HB 355-FIRE; FOREST LAND; CRIMES; FIRE PREVENTION  9:12:05 AM CHAIR COGHILL called the committee back to order and announced the consideration of HB 355. [The Senate committee substitute, version U as amended, was before the committee.] He advised that Chris Maisch would like to supplement his comments on Amendment 3 that the committee adopted yesterday. 9:12:55 AM CHRIS MAISCH, State Forester and Director, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Fairbanks, Alaska, thanked the committee for the opportunity to readdress Amendment 3 and apologized for not providing a more complete answer at the time. He said you need to read subsection (b) in Section 7 in context with Sections 5, 6, and 7. They all use language similar to that being removed. These sections work together to address the "other lands" piece that was removed. He read the last sentence in Section 5 and explained that it talks about how the division would identify the other types of land uses that would require a permit. That would be a regulation process which would include public comment and discussion of those types of uses. The type of uses the division envisions is primarily commercial uses such as timber harvesting, land clearing for residential development or agricultural activities. He noted that the latter is a common source of escaped fire. The regulation process would identify the other types of activities. Very few activities would be restricted; lawn mowing would be allowed. Section 7 allows the division to enforce those regulations and removing the part about other activities would prevent the division from enforcing things that are already in regulation, such as jag burning. Those sections work with Section 15 that enumerates the penalties. This would likely fall under the bail schedule they hope to develop under this statute. This is where not having a permit might fall. More serious things like an escaped fire that developed into a project fire might fall under a misdemeanor charge. He reiterated the importance of looking at these sections in context to clearly understand the impact of Amendment 3. CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Maisch to work with the sponsor of the amendment to see if he was willing to change it. If it stands, it appears that the division will struggle with enforcing other activities. He opined that the division should have the authority it needs but it's important to recognize the potential for overreach. 9:16:58 AM SENATOR KELLY said he supported the amendment because it wasn't clear that the regulation process for the fire permit would include public participation, and because the discussion indicated that a burning permit would be required throughout the summer. He asked Mr. Maisch to comment on those two issues. MR. MAISCH said existing statute has the qualifier that the regulations the commissioner sets regarding fire permits are only for extreme fire danger situations. CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Shower to present Amendment 4. 9:18:35 AM SENATOR SHOWER moved Amendment 4, 30LS-1382\O.19, noting that he withdrew it from consideration yesterday. 30-LS1382\O.19 Radford 4/17/18 AMENDMENT 4 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER TO: CSHB 355(JUD) Page 6, following line 16: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 21. AS 41.15.950 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (c) A person is not required under this section to disclose a deadly weapon under AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A) to a peace officer described under (a)(1) of this section." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 7, line 2: Delete "sec. 21" Insert "sec. 22" Page 7, line 3: Delete "sec. 21" in both places Insert "sec. 22" in both places Page 7, line 4: Delete "Sections 23 and 24" Insert "Sections 24 and 25" Page 7, line 5: Delete "sec. 25" Insert "sec. 26" 9:18:40 AM CHAIR COGHILL objected. SENATOR SHOWER said he learned last night that House members support the current draft of Amendment 4. It is a much simpler version than was presented during the process in that body. CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the amendment talks about the requirement to disclose a deadly weapon under AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A). He asked if that relies on the definition of a peace officer in AS 11.81.900. SENATOR SHOWER said that's correct. The discussion yesterday was about AS 41.15.950 and that the state essentially declares that for the purpose of enforcing this chapter, an employee of the department or anybody authorized by the commissioner is identified as a peace officer. The bill allows investigation authority so they can show up on a property in an authoritative role and write tickets. What the amendment tries to do is prevent a confrontation by clarifying that people do not have to disclose a firearm to these government representatives who are identified as peace officers but are not trained by law enforcement. 9:20:52 AM CHAIR COGHILL commented that the amendment would probably be more beneficial to the individual who was carrying a firearm than a peace officer who is a fire prevention officer. He asked Mr. Maisch the department's view of the amendment. MR. MAISCH agreed that fire prevention officers (FPO) are defined as peace officers in the context of enforcing Title 41. He said his perspective is that disclosure of weapons is important to FPOs for general safety reasons. These officers often work alone in remote locations and they would have a better overall sense of the situation if they knew someone was carrying a firearm. He clarified that they would not enforce that statute because they are not trained for that. 9:22:33 AM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI that his concern is that it's very broad. He didn't believe that most people would perceive that a peace officer/FPO is somebody to whom they need to affirmatively reveal, but it would be a crime if they didn't. 9:23:18 AM CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection. Finding no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. 9:23:30 AM SENATOR SHOWER moved Amendment 5, 30-LS1382\O.24. 30-LS1382\O.24 Martin/Radford 4/17/18 AMENDMENT 5 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER TO: CSHB 355(JUD) Page 4, line 1: Delete "knows of a fire or" Insert "[KNOWS OF A FIRE OR]" 9:23:50 AM CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation. SENATOR SHOWER said this amendment, too, tries to keep the enforcement authority from being overly broad. His concern is that anyone who knows of a fire potentially makes too many people culpable. CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Maisch to comment on the amendment. 9:24:53 AM MR. MAISCH said we would oppose this amendment because it removes the duty to report a fire. It's important for anybody who has knowledge of a fire to disclose that so the response is quicker and control potentially more efficient. Public cooperation is important. CHAIR COGHILL commented that it is basically the duty to report. MR. MAISCH answered yes. CHAIR COGHILL asked what the penalty is for failure to report. MR. MAISCH replied a person could potentially be cited but it's unlikely that would happen. Quick response and suppression of a fire is a matter of public safety. CHAIR COGHILL clarified that this removes the language from existing statute. MR. MAISCH agreed. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he didn't like placing an affirmative duty on innocent bystanders and is always wary of granting prosecutorial discretion on such things, but a fire could devastate a community. Thus, he's leaning in favor of granting that discretion and opposing the amendment. 9:26:57 AM CHAIR COGHILL maintained his objection. He commented on emergency situations in his area caused by fires that went unreported. SENATOR KELLY said it seems that the duty to report is due care so he's okay with the amendment. 9:28:12 AM CHAIR COGHILL said he was maintaining his objection because removing the phrase leaves the due care to prevent or control to the person who set the fire. SENATOR KELLY indicated that he was switching his position on the amendment. CHAIR COGHILL asked for a roll call. 9:29:14 AM A roll call vote was taken. Senator Shower voted in favor of amendment 5 and Senators Coghill, Kelly, Wielechowski voted against it. Therefore, amendment 5, O.24, failed by a 1:3 vote. 9:29:20 AM CHAIR COGHILL held HB 355 in committee.