HB 400-FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES  3:20:05 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 400, "An Act relating to the collection of fees by the Department of Public Safety for fire and explosion prevention and safety services." [Due to their length, some amendments discussed or adopted during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB 400.] 3:20:08 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated members should have a proposed amendment to HB 400 in their packets [referred to as Amendment 3 and labeled 30-LS1490\A.3, Bannister, 3/7/18]. He explained that Amendment 3 would include changes that were discussed in committee on [March 13, 2018]. He asked Mr. David Tyler, the State Fire Marshal, to discuss the changes made in Amendment 3 to HB 400 and to provide his division's perspective on the proposed amendment. 3:20:56 PM DAVID TYLER, State Fire Marshal; Director, Division of Fire and Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained that at the last hearing [on March 13, 2018] the committee removed the language in proposed Amendment 3 that indicated [fines] for violations could be compounded daily. The revised Amendment 3 [A.3] states that the violation will remain in effect until the fine has been paid or the situation [causing the citation] has been remedied. The division has the option to reissue a citation if the person receiving the citation paid the bail but did not fix the problem. He noted that Amendment 3 [D.3] streamlined the process to make the citation basically "a fix-it" ticket. 3:22:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled when the bill was first proposed, Mr. Tyler had mentioned the only "teeth" the division had was to issue a misdemeanor, which the division had not previously done. He further recalled that the current process the division has been using has been to list violations in hopes that the person or company would fix what was wrong, but if they did not do so, the only option the division had was to issue a misdemeanor and the party would have a criminal record. The idea of issuing citations for fines up to $500 has been under consideration. He related his understanding that the division thought issuing citations would not be used quite often. This current iteration would allow people 30 days to fix the problem. He asked whether citations being issued would increase since people have 30 days to fix it or how the division's procedures might change. MR. TYLER answered that the procedures would not drastically change. Currently, the division does not use the misdemeanor process because the district attorney would not prosecute them, since they are too busy with other things. He explained that the division's options were to issue an order to correct, which basically asks the party to please fix the problem. The next realistic option would be to close the building, which is a measure of last resort and not productive. He said he agrees that warnings should continue to be issued. He was interested in seeing how this would work because it was possible to put a court date in for those residing in a remote area, for example, if he knew it would take two months to have a sprinkler system installed, he could set a court date two months out. In that way, the business would not be held to a time line that it could not possibly meet. 3:24:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that issue had arisen, for example if someone's ANSUL system needed servicing or something as simple as a restaurant hood cleaning might be hard to schedule during a particularly busy time of the year. He offered his belief that someone with an automatic auto handheld device could be uploaded daily and after 30 days an automatic warning would be sent out. In instances in which the Fire Marshal gave an extended date for remedy, he wondered whether people would get hung up in the fine system. He recalled that the Alaska Court System said that uploads and warning letters happened automatically. He recalled someone might pay a parking ticket but two years later it was still in the system. He asked for further clarification on the hand-held devices and the process for automatic letters. He recalled previous testimony that these devices were not yet in use. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL wondered if the hand-held devises were a "new work in progress." MR. TYLER agreed it was a "work in progress." He was unsure how the court would issue its warnings if he wrote a court date for 60-90 days after the citation. He said the bill requires him to give a minimum of a 35-day-notice for a court date and he has 10 days to file it. 3:26:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that HB 400 started out as a means to collect more fees; however, it has now morphed into major discussion as to whether the offenses should be violations or misdemeanors. She recalled on the House floor that the legislature passed a bill related to load limits and changed it from violations to criminal conduct to account for responsibility. She wondered why this needed to be changed. She recalled the Fire Marshal did not charge someone with a misdemeanor, so she was unsure why he did not use the authority to do so. She expressed concern that the Fire Marshal might not charge someone [and a fire could occur] and cause injury or death. She was unsure why this would go from a misdemeanor to a violation. 3:28:50 PM MR. TYLER responded that a misdemeanor charge would not be a high priority for the attorney general. The proposed citation and fine under Amendment 3 to HB 400 would provide a more useable tool. If the parties fix the fire safety issues, they would not need to pay any fine and the division obtains its goal of fire safety compliance. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that part of the bill retains a violation for certain outcomes. If someone gets seriously hurt, it would be a misdemeanor. He asked in an instance where someone was killed due to the fire resulting from a dirty vent hood, whether existing statutes cover the crime. MR. TYLER answered that if someone was killed the responsible person could be charged for negligence or other offense determined by the attorney general. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that another bill [HB 259] discussed on the House floor today related to specifying a crime for unsecured loads for truck. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS responded that was not his understanding. He recalled testifiers before the [House Transportation and Judiciary] committees. One person was nearly killed in an accident resulting from unsecured debris flying through her windshield, but the police could not charge the driver with an unsecured load with a crime. 3:32:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he was correct, that under the current statute the law only applied to commercial operators. He offered his belief that the legislature, in its actions on the House floor, extended some of the penalties to private operators and defined "gross negligence." He agreed this was not the only bill before the legislature that sought to decrease misdemeanor penalties to citations. This would make it easier to collect and this bill was a trend for this administration. 3:33:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that at times the House Labor and Commerce committee found misdemeanor penalties were onerous and were reduced to citations to obtain compliance. The threat of penalty was lighter and might be used more often, he said. He expressed concern was that this approach might result in an overabundance of citations. He was unsure of the consequences, but time would tell. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, referring to Representative Wool's scenario of a fire resulting from a dirty hood in a restaurant that might get a "fix-it" ticket from the fire marshal. He researched the law applicable to "fix-it" tickets: [Alaska Statutes] AS 18.70.010-100. He was trying to get a sense of whether a dirty hood would fall within the scope of a "fix-it" ticket. MR. TYLER stated that the division's performance measures strive for 30 percent with no discrepancies. He offered that the division reached 12 percent in 2016 and 25 percent last year. He was having trouble hearing the question and asked to have it restated. 3:35:21 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated the question. MR. TYLER answered yes; that could be a citation. He mentioned potential violations that could result in citations, including a sprinkler or fire alarm system not in compliance, excess hardware not functioning, box corridor, exit lighting, or expired fire extinguishers. 3:36:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the division charged any fees for inspecting systems. MR. TYLER answered no. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said an acquaintance built a new real estate company and complained about the fees to have heating ventilation or fire suppression checked. He was unsure of what was inspected or the agency or private company that performed the work. He related his understanding that this bill would give the department some receipt authority and allow it to establish fees for inspections and permitting. He asked for further clarification on if a draft fee schedule exists MR. TYLER responded that the fiscal note [analysis on page 2, Department of Public Safety, Fire and Life Safety fees] provides a potential method for developing fees. He stated one challenge was to develop uniform fees even though inspection times may vary, depending on who conducted the inspection. He cautioned that charging a flat rate might not be the best approach since small businesses could be assessed a larger proportional fee than larger operations and he described an example (audio difficulties). 3:38:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP noted the audio difficulties. 3:39:27 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for committee comments. He said unless there were further questions, it was his intent to put Amendment 3 forward and he was fine with the committee either accepting it, not accepting it, or holding it. 3:39:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he thought the language was getting better and he liked proposed Amendment 3. As Representative LeDoux mentioned it started off as "fee for inspection" but has morphed to a whole citation and fee system. He acknowledged that this approach was also new to the Fire Marshal's office. He recalled a previous testifier from the court system, Ms. Mead, said the police currently have a hand-held system for issuing motor vehicle citations. This was different since it deals with building inspections. He did not necessarily think he would like to lump citations for the fire inspections into the system with police speeding tickets and that type of "fast tracking." He was unsure that he would oppose a system of fines for violations, and although he had some hesitation [Amendment 3] was an improvement over the previous version of the amendment. 3:41:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was not convinced. She preferred the original version of the bill. 3:41:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he was not likely to support the bill. He did not support generating revenue through fees, which he thought was bad public policy. He said the businesses were not asking for these inspections. He acknowledged that the Fire Marshal has always mandated inspections. He recalled [HB 114] relating to boiler inspection, that independent contractors would inspect and certify the system, perform any repairs, and the owner pays the fee and files the paperwork. He preferred the boiler inspection model for paying fees for inspections. 3:43:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, as a small business owner, related that all the fees are increasing, including fees for business and professional licenses, fire marshal inspections, and on and on. He expressed concern because the state fire marshal could threaten to shut someone down without having to go through the district attorney's office. Perhaps fees could be assessed for new construction. He was unsure and said that obviously the committee was still wrestling with this. 3:44:58 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would not move to adopt proposed Amendment 3 since the committee did not support it. He suggested the state fire marshal could work with the next committee of referral [the House Finance Committee] to adopt the amendment, which would be fine. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS brought members back to HB 400, which had not been amended since the committee only entertained an idea with proposed Amendment 3. He asked for additional comments on HB 400. 3:45:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she did not have any problem with bill as written. She liked the idea and people receiving the services will pay for them. She acknowledged Representative Knopp's suggestion on private enterprise competing to provide the services. 3:46:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her belief that government's job was to provide fire safety and address fire and life safety issues. She expressed concern that imposing a fee for fire inspections might cause businesses to put off fire inspections. She recalled the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has dispensed with fees or reimbursement costs for spill cleanup. Providing fire inspections to the public was more important than waiving the spill cleanup fees, she said. She related she has a commercial building and she has a tremendous respect for the fire marshal's office and she does everything in her power to be certain there are no fire hazards and she requests annual inspections. She was unsure that all companies were as diligent and adding fees would make it more difficult. 3:47:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he has worked with fire inspectors, especially in rural Alaska and they always do a tremendous job. He was familiar with plan reviews and assessment for fees. He would like to give the bill a chance, given the importance of good fire safety and inspection. He recalled that for plan reviews when design professionals such as architects and engineers are hired to design a building the expectation is that the design will be to code. He offered his belief that the review process for public facilities benefits from a review capability that the fire marshal's office provides. 3:49:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL disagreed with Representative Johnson that some businesses would opt not to have inspections since the inspections are not optional, and that businesses are given a specific timeframe to remedy any fixes. He remarked that if the state was not going to have an income tax, it was choosing to charge fees to businesses for services instead. 3:50:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related that fresh water inspections for businesses were done by private contractor instead of through DEC. He acknowledged that mandatory annual inspections were in place. He remarked it was difficult to pay fees to have someone write the business a citation. 3:51:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX REPRESENTATIVE moved to report HB 400 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP objected. 3:52:13 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wool, LeDoux, Birch, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of moving HB 400 out of committee. Representatives Johnson and Knopp voted against it. Therefore, HB 400 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2. The following amendments to HB 400 were either discussed or adopted during the hearing: Amendment 4 [30-LS1490\A.3, Bannister, 3/7/18]: Page 1, line 2, following "services;": Insert "and relating to penalties for violating  fire protection and safety requirements and orders"   Page 1, following line 9: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 2. AS 18.70.100(a) is amended to read: (a) A [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (c) OF THIS SECTION, A] person who violates a provision of AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 or a regulation adopted under those sections, or who fails to comply with an order issued under AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100, is guilty of a violation and shall be punished as provided in  AS 12.55 by a fine of not more than $500. Each day [CLASS B MISDEMEANOR. WHEN NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, EACH 10 DAYS] that the violation or noncompliance continues is a separate offense.  * Sec. 3. AS 18.70.100 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (d) A peace officer or an employee of the department who is authorized by the commissioner of public safety to enforce this chapter may issue a citation to a person who commits a violation identified under this section. (e) A citation issued under this section must comply with the standards adopted under AS 12.25.175 - 12.25.230. A person receiving the citation is not required to sign a promise to appear in court. (f) The time specified in the notice to appear on a citation issued under this section must be at least five working days after the issuance of the citation. (g) The commissioner of public safety is responsible for the issuance of books containing appropriate citations and shall maintain a record of each book and each citation contained in the book. The commissioner of public safety shall require and retain a receipt for each book issued to an employee of the department designated by the commissioner of public safety to provide investigative services to enforce provisions of this chapter. (h) On or before the 10th working day after issuance of a citation, a peace officer or an employee issuing a citation under this section shall deposit the original or a copy of the citation with a court having jurisdiction over the alleged offense. Upon the deposit of the citation with the court, the citation may be disposed of only by trial in the court or other official action taken by the magistrate, judge, or prosecutor. The peace officer or employee who issued the citation may not dispose of the original or copies of the citation or of the record of the issuance of the citation except as required under this subsection and (i) of this section. (i) The commissioner of public safety shall require the return of a copy of each citation issued under this section and of the copies of each citation that has been spoiled or on which an entry has been made and not issued to an alleged violator. The commissioner of public safety shall also maintain in connection with each citation issued a record of the disposition of the charge by the court in which the original or copy of the citation was deposited. (j) A citation issued under this section is considered to be a lawful complaint for the purpose of prosecution. (k) Unless the citation has been voided or otherwise dismissed by the magistrate, judge, or prosecutor, or bail has been forfeited under this section, a person who fails to appear in court to answer a citation issued under this section, regardless of the disposition of the charge for which the citation was issued, is guilty of failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230(b). (l) The supreme court shall establish a schedule of bail amounts. The maximum bail forfeiture amount for a violation may not exceed the maximum fine specified under (a) of this section for that violation. The issuing peace officer or employee shall write on the citation the amount of bail forfeiture applicable to the violation. (m) If a person cited for a violation for which a bail forfeiture amount has been established under (l) of this section does not contest the citation, the person may, within 30 days after the date of the citation, mail or personally deliver to the clerk of the court in which the citation is filed by the peace officer or employee (1) the amount of bail indicated on the citation for that offense; and (2) a copy of the citation indicating that the right to an appearance is waived, a plea of no contest is entered, and the bail is forfeited. (n) When the cited person has forfeited bail under (m) of this section, the court shall enter a judgment of conviction. Forfeiture of bail is a complete satisfaction for the violation. The clerk of the court accepting the bail forfeiture shall provide the offender with a receipt stating that fact if requested. (o) A person cited under this section is guilty of failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230(b) if the person fails to pay the bail amount established under (l) of this section or fails to appear in court as required. (p) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if a person cited for a violation for which a bail forfeiture amount has been established under (l) of this section appears in court and is found guilty, the court may not impose a penalty that exceeds the forfeiture amount for that violation established under (l) of this section. (q) In this section, "department" means the Department of Public Safety." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. Page 1, following line 13: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 5. AS 18.70.100(c) is repealed."