HB 400-FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES    5:13:22 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final 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." [Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB 400. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.] CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the forthcoming Amendment 2, labeled 30-LS1490\A.2, Bannister, 3/13/18, which read: [The text of Amendment 2 is listed at the end of the 3/13/18 minutes of HB 400.] 5:14:00 PM DAVID TYLER, Director State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire and Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed that his staff suggested that DFLS use the "fix-it ticket" concept. [Testimony was suspended due to audio difficulties.] 5:15:39 PM LLOYD NAKANO, Assistant State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire and Life Safety (DFLS), Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed that he is unable to describe the amendment because he has not seen it. 5:16:07 PM CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss- Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, prime sponsor of HB 400, noted that the forthcoming Amendment 2 is a modification of the amendment introduced during the 3/8/18 committee hearing on HB 400. She stated that the new amendment addresses the concern of committee members that it would be unfair to charge for an inspection and immediately issue a fine for violations. Under Amendment 2, a correctable citation would be issued, called a "fix-it ticket"; this would be like being ticketed for driving without a license and given the option of paying the ticket or showing the court a copy of the driver's license to allowing the ticket to be waived. She maintained that Amendment 2 would utilize the same scheme: if a person is cited for a fire code violation upon inspection, the person would have 30 days to provide DPS with proof that the problem was corrected and that he/she is now in compliance with the fire code. Subsequently, DPS will contact the court and waive the ticket. She referred to Section 3, subsection (k), on page 2 of the amendment, lines 23-29. MS. SCHLINGHEYDE addressed the concern that DPS would be motivated to impose fines to put money into the DPS budget. She explained that the amendment is written so that the money generated by the fines go to the Alaska Court System (ACS) and ultimately to the general fund (GF) and would not be designated for DPS. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his appreciation with the changes to the amendment. He stated that he is still concerned with the fine levied per day of noncompliance and asked how that would coordinate with the 30 days. He maintained that for a small operator, a "per day" fine may be severe. He stated that he supports giving the fire marshal and fire safety people the authority to fine to pressure people into compliance. 5:19:55 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System (ACS), stated that ACS's position on Amendment 2 is neutral; it would require ACS court to establish a schedule of bail amounts, as stated in Section 3, subsection (m), on page 3, lines 4-8. She cited the language on page 1, lines 12-14, which read: "Each day that the violation or noncompliance continues is a separate offense." She offered that the provision may impose a logistical problem: when someone gets a ticket, it is immediately electronically filed with the court and can be paid online or later; however, the ticket is for the amount on the ticket, and ACS would not be counting days and assessing an amount more than what is on the face of the ticket. She suggested that the language may be a remnant of when a violation was a Class B misdemeanor. She maintained that the wording is not wording that she has seen in conjunction with a citation. MS. MEADE continued by saying that ACS can accommodate a procedure that involves people correcting violations and demonstrating proof of correction to DPS, and DPS notifying ACS. She stated that the "30 days" is the same timeframe that ACS allows for people to pay the citation, before sending a warning letter. She maintained that shortening the period in the amendment would allow ASC to avoid sending warning letters to people who are correcting their violations within the 30 days. She concluded that ACS can comply with everything else in the amendment; there are some redundancies, but they are drafting issues. 5:23:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL relayed that depending on the type of infraction and the remedy required, 30 days may or may not be a long time. He suggested that instead of shortening the period allowing for a correction, the "fining" process be started after the 30 days if no correction has been made, which would avoid letters being sent unnecessarily. MS. MEADE answered that she does not know if DPS could comply with that procedure, since personnel use hand-held devices that perform automated downloads to ACS at the end of their shifts. She stated that she is not certain if they can reverse citations written so that the citations are not filed with ACS. She added that the warning letter, sent to a person who has not paid or responded to a fine, goes out 30 days after a citation and it is required by statute; the person must get a warning within 30 days before ACS can issue a default against the person. She suggested that the citation could be dismissed after the 30 days, if DPS notifies ACS that the violation has been corrected; however, warning letters would have been issued unnecessarily. 5:25:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that he supports issuing the warning letter right at 30 days; the person with the violation has 30 days to correct it and submit the proof; if that doesn't happen then the letter serves as a reminder and notifies the person that penalties are forthcoming. He maintained that smaller violations could be remedied in a few days or a week; violations regarding larger commercial fire extinguishing and retardant systems may take longer. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed that the proposed legislation is a step in right direction. He asked whether there is a scenario under which HB 400 would impose multiple-day fines. He asked if his understanding is correct: the language that "each day is a separate offense" is incorrect; an infraction incurs only one fine for up to $500; and the fines do not accumulate over multiple days. MS. MEADE responded that the language with respect to citations is new to her; ACS does not typically impose fines that way; and under HB 400, ACS would be setting the fines for each of the violations listed in AS 18.70. She reiterated that in her experience, she hasn't seen an "escalation" clause or "rolling" clause; ACS will set the appropriate fines and the person receiving the fine will owe the dollar amount shown on the citation, and not a multiple of that fine based on the days of noncompliance. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that the amendment could be corrected to reflect that concern. 5:28:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her understanding of the amendment: if the person does not correct the violation within the 30-day period, he/she is charged up to $500 per day. She cited page 1, lines 12-13, which read: "Each day that the violation or noncompliance continues is a separate offense." MS. MEADE replied that she does not believe that sentence belongs in the proposed legislation because it is incompatible with ACS establishing a bail schedule and setting an amount for an offense, that is, one citation with a single dollar amount. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the language could be revised under a new amendment. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to DPS downloading citations at the end of a shift using an automated devise. He asked if that is the case for fire marshal inspections. He stated that his recollection is that upon inspection of his business, he was given a hand-written booklet by a fire inspection person, which is different than being stopped and cited by an Alaska State Trooper (AST) on the highway. He asked if fire marshals use handheld automatically downloadable devices. MS. MEADE answered that her understanding is that the proposed legislation would be the first law that gives fire marshals the authority to issue citations, as opposed to charging violators with misdemeanors. 5:30:59 PM MR. NAKANO replied that currently DFLS does not have a process for issuing citations; however, if HB 400 passes, it will use the same process that AST uses, since deputy fire marshals that conduct fire inspections are police officers. They will use two electronic devises: one to conduct the fire inspection and one to issue the citations. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that the bail amounts cited on page 3, lines 4-8, would be set by ACS, and the language on page 1, lines 12-14, would be "cleaned up" to clear up the "per day" issue. He asked if his understanding is correct: the set dollar amount is for the citation and the bail schedule is for the misdemeanor charge. MS. MEADE referred to the language on page 3, lines 4-8, which read: "The supreme court shall establish a schedule of bail amounts." She stated that the meaning of the word "bail" in this context is probably 100 percent different from what Representative Knopp is expecting in terms of criminal procedures. She said that it would be more appropriate to refer to it as "fine amounts," but for historical reasons it is referred to as "bail amounts." She maintained that ACS establishes fine schedules; for example, it does so for traffic violations and for Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) violations; the legislature has directed ACS to establish fine amounts. She stated that under HB 400, ACS would establish the fine amounts for all the offenses listed in AS 18.70.010 through AS 18.70.100, and the fines would be $500 or less. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS summarized by saying that the legislature delegates the responsibility of setting the fine amounts to ACS. MS. MEADE concurred. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether fire marshals were more suitable than ACS for setting fine amounts for the different levels of violations. MS. MEADE responded, "That's right." She said that when ACS is assigned this task by statute, it exclusively works with the agency involved. She maintained that ACS does not have the expertise to determine appropriate fines; therefore, it would create the bail schedule in conjunction with the agency involved. 5:34:50 PM MS. SCHLINGHEYDE offered that the amendment was written [giving ACS the task of setting the bail schedule] because there were concerns about regular updates to the fire code; if the fines were set in statute, the legislature would have to review the statutes every year; if ACS sets the bail schedule in conjunction with DPS, it can keep abreast of the current fire codes. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether ACS revises these schedules on a regular basis. MS. MEADE answered, "No and yes." She said that ACS is passive and receptive to requests from agencies. She explained that typically ACS responds to an agency's request for a fine to be updated; the request becomes a project assigned to staff, accompanied by a series of meetings and preparation for the revision. The following amendment to HB 400 was either discussed or adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in the main text only.] AMENDMENT 2 [30-LS1490\A.2, Bannister, 3/13/18] 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 AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100 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 35 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 AS 18.70.010 - 18.70.100. (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) If a person to whom a citation is issued under (d) of this section provides proof to the department within 30 days after the issuance of the citation that the person has corrected the condition for which the citation was issued, the person may not be convicted of the violation. The department shall notify the court if the department, within 30 days after the issuance of the citation, receives sufficient proof from a person to whom a citation is issued under (d) of this section that the person has corrected the condition for which the citation was issued. (l) 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). (m) 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. (n) If a person cited for a violation for which a bail forfeiture amount has been established under (m) 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. (o) When the cited person has forfeited bail under (n) 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. (p) 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 (m) of this section or fails to appear in court as required. (q) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if a person cited for a violation for which a bail forfeiture amount has been established under (m) 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 (m) of this section. (r) 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." [End of Amendment 1 - HB 400 was held over.]