Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/02/2018 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB302 | |
| HB255 | |
| HB240 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 302 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 255-PLUMBING/ELECTRIC CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS
3:25:28 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 255, "An Act relating to individuals and
employees who must have certificates of fitness to perform
certain plumbing and electrical work; and relating to civil
penalties and violations for not having required certificates of
fitness."
3:26:00 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 255 on behalf of Representative Tuck,
prime sponsor. She read from the sponsor statement, which read
as follows:
House Bill 255 will change enforcement policies for
individuals performing electrical or plumbing work
without a valid certificate of fitness. Current
enforcement techniques are ineffective, and the
revisions proposed in this legislation will give the
Department of Labor a substantive way of enforcing
certificate of fitness requirements.
A certificate of fitness is issued by the Mechanical
Inspection section of the Division of Labor Safety &
Standards in the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, and is essentially an occupational
license for performing electrical or plumbing work.
Alaska statute prohibits individuals from performing
these types of work without a valid certificate
of fitness.
The current enforcement for operating without a valid
certificate of fitness is ineffective. AS 18.62.080
states that it is a misdemeanor to perform work
requiring a certificate of fitness without having one.
However, enforcement requires filing a written
complaint through the Department of Law and taking the
matter to the superior court, and often these offenses
are too minor to merit the interest of the District
Attorney's office. The department's other enforcement
option is to issue a civil order to cease and desist,
which carries no punitive sanction, and so provides
little motivation for the offender to remedy the
situation. Therefore, offenders often go unpunished.
House Bill 255 will change the penalty from a
misdemeanor to a violation, which will allow the
department to issue citations and civil penalties to
individuals and to employers using employees who are
operating without a valid certificate. New sections of
statute added by this legislation give the department
authority to issue citations, outline the procedures
for issuing citations, and set the amount of and the
procedure for administering civil penalties. The
penalty is set at $125 for an individual and $250 for
an employer for a first offense, and $250 for an
individual and $500 for an employer for subsequent
offenses.
3:27:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 255 as prime sponsor. He said he thought the overview
covered the intent of HB 255.
3:28:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether Representative Tuck held an
electrical certificate of fitness or whether it was something
with which he was familiar.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied he did not currently hold a
certificate of fitness.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited bill language from page 1, line 13 of
the proposed bill, which reads as follows:
(c) An employee of an electric utility that does not
have within its service area a portion of a
municipality that has a population of more than 2,500
is not required to have a certificate of fitness
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how the exemption still protected the
people involved.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the exemption was in existing
statute and would not change under HB 255. He added that
utilities tended to have different standards and training
programs to fit their safety concerns.
3:29:21 PM
CHAIR KITO added that in the engineering profession the state
does not require engineers to be licensed if they are working
only on industrial projects within the confines of the
organization and not engaging with the public.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that maintenance work was also not
covered in the proposed bill.
3:30:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether Representative Tuck had ever
held a certificate of fitness.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked what benefit the certificate gave.
He stated he had concerns about increasing penalties and the
amount of training and paperwork required to get the card.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered he had served an 8,000-hour
apprenticeship program with an additional 1,400 hours of
classroom time. He explained the training had ensured he
performed his work correctly to make sure the public was safe.
He underlined that the penalty was currently a misdemeanor with
a fine of up to $2,500, and HB 255 would be lowering it to $125
for the first fine.
3:33:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that a certificate of fitness
was already required in statute and it did not appear that HB
255 was demonstrably changing that.
3:33:53 PM
DEBORAH KELLY, Director, Labor Standards and Safety Division,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), added that
the proposed legislation was an enforcement tools bill. She
stated that the graduated enforcement tool proposed in the bill
had worked well with contractor licensing and that she felt it
would work well with certificates of fitness.
3:34:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that the structure set out in the
proposed bill was no different from someone needing a commercial
driver's license (CDL) license or a techniques of alcohol
management (TAM) card for the food and beverage service sector.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that driving an 80,000-pound
truck is not the same as running a simple sewer line. He said
he thought the proposed bill goes a little far. He did not see
how the certificate had served Representative Tuck over and
above his training. He stated he would rather have a strict
penalty, and he said he was fond of a policy giving the
department the power to write citations.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that the purpose of the certificate
of fitness was not to benefit the worker but the public.
3:37:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the 8,000 hours and 1,400
hours of classroom training are a requirement for the
certificate of fitness.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that it depends on the trade, and
the only requirement for the state of Alaska was 8,000 hours of
classroom and on-the-job training. He deferred to the
department.
MS. KELLY added that there are several different classifications
for plumbers. She gave the example of the simplest license
which had a requirement of 1,000 hours of work, to give an idea
of the range of requirements.
3:39:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the licenses expire and
whether they are maintained through continuing education.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered in the affirmative. He stated the
requirement was continuing education of 16 hours for a two-year
renewal.
3:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for confirmation of the inclusion of
work on private property in the proposed bill.
MS. KELLY answered in the affirmative.
3:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether homeowners would be subject to
the requirements as the bill says "person", not employer.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the certificate of fitness is
for construction workers and a private citizen is exempt.
3:41:33 PM
CHAIR KITO clarified that a homeowner who does work would still
have to comply with municipal requirements for inspections.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that he meant exempt from the
certificate of fitness requirements.
CHAIR KITO clarified that the debate was not whether the
certificate of fitness should exist, but the department's
ability to enforce. He asked the department for confirmation.
MS. KELLY answered in the affirmative. She reiterated that the
proposed bill was merely an enforcement tool and would not
change jurisdiction, applicability, or responsibility for
maintaining a certificate of fitness.
3:42:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether both the employee and employer
are liable.
CHAIR KITO asked whether he was referring to a construction
company. He clarified that the individual doing the work would
be required to have a certificate of fitness.
3:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered it would be the same thing if an
employer asked an employee who did not have a CDL to drive a
semi-truck across town. He added that was why the penalty on
the employer was greater than that on the individual.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the same would apply to an
apprentice.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered if a person is not in a registered
apprentice program, then they are probably a laborer.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked the difference between a license and a
certificate of fitness.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that the terms are used
interchangeably, and the certificate of fitness is a license.
3:46:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether there would be any demand
on the department in terms of the expense of enforcement.
MS. KELLY stated there would likely be a small amount of
administrative work, especially if there is an appeals process,
but the division anticipated it would be minimal.
3:46:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL gave the example of a crew working on a
house. He asked whether someone could do the work and a person
with the certificate of fitness could "sign off on it."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the material handling of pipe
did not require a license, but performing installations did,
particularly on new construction.
3:47:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked about the chain of events
for inspections and whether inspectors administer misdemeanors.
MS. KELLY gave a general overview of the inspections. She said
inspectors already carry out inspections for their primary job
duty and while on site they carry out certificate of fitness
checks and give out cease and desist orders. She said the
proposed bill would allow them to issue administrative fines.
She deferred to the mechanical inspection chief.
3:50:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) or DLWD had oversight on
installations.
3:51:13 PM
WILLIAM HARLAN, Chief, Mechanical Inspection Section, Department
of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), answered he was not
sure he understood to which type of installations he referred.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP replied that he was asking about DEC
oversight on septic system installations.
MR. HARLAN answered in the affirmative. He added that DEC
permits for installing a septic system cover that work; however,
DLWD licensure would also cover it, and the department would
defer to DEC permits.
3:52:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to section 3 and asked why the
language included "person" rather than "employer".
MS. KELLY deferred to the Legislative Legal for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered Legislative Legal was trying to
make that language standard throughout all statutes.
3:53:49 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 255.
3:53:56 PM
BRANDON MCGUIRE, UA Local 367 Plumbers Union, testified in
support of HB 255. He said he felt the proposed bill would
strengthen enforcement. He gave the example of electricians and
plumbers working in private homes. He maintained that often
those performing the work did not have a current license. He
stated it is his job to speak with non-union, unrepresented
workers, and he finds that often they are not licensed, and the
vast majority do not have a certificate of fitness. He
underlined that incorrect installation was an important health
and safety issue. He stated the current problem is that there
are "no teeth behind enforcement."
3:57:23 PM
BRENT HOVDEN, Licensed Electrician, testified in support of HB
255. He indicated he is a licensed commercial electrician and a
member of IBEW Local 1547. He stated the ability to enforce
certification requirements was the only way to make sure work is
done safely.
3:58:24 PM
JASON ROE, Plumber, spoke in support of HB 255. He indicated he
is a non-union plumber in Fairbanks, Alaska, and that he thinks
"in this particular instance the union guys are right." He
stated it was important to license the trades as there were
severe risks such as amoebic dysentery and gas explosions at
stake. He stated he was frequently frustrated by poor
workmanship and had complained about illegal workmanship to the
Department of Law (DOL). He said he felt DOL did not currently
have the enforcement tools to do something about the issue, and
the proposed bill was necessary.
4:00:59 PM
KYLE KAISER, IBEW Local 1547, testified in support of HB 255.
He stated it is very common to find unlicensed people doing
electrical work. He gave the example of finding a work offer on
Craigslist which did not involve proper licensing. He
maintained the immediate fine of $125 would be a huge deterrent
for the individual working illegally for $200 or $300 a night.
He added it was a huge liability to have someone who is not
trained, and it is important to make sure the people doing the
job are qualified. He said he felt the proposed bill would help
enforcement and keep people safe.
4:03:49 PM
RYAN ANDREW, IBEW Local 1547, testified in support of HB 255.
He stated the issue of licensing was a public safety issue. He
added that license requirements ensure the people doing plumbing
and electrical work are properly trained.
4:05:27 PM
PAUL GROSSI, Alaska State Pipe Trades, testified in support of
HB 255. He stated the proposed bill would not change the
requirements for certificates of fitness, "only change the
current law from a criminal to a civil offense, which makes it
easier for the DLWD to enforce."
4:06:24 PM
DEBORAH BROLLINI testified in support of HB 255. She stated she
hoped the enforcement effort in the proposed legislation would
be passed and funded.
CHAIR KITO announced that public testimony would remain open on
HB 255.
[HB 255 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB302 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 302 |
| HB302 Fiscal Note DCCED CBPL 1.26.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 302 |
| HB302 Version A.PDF |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 302 |
| HB240 Supporting Documents-National Community Pharmacists Association Payments That Give You Fevers and Chills 1.29.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB255 Sectional Analysis 1.23.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255 ver O 1.23.18.PDF |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255 Sponsor Statement 1.23.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255 Fiscal Note DOLWD MI 1.26.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/2/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 255 |