requested from the ACPE, in order to cover the
cost of the 1% fee. She pointed out that federal student
loan programs instituted a 6% fee to cover losses.
Number 792
MS. FRASCA commented that sections 39-43 in the House Labor
and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 contained a
similar 1% fee provision, but for other programs operated by
the ACPE.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections
36-38 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version
of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 795
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if recipients of loans addressed
in sections 39-43 of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's version of HB 65 could also increase the amount
of their loans to cover the cost of the 1% fee.
MS. MADDEN replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections 39-
43 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of
HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
TAPE 93-56, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. FRASCA called the members' attention to sections 44-46
of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of
HB 65, which had been deleted by the House State Affairs
Committee. She asked the committee to reinstate all three
of the sections. Those sections pertained to the Department
of Labor's (DOL's) ability to adopt regulations to establish
fees for the issuance of certain certificates.
Additionally, she said, the sections would change the time
cycles for issuing the certificates.
Number 020
MS. FRASCA stated that section 44 would allow the DOL to set
a fee for administering examinations and processing
applications for special boiler and pressure vessel
inspector commissions. Currently, she said, there was no
charge for these services.
Number 028
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN PROPOSED an AMENDMENT to section 44,
but subsequently WITHDREW it after he realized that his
amendment did not pertain to the section under discussion.
Number 068
MS. FRASCA mentioned that the DOL currently issued plumber
and electrician certificates for one or three years, as
provided in statute. Section 45, which was deleted from the
House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, would give
the DOL the authority to set the time period by regulation.
The DOL's intent was to issue the certificates every two
years, she said. The effect of reinstating section 45 would
be to even out the revenues taken in by the DOL, she noted.
Number 082
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification of the effect
of reinstatement of section 45.
Number 102
DON STUDY, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND
SAFETY, DOL, stated that reinstatement of section 45 would
even out the flow of program receipts into the DOL.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to compare the change
proposed in section 45 with the change made to the ABC
licensing procedures.
Number 124
MS. FRASCA commented that section 46 of the House State
Affairs Committee substitute to HB 65 provided for a phased-
in implementation of the ABC license provisions, so that
revenues would flow evenly into the general fund.
Number 136
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the House State Affairs
Committee had deleted sections 44-46.
Number 140
MR. STUDY did not have any idea why the sections had been
deleted.
Number 143
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT indicated that, as a member of the
House State Affairs Committee, he knew that many of the
changes made to HB 65 were part of a policy to limit the
agencies' regulatory authority. Members of the House State
Affairs Committee had expressed concern that agencies might
establish unreasonable fees for certain services.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that specific dollar and
percentage amounts were included in HB 65, thereby limiting
the latitude granted to the agencies.
Number 176
MS. FRASCA stated that there was a philosophical debate
regarding whether fees should be set in statute or by
regulation. Recent trends had been to establish fees by
regulation, she said. She noted that the regulatory process
included public participation. She said that it was up to
the House Judiciary Committee to decide whether fees should
be set by regulation or in statute. She noted that the
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65
established the fees in statute.
Number 195
MR. STUDY commented that, if the committee decided to set
fees in statute, a transition period should also be provided
for in statute.
Number 205
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES supported phasing in programs, as it
would level out workloads and revenue flows. She mentioned
that setting fees in statute would make it more difficult to
change those fees later. On the other hand, she said, the
legislature did not have the authority to repeal
regulations. Until that happened, she was inclined to
establish fees in statute.
Number 223
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Frasca to explain what the House
State Affairs Committee had done to sections 44-46.
Number 226
MS. FRASCA replied that the House State Affairs Committee
had deleted everything.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the Senate's version of HB 65
set fees in statute.
MS. FRASCA noted that DOL Commissioner Charles Mahlen had
submitted proposed language for the committee's
consideration.
MR. STUDY commented that the AMENDMENT would put language
into HB 65 that was nearly identical to language included in
the Senate version of the bill.
Number 265
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment would allow the
DOL to set fees by regulation.
MS. FRASCA stated that the first amendment in Commissioner
Mahlen's submission appeared to be similar to section 44,
which enabled the DOL to set fees for special inspector
commissions, for which there currently was no charge.
Language would have to be drafted to put the fee in statute,
she said. The amendment pertaining to section 38 would take
the place of section 45, she noted.
Number 272
CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed his support for the resolution
allowing the legislature to repeal regulations. He
preferred leaving the House State Affairs Committee's
substitute for HB 65 as it was, realizing that it would have
to eventually be melded with the Senate's version of the
fees' bill.
Number 288
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the Chairman. She
commented that setting fees by regulation would be more
efficient than setting them in statute. However, she said,
without legislative oversight for regulations, she preferred
to set them in statute.
Number 303
MR. STUDY commented that the fees set forth in sections 44-
46 were included in the DOL's FY 94 budget. He mentioned
the impact of budget cuts on the DOL's programs, and said
that if the fees included in sections 44-46 were disallowed,
elevator and amusement ride inspections would probably be
discontinued.
Number 326
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Study to comment on the Senate's
proposals regarding the DOL fees.
Number 330
MR. STUDY replied that the Senate had proposed an additional
cut to the Division of Labor Standards and Safety.
Number 333
MS. FRASCA commented that the Senate's version of the fees'
bill would set fees in statute, thereby generating the fees
which Mr. Study was discussing. She added that the DOL
faced a different reduction, from a cut made by the Senate
Finance Committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Senate version of the fee bill
would put the DOL back at the appropriate funding level for
certain programs.
MS. FRASCA replied in the affirmative.
Number 346
MR. STUDY stated that his division dealt with public safety
and worker safety issues. Budget cuts would, at some point,
increase injuries and fatalities, he said.
Number 358
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE sections
44 and 45 from the House Labor and Commerce Committee's
version of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
Number 375
MS. FRASCA noted that section 46 pertained to the generation
of program receipts, and would allow fees to be set by
regulation.
Number 383
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about rushing through
the sections of HB 65. She was uncomfortable with section
46's authorization for the DOL to charge a new,
nonrefundable application and examination fee.
Number 400
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that both the House and Senate
leadership wanted to pass an omnibus fees' bill. He said
that there would be a meeting of the House version of the
bill and the Senate version.
Number 407
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the Chairman's comments had
given her some comfort; however, she still wanted to give
HB 65 adequate consideration.
Number 412
CHAIRMAN PORTER understood Representative James' concerns.
But, he said, no matter what the committee did to HB 65, he
knew that the bill would be subsequently discussed and
perhaps amended in a conference committee. For that reason,
he did not want to put an inordinate amount of effort into
working on the bill, knowing that it would be tinkered with
later. He expressed his support for maintaining the House
State Affairs Committee's deletion of section 46.
Number 424
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recommended that the committee
reinstate section 46. He said that, as the state cut back
paying for services out of the general fund, important
safety services needed to continue, and had to be paid for
somehow. He made a MOTION to REINSTATE section 46.
CHAIRMAN PORTER OBJECTED.
Number 436
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Nordlund that
certain services could not be continued forever, without the
state charging fees for those services. He questioned what
amount the state should charge for certain services, given
that there had been no fees in the past. He was
uncomfortable referring to fees without knowing the amount
of those fees.
Number 451
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that there were dollar
figures in section 46. She supported for Representative
Nordlund's motion. She cited the public process inherent in
the regulation adoption process. She noted that the
agencies knew how much to charge for services, as they were
directly involved in the provision of those services.
Number 463
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about the effect of the lengthy
regulation writing process on the DOL's budget.
Number 472
MS. FRASCA commented that section 59 of CSHB 65 (L&C)
allowed departments which would be promulgating regulations
to get a "head start" on the regulation writing process. A
roll call vote on reinstatement of section 46 was taken.
Representatives Nordlund, Phillips, and Green voted "YEA."
Representatives Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And
so, the MOTION FAILED.
Number 491
MS. FRASCA explained that section 47 of the House Labor and
Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 authorized the Alaska
Police Standards Council to issue regulations to establish
fees for processing applications for state certification of
police, probation, parole, and correctional officers. The
fee was expected to be $50, she said. She indicated that
this provision was also included in the House State Affairs
Committee's version of HB 65.
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Frasca who would pay the
$50 fee.
Number 499
MS. FRASCA replied that the individual applicants would pay.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that a municipality could pay the
fee, if it so desired. There being no objection, section 47
REMAINED in the bill.
Number 505
MS. FRASCA explained that section 48 of the House Labor and
Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 had been deleted by
the House State Affairs Committee. Currently, she said,
there was a $10 permit application filing fee for employment
agencies. Section 48 would increase that fee to $100, she
added. She was not aware of why the section had been
deleted by the House State Affairs Committee.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that the House State Affairs
Committee had discussed the exorbitant increase contained in
section 48.
Number 519
MR. STUDY commented that the fee had not been increased in
40 years.
CHAIRMAN PORTER added that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee had agreed that it would be impossible to process
an application for $10.
Number 523
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that the fees suggested in
HB 65 were not out of line. But, she expressed concern that
those fees could be increased later. She believed that $100
was a fair fee for employment agency permit applications.
There being no objection to reinstating section 48, IT WAS
SO ORDERED.
Number 534
MS. FRASCA explained that section 49 in the House Labor and
Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 amended the definition
of "program receipts." Currently, she said, Aetna
reimbursed the state for administering the state employee
health insurance program. Those reimbursements had been
previously defined as "general fund program receipts."
Section 49 would change the definition to "benefit systems
receipts," she said.
MS. FRASCA explained the effect of sections 50 and 51 of the
House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. She
said that currently, the federal government paid the state
monies which the state used to pay risk management premiums.
She added that the federal government had criticized the
state because the state deposited some of the monies into
the general fund and some of the monies into a reserve
account. Sections 50 and 51 would have the effect of
complying with the federal government's requirements. If
they were not included in HB 65, she said, the state might
have to give some of the federal money back.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Frasca to clarify her
remarks.
MS. FRASCA stated that the federal government wanted the
state to put more of the money into the catastrophe reserve
account than it had been.
Number 571
SHARON BARTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (DOA), said that
these monies currently all flowed into the general fund.
The monies were then appropriated for various purposes.
But, she said, the federal government had appropriated those
monies for insurance purposes and wanted the monies to go
back into the state's insurance program. By putting the
monies into the catastrophe fund, they would be used for the
settlement of extraordinary claims in the future.
Number 591
MS. FRASCA explained section 52 of the House Labor and
Commerce Committee's version of HB 65. She said that the
section clarified the Department of Natural Resources'
(DNR's) ability to accept cash or other donations to support
parks. Section 53 of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's version of HB 65 was deleted by the House State
Affairs Committee, she said. It would authorize the DNR to
promulgate regulations to set fees for day use of state
parks, admission to visitor centers, sale of firewood, and a
number of other activities.
Number 602
CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to a document
in their bill packets which pertained to this section.
Number 605
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about whether the DNR
would need to hire personnel to go out and collect these
fees.
Number 613
DAVID STEPHENS, CHIEF, PLANNING OPERATIONS/SERVICES,
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DNR, commented
that such fees would be collected by an "iron ranger"
(collection box), on an honor system. Volunteer campground
hosts exerted subtle pressure on park users to deposit their
fees in the "iron ranger." Very little staff time would be
devoted to the emptying of the "iron rangers." He said that
the existing system enjoyed good compliance.
Number 629
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if reinstating this section
would take care of the concerns addressed by Neil Johannsen,
Director of the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative.
Number 634
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to REINSTATE section
53 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of
HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 637
MS. FRASCA commented that section 54 of the House Labor and
Commerce Committee's version of HB 65 pertained to the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). She said
that the section would allow the DEC to charge fees for
services which it currently provided, but for which it did
not currently have the authority to charge fees.
Number 644
CHAIRMAN PORTER had heard concerns expressed that the DEC
would use this particular section to recover monies lost to
budget cuts.
Number 647
JANICE ADAIR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEC, stated that her
agency could not receive and expend the funds to which
section 54 pertained, without legislative authority. She
said that her agency currently had no plans to establish
fees authorized under section 54. But, she said, if it came
down to a choice between losing general funds or losing
"primacy" for the solid waste program, the DEC might opt to
establish fees. She indicated that a similar situation
might exist for the hazardous waste program.
Number 668
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Adair if fees would flow back to
the DEC, or if they would go into the general fund.
MS. ADAIR replied that all of the fees would be deposited
into the general fund. The DEC would then identify them in
their budget submission to the OMB as "general fund/program
receipts."
Number 673
MS. FRASCA commented that while the DOL's budget anticipated
program receipts, the DEC's present FY 94 budget did not
reflect receipts anticipated, under this particular section
of HB 65. She reiterated Ms. Adair's comment that the DEC
would need to come back before the legislature to request
the authority to receive and expend the funds.
Number 681
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the legislature had, the
year before, authorized the DEC to increase permit fees.
She had received comments from constituents regarding these
increases.
Number 687
MS. ADAIR explained that when permit fees had been
increased, the DEC had held numerous public hearings, and
had sent out thousands of pieces of mail on the subject, in
addition to running advertisements in newspapers.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why section 54 was necessary,
since the DEC had increased its permit fees last year.
MS. ADAIR stated that the fees to which Representative
Phillips was referring were for restaurant inspections and
seafood inspections.
Number 693
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what the fees in section 54
were for.
MS. ADAIR replied that section 54 expanded the fees program,
so that the DEC could establish fees for solid waste permits
and hazardous waste permits.
Number 697
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS recommended that the DEC, when
sending out bills for permit fees, include an explanation of
what the fee was for.
TAPE 93-57, SIDE A
Number 003
MS. ADAIR acknowledged that there had been some problems
with billings for restaurant inspections.
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that several
departments might be charging the public for work on a
single permit.
Number 040
MS. ADAIR replied that no department other than the DEC had
authority to assess fees on the permits under discussion.
She added that a municipality could undertake some of the
permitting activities; if a municipality chose to do so, she
said, then the DEC was statutorily precluded from charging a
permit fee, as it would not be issuing the permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the DNR would charge any fees
for the permits under discussion.
MS. ADAIR responded that the DNR would not charge any fees
for these particular permits.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the permitted entities would
require business licenses.
MS. ADAIR replied that certain facilities would probably
require business licenses.
MS. FRASCA explained that sections 42 and 43 of the House
State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 should be
deleted, as amendments to other sections of HB 65 made the
sections moot.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42
and 43 from the bill.
Number 103
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern about a boat
launching fee on a river in her district. She made a MOTION
to RESCIND the committee's action on reinstating section 53
of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of
HB 65.
Number 162
MS. FRASCA stated that section 53 would allow the DNR to set
fees by regulation. She noted that the House State Affairs
Committee had taken existing regulation fees and put them
into statute. Additionally, she said, that committee had
reduced boat launching fees.
Number 172
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES preferred to have a particular portion
of the House State Affairs Committee's section 42 included
in HB 65.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED, on the grounds that if the
state maintained a boat launching ramp, someone needed to
pay for that maintenance.
Number 195
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the ramp she was
concerned with had been built by private individuals, but
was maintained by the state. The people who built the ramp
objected to having to pay to use it, she said.
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative Phillips that,
because the state maintained the ramp, user fees should help
to pay for that maintenance.
Number 214
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification on charges for
visiting historic sites.
Number 224
MR. STEPHENS replied that the state park system maintained
only a handful of historic sites. He said that historic
sites along the side of the road were not administered by
the state park system.
Number 237
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that the language in HB 65 was
unclear as to which historic sites were covered. He asked
if the DNR intended to put its temporary fees in regulation.
Number 250
MR. STEPHENS replied that it was the DNR's intention to add
the temporary fees to existing regulations. The temporary
fees would allow the DNR to get a head start on collecting
the fees, before the regulation writing process was
completed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it was the DNR's intention to
turn the temporary fees into permanent fees.
MR. STEPHENS replied in the affirmative.
Number 275
MS. FRASCA mentioned that public input would influence the
amount of fees set by the DNR.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there was a big
difference between the House Labor and Commerce Committee's
section 53 and the House State Affairs Committee's section
42.
Number 314
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with Representative James that the
two sections were very different.
A roll call vote on rescinding the committee's action on the
House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 53 was taken.
Representative James and Kott voted "YEA." Representatives
Nordlund, Phillips, Green, and Porter voted "NAY." And so,
the MOTION FAILED.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to DELETE sections 42
and 43 of the House State Affairs Committee's version of
HB 65.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that deleting sections 42
and 43 was essentially a conforming action.
A roll call vote on deleting sections 42 and 43 from the
House State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65 was taken.
Representatives Phillips, Green, Kott, Nordlund, and Porter
voted "YEA." Representative James voted "NAY." And so,
sections 42 and 43 were DELETED.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE the House
Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OFFERED an AMENDMENT relating to page
15, lines 7-8 of the House State Affairs Committee's version
of HB 65. He said that his amendment would implement a user
fee for oil spill contingency plan review of $1 per gallon
based on the realistic maximum oil discharge described in a
contingency plan, but not to exceed $2,500. He expressed
support for amending his amendment to include a minimum fee,
also.
Number 436
MS. ADAIR commented that the House State Affairs Committee's
section 44 took existing DEC authority to set fees by
regulation, put those fees in statute, and lowered them
significantly. Due to this section, she said, the DEC had
submitted a $789,000 general fund fiscal note to HB 65. She
said that contingency plans were based on barrels, not on
gallons, and that only facilities with more than 10,000
barrels of oil had to have a contingency plan. She
indicated the DEC's opposition to Representative Green's
amendment, as the revenue generated would not cover the
agency's costs.
Number 485
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Adair if the amendment would
assist the DEC, in the event that HB 238, Oil and Hazardous
Substances Release Response Fund, passed.
Number 491
MS. ADAIR replied that it would not. She expressed concerns
about the amendment's impact on small businesses.
Number 501
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the amendment would not be of
assistance to small operators, as fees were on a sliding
scale.
Number 505
MS. ADAIR reiterated her concern that Representative Green's
amendment would not cover her agency's costs.
Number 512
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if it would be possible for
the DEC to review like oil spill contingency plans together.
Number 520
MS. ADAIR noted that there were some similarities in some
plans. However, she said that the DEC was very sensitive to
criticisms that it did not adequately review contingency
plans. In that light, she said, the DEC would still need to
review each plan separately.
Number 534
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he was not suggesting that
the DEC short-circuit the review process.
Number 548
MS. ADAIR commented that regulations developed to implement
former HB 567 had set out a format for contingency plans. A
contingency plan, she said, was a total document, and needed
to be thoroughly reviewed by the DEC.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the issue before the
committee was whether to set these fees in statute, as the
House State Affairs Committee had done, or to allow the DEC
to set them by regulation, as the House Labor and Commerce
Committee had done.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that he had made a motion to
reinstate the House Labor and Commerce Committee's section
54. OBJECTION was heard.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND AMENDED his MOTION to REINSTATE the
House Labor and Commerce Committee's section 54 to also
INCLUDE the DELETION of the House State Affairs Committee's
section 44.
MS. ADAIR said that even if section 44 was deleted, the DEC
already had the authority in current law to establish fees
for contingency plan review. That, she said, would not
change. It was her understanding that Representative
Green's amendment would reestablish the DEC's authority to
set contingency plan review fees in regulation.
Number 638
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN WITHDREW his AMENDMENT.
A roll call vote on Representative Nordlund's motion was
taken. Representatives Green, Nordlund, and Porter voted
"YEA." Representative Kott voted "NAY." And so, the MOTION
PASSED.
Number 680
MS. FRASCA asked the committee to reinstate the House Labor
and Commerce Committee's section 55, which would authorize
the DEC to set fees to recover its indirect costs of
administering the air quality permit program. She noted
that this change was required by the federal government.
Currently, she said, the DEC could recover direct costs, but
not indirect costs.
Number 686
MS. ADAIR stated that a similar provision was contained in
HB 167, Air Quality Control Program, but was also included
in HB 65, as a "safety net" in the event that HB 167 did not
pass the legislature this year.
Number 693
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if section 55 would not be necessary,
if HB 167 did pass.
Number 699
MS. ADAIR said that the Chairman was correct, but said that
the DEC wanted to be safe rather than sorry.
Number 709
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if, in the event that HB 167
did not pass, section 55 would in some manner satisfy
federal requirements.
Number 711
MS. ADAIR replied that it would satisfy the federal
government to a great extent.
Number 721
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if section 55 would conflict
with comparable provisions in HB 167, in the event that both
became law.
Number 723
MS. ADAIR expressed an opinion that, if both bills passed,
HB 65's section 55 would simply become moot.
Number 730
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the committee should write a letter
of intent which said that if HB 167 passed, section 55 of
HB 65 would not be enacted.
Number 732
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, stated that could be accomplished through an
additional section in HB 65.
Number 735
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section
55 of the House Labor and Commerce Committee's version of
HB 65, and to add a section to the House Judiciary Committee
substitute for HB 65 that stated that if HB 167 passed,
section 55 would be repealed. There being no objection to
the motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 755
MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's section 56 was retained in the House State
Affairs bill, and included technical amendments related to
the OPA and the DOA's accounting system. She asked that the
Committee not make any changes to this area of HB 65.
MS. FRASCA explained that another component of the House
Labor and Commerce Committee's section 56 was retained by
the House State Affairs Committee in section 45 of its
version of HB 65. This section repealed the DNR's authority
to promulgate regulations to set fees for park use. She
asked that the committee delete this particular provision.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE section 45
of CSHB 65 (STA).
An "at ease" was called at 4:20 p.m.
The committee reconvened at 4:22 p.m. There being no
objection to Rep. Nordlund's motion, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's section 57 established the DNR's temporary fee
schedule for parks, which the committee had discussed
earlier. The House State Affairs Committee had deleted this
section from the bill; Ms. Frasca requested that the
committee reinstate it.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to REINSTATE section
57 of HB 65. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's section 58 was a conforming amendment regarding
ABC licenses. This section was also included in the House
State Affairs Committee's version of HB 65, she said. The
committee had no objection to maintaining that section.
MS. FRASCA stated that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's section 59 (the House State Affairs Committee's
section 47) allowed agencies which would be promulgating
regulations to get a head start on that process, instead of
waiting for the effective date of HB 65. The committee had
no objection to maintaining this section of the bill.
MS. FRASCA explained that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's section 60 (the House State Affairs Committee's
section 48) pertained to the OPA. She said that this
section stated that the amendments which authorized the OPA
to charge fees for public guardians have the effect of
amending a court rule. The committee had no objection to
maintaining this section.
Number 825
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee's sections 61-64 (the House State Affairs
Committee's sections 49-51) included the effective dates of
HB 65's provisions. There being no objection to including
the effective dates, they were MAINTAINED in the bill.
Number 830
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee had before it a
Judiciary Committee substitute, which was an amended version
of the House Labor and Commerce Committee substitute.
TAPE 93-57, SIDE B
Number 019
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested amending an existing statute
which pertained to section 43 of the House State Affairs
Committee's version of HB 65. He said that it might be
better to offer his amendment on the floor. He noted that
the DNR currently issued, free of charge, a state camping
permit to disabled U. S. veterans. He said that his
amendment would change that policy to offer that benefit to
Alaska residents only, rather than all U. S. citizens.
Number 090
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment could be more
easily made in committee than on the floor, as a Judiciary
Committee substitute had to be drafted anyway.
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that Representative Kott
could bring the amendment to the attention of the House
Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that he would do that.
Number 128
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that a Judiciary Committee
substitute for HB 65 was now before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED to PASS CSHB 65 (JUD) out of
committee, with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 128 next.
HB 128: EARLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 128,
explained that the intent of HB 128 was to assist the state
in its efforts to collect child support payments. She read
a sponsor statement, a copy of which is on file in the House
Judiciary Committee, Room 120, Capitol Building. In
summary, she said that non-support of children was a
national epidemic. She said that her bill would require a
paternity acknowledgement form be used at the time of birth.
She stated that there was a very small fiscal note attached
to HB 128, for a one-time upgrade of certain forms.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that passage of HB 128 would allow
the state to apply for federal funds for the Child Support
Enforcement Division (CSED). She mentioned that the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) supported
the bill.
Number 282
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to PASS CSSSHB 128
(HES) out of committee, with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
SB 105 next.
SB 105: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS & BUYERS' AGENTS
Number 321
JOE AMBROSE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, PRIME
SPONSOR of SB 105, testified that SB 105 had been introduced
in response to a constituent concern. In early January, he
said, an auto broker had abruptly shut down his business and
left customers without vehicles for which they had paid, or
without titles, or being dunned by automobile dealers when
they thought they had already paid for their cars. He
stated that SB 105 differentiated between a dealer and a
buyer's agent.
MR. AMBROSE said the bill required that any car sold as new
include the manufacturer's certificate of origin. That
would prevent a car from being sold a second time while
being represented as new, he said. This was important for
warranty reasons, he added. He mentioned that SB 105
required purchase agreements which fully disclose warranty
terms between buyer's agents and buyers. Warranties would
remain with the vehicle and pertain specifically to the
vehicle, he said, resulting in consumer protection.
MR. AMBROSE noted that SB 105 created a "paper trail" of any
transaction between a buyer's agent and a buyer, with
specific records' retention requirements. He noted that the
bill increased penalties for violation of the law from a
current $300 fine to a class B misdemeanor, or up to a
$1,000 fine. He indicated that the sponsor had reviewed a
House Judiciary Committee draft committee substitute for
SB 105 and supported it. He added that SB 105 would not
result in a fiscal impact to the state.
Number 362
STEVEN ALLWINE, representing the ALASKA AUTO DEALERS,
testified in support of SB 105. He mentioned that there had
been a significant number of instances in which customers
purchased automobiles, but received cars different than what
they had expected. Additionally, he said, customers
sometimes bought cars that were supposed to be new, but in
fact were used. These situations resulted in warranty
problems for the customers and for auto dealers.
MR. ALLWINE commented that manufacturers had expressed
concern over this method of car distribution, particularly
in relation to warranty coverage, product safety, and recall
issues. He noted that the Senate had unanimously passed
SB 105. The draft committee substitute provided an
additional safeguard for consumers, by implementing a
bonding requirement for buyers' agents. He urged support
for the bill.
Number 418
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a draft
committee substitute for SB 105 dated April 6, 1993. She
said that the draft committee substitute took SB 105, as
amended on the Senate floor by Senator Al Adams, and added
new material which had been suggested for inclusion by the
Alaska Auto Dealers. She noted that Senator Adams'
amendment could be found on page 2, lines 3-5, and addressed
situations in which a car was purchased and subsequently
shipped to a rural area. In such a situation, she said, it
might not be feasible to have a dealer perform warranty
work. The language allowed a buyer and a dealer to reach
agreements regarding repairs and payment.
MS. HORETSKI commented that new language began at line 31 on
page 2, and continued through line 25 of page 4. She said
that this new language required registration and bonding of
buyer's agents. She noted that the amount of the bond was
the same as the amount that automobile dealers had to put up
under existing law. She stated that language on page 4,
lines 26-28 was also new, and added a requirement that
before a buyer's agent negotiated on behalf of a buyer the
purchase of a motor vehicle from a dealer, the buyer's agent
had to have a written contract with the buyer.
MS. HORETSKI said that in reviewing SB 105, she did not find
any legal problems. She called the members' attention to a
potential problem on page 2, line 28, which made changes to
existing law relating to penalties. She said that a
reference to class B misdemeanors was added. Also, she
said, the old statute used the culpable mental state of
"willfully," which was no longer a part of the Alaska
criminal code. For that reason, she asked the drafters to
change the term "willfully" to "knowingly," which was the
closest equivalent culpable mental state.
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 6, line
7, where a new penalties section referred to "criminal
negligence." That, she said, was a different culpable
mental state than that on page 2, and resulted in the law
containing different culpable mental states for buyer's
agents and dealers. She stated that the committee could
either leave the language as it was, or change it to make
the required culpable mental state the same for both dealers
and buyer's agents.
Number 499
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested making the two culpable mental
states the same.
Number 505
MS. HORETSKI reviewed the four culpable mental states in
criminal law, from least serious to most serious: criminal
negligence, recklessly, knowingly, and intentionally.
Number 521
CHAIRMAN PORTER recommended using "knowingly" for both
dealers and buyer's agents in SB 105.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE "with
criminal negligence" from page 6, line 7 of SB 105 and to
INSERT "knowingly."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. He asked to hear from the
sponsor's representative.
Number 532
MR. AMBROSE stated that the sponsor would concur with the
change.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT REMOVED his OBJECTION. Then, without
further objection, the AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 550
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 105
(JUD), as amended. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
Number 554
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked the members if they felt that
buyer's agents should put up a larger bond than dealers. He
said that $10,000 seemed like a very small amount.
Number 569
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES echoed Representative Kott's concern.
She said that dealers were usually stationary, whereas
buyer's agents were more transient, creating more risk for
buyers. However, she said that dealers were probably much
more able than buyer's agents to come up with $10,000.
Number 585
MR. AMBROSE stated that the bill's sponsor did not intend to
make SB 105 punitive. He said that there were many
communities within Senator Taylor's district which did not
have auto dealerships. He said that the bill simply made
buyer's agents comply with the same requirements as
automobile dealers.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that $10,000 would not go far
to help a consumer who had purchased a $25,000 car from an
unscrupulous buyer's agent. But, he understood Mr.
Ambrose's desire not to place too many restrictions on
buyer's agents.
Number 608
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that a "crooked" individual
would not be able to get a bond at all, unless they put up
cash for the bond. She thought that the bonding
requirements in SB 105 were sufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 105 (JUD), as
amended, out of committee with a zero fiscal note and with
individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED, and then REMOVED her
OBJECTION. There being no further objections, CSSB 105
(JUD) MOVED OUT COMMITTEE.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|