HOUSE BILL NO. 43 An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed for violations of municipal ordinances. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS commented that the Police Training Fund was established to provide training for the law enforcement and corrections community of the State. Appropriations to this fund may be made from income derived from the imposition of surcharges on criminal convictions. Last year, legislation was passed expanding the types of crimes for which a surcharge is imposed and increasing the amount of the surcharge applied. The surcharge would be imposed on both state and municipal law violations. Representative G. Davis noted that recently, concern was raised that the phrasing used in the legislation could be interpreted as requiring surcharges to be imposed on civil as well as criminal violations of the law. Additionally, it was argued that if a local government did not authorize the imposition of a surcharge, an entire ordinance could be found invalid rather than just the section imposing the fine. Representative G. Davis pointed out that HB 43 is a housecleaning measure to address two concerns. First, the legislation clarifies that the surcharge will be imposed on a violation of a municipal ordinance that imposes a criminal penalty for its violation. Second, the legislation specifies that the municipality can not enforce a penalty for a violation unless the municipality also authorizes the imposition of a surcharge on the violation. Representative J. Davies asked the difference between enforcing a penalty for the ordinance and enforcing the ordinance. Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the problem results from the fact that the ordinance addresses an array of conditions, and the overall ordinance creates a possibility of imposing a penalty. The bill stipulates that if the penalty is not imposed, none of the ordinance can be enforced. GERALD LUCKHAUPT, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES explained that the issue is that some municipalities are concerned that their ordinances offer a broad range of activities which could include penalties which differ from the statutes. A municipality could adopt an ordinance which contains the entire code. The municipalities were concerned that this meant that they could not enforce their entire ordinance if the surcharge was not imposed on the penalty. Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that there are two ways that the ordinances could be enforced, either through a criminal process or through a civil process, both of which are available to municipalities. The proposed legislation only applies to the criminal process. The municipalities could still choose to use a civil enforcement mechanism to file suit and get an injunction. Additionally, Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the ordinance could include other concerns and that one should not enforce a penalty for which a surcharge is required on a municipal ordinance that is enforced through the criminal process. That understanding addresses the enforcement concern. Co-Chair Therriault discussed that the collected surcharges would be placed into the Police Training Fund. Representative G. Davis added that those funds would be available to municipal police forces, VPSO's, correctional officers and troopers. Representative G. Davis explained those funds would not be used for training of animal control officers. Mr. Luckhaupt stated that the bill addresses two very narrow concerns. He noted that Representative G. Davis wanted to assuage any municipal concerns with regards to this act. This would apply to both civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms within a municipality, which he disagreed with. Additional language was added to Page 2, Lines 4 & 5, imposing a penalty authorized by AS 29.25.070(a), the statute which clarifies municipalities adopt criminal penalties for violations of ordinances applying to the entire ordinance. Representative Foster asked if a "municipality" would include a village. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that a municipality is a borough or city organized under present statutes and that an unincorporated village would not be included. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that if an area were a village, that village would not be paying into the surcharge, however, their VPSO's would be able to access the training funds. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that VPSO's are peace officers. The Peace Officer Training Fund is basically designed for peace officer training. VPSO's are considered peace officers for purposes of Title 1; however, there is a question if they are actually peace officers in that they don't have the power to enforce laws. That information makes this section a bit "fuzzy". If the municipality was incorporated and had their own police force, they would clearly be entitled to money from the fund. Grants for VPSO's are made independently to Native Corporations in order to set up programs. Representative G. Davis MOVED to report HB 43 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 43 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs dated 3/5/99 and Department of Public Safety dated 3/5/99.