Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2006 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB484 | |
| HB360 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 390 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 484 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 10, 2006
9:12 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 9:12:52 AM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Heath Hilyard, Staff, Representative Tom Anderson; Michael
Pawlowski, Staff, Co-Chair Meyer; Representative Peggy
Wilson; Linda Miller, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson;
Jerry McCune, United Fisherman's Association; Peter
Froehlich, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission;
Representative Norm Rokeberg; Kristin Ryan, Director,
Division of Environmental Health, Department of
Environmental Conservation
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Thomas Stratton, Alaska Rural Water Systems
SUMMARY
HB 484 "An Act allowing for revenue received from
issuance of additional entry permits to be
appropriated for reimbursement to salmon fishery
associations."
CSHB 484 (FSH) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with a new zero fiscal
note by the Department of Fish and Game.
HB 360 "An Act relating to the regulation of public
accommodation water supply systems."
HB 360 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 93 "An Act relating to dentists and dental hygienists
and the Board of Dental Examiners; establishing
certain committees for the discipline and peer
review of dentists; excluding the adjudicatory
proceedings of the Board of Dental Examiners and
its committees from the Administrative Procedure
Act and from the jurisdiction of the office of
administrative hearings; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 93 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 390 "An Act limiting the amount that a municipality
may charge for an appeal of a residential real
property tax assessment to the municipality's
board of equalization."
HB 390 was scheduled but not heard.
9:13:04 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 484
"An Act allowing for revenue received from issuance of
additional entry permits to be appropriated for
reimbursement to salmon fishery associations."
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, sponsor, introduced her staff.
LINDA MILLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, related
the history of HB 484. In 2002, the Alaska Legislature
created salmon fishery associations under AS 16.40.250 to
encourage fleet reduction in the Alaska salmon fisheries.
Salmon fishery associations may be formed in salmon
fisheries throughout the state to facilitate a permit buy
back program. This means that a group of fishermen may form
an association and vote to assess themselves for purposes of
Buying Back Salmon Permits in their fishery.
Ms. Miller explained that the Southeast Seiners have formed
an association to develop a buy back program for Southeast
seine permits. One of the questions raised by fishermen was
"What would happen if we assess ourselves to buy back these
permits then at some point in the future the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission sells permits back into the
fishery?" Their dilemma was that they wanted a guarantee
that they would get their money back if that actually
happened. HB 484 answers that question.
Ms. Miller reported that the CS for HB 484 that is before
the committee is a housekeeping measure to clarify what may
happen to the revenue if the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission should find it necessary to sell or re-issue
permits that have been relinquished under the buy back
program authorized under AS 16.40.250. This bill makes it
clear that in the unlikely event CFEC sells more permits
than were previously purchased by an association, the
legislature may appropriate money back to that association.
The change from the original version to the current CS is to
make it clear that the fishery association that actually did
the buy back is the fishery association that may receive the
payback. Under this bill the legislature may appropriate
revenue from the permit sale to the association that paid
money or incurred debt to remove the permit from the market
in the first place. The state or CFEC has the
responsibility to monitor each limited entry fishery. In
the event that CFEC determines more permits are needed in a
salmon fishery through an optimum number determination or
court action, the provisions of HB 484 would apply.
Ms. Miller stated that the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, who worked with the Southeast Seiners in
developing their association, supports this bill. Peter
Froehlich, Commissioner of CFEC, and Jerry McCune from the
United Fishermen of Alaska were available to answer any
questions. Ms. Miller requested support for the CS for HB
484 - Fishery Association Reimbursement.
9:17:07 AM
Representative Stoltz asked about self-funded buy backs. He
saw no clear separation for that.
PETER FROEHLICH, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION,
related that there is no limit in the bill as to the source
of the funds. Association funds used for the buy back could
be reimbursed under this bill.
Representative Stoltze noted that most buy back mechanisms
use federal funds. He said it appears that there is nothing
that would limit those federal funds from being paid back to
individual fishers. Mr. Froehlich replied that the
association could use federal funding, or self-assessment,
or a combination of the two. The legislature could later
reimburse the association, not the individual fishers.
Representative Wilson added that in this instance, they are
assessing themselves and borrowing the money to do it. She
stated no problem with clarifying the idea. Representative
Stoltze reported on a likely mechanism for funding. He
wanted to ensure that it is the intent of the bill to refund
the amount that the association has assessed.
Mr. Froehlich said that is the intent of the bill. It was
crafted with UFA and the Southeast Seiners, who are working
with Congress and Senator Stevens' office. Representative
Wilson added that when the association borrows money they
want to be sure they are reimbursed. Representative Stoltze
summarized that there are two parts in need of
reimbursement, self-assessment and federal funds.
9:24:18 AM
Representative Kerttula suggested that the money could be
used for other things to enhance the fishery if it is going
into the buy back. She did not see a concern because the
bill solves the problem and the money would go back to the
fishery. Representative Wilson agreed.
Mr. Froehlich added that the version of the language in
Congress considers it a federal loan where financing is
required. Representative Kerttula said that is even more of
a reason for the bill.
9:26:40 AM
Co-Chair Chenault asked what gives the impression that if
the association goes through a buy back provision, the state
would go back in and resell more permits. Representative
Wilson responded that has never been the case. The
association is nervous about taking this big step because of
the large amount of money. It is a "what if" statement.
Co-Chair Chenault voiced concern about it being a long time
into the future before any state department would want to
increase permits.
9:28:47 AM
Representative Weyhrauch asked what percent of the funds go
to permits.
JERRY MCCUNE, UNITED FISHERMAN'S ASSOCIATION, related that
the bill allows the association to create a committee, voted
on by the permit holders, to accept money or assess
themselves. He explained that if there was a buy back, they
could set a price for the permit. The only reason that they
would have to put permits back, would be like the case in
Sitka where they went to court and asked for more permits.
The judge ruled that a fishery could be made too exclusive.
If the association used their own money they would have the
opportunity to ask the legislature at a later date if they
could get any money back.
Mr. Froehlich related two possibilities for having to issue
more permits: setting an optimum number that is higher than
the number of permits reduced by the buy back, and a court
order. He addressed Representative Weyhrauch's concern.
All of the funding would go to permitees in the buy back.
9:32:18 AM
Representative Weyhrauch said it seems like it is a risk for
the state. If there is a challenge, then the fishers might
be in a position of having sold their permits and obtained
money. If permits have to be put back, there may be a legal
risk to the state. Mr. McCune thought a lawsuit would be
unlikely because the state can defend an optimum number.
There is also a provision to own two permits. He said he
could not guarantee there would be no lawsuit.
Representative Weyhrauch summarized it would have to be
equal to, or greater than, the optimum number set by the
commission. Mr. McCune agreed.
9:34:32 AM
Representative Stoltze asked if the salmon fisheries
association is made up of those that have limited entry
permits. Mr. Froehlich replied yes, commercial harvesters.
Representative Stoltze asked about concerns related to
conservation and sport fishing. Mr. Froehlich said he is
not aware of any mechanism that would allow others to
participate in a buy back. Representative Stoltze thought
there might be others interested in participating in a buy
back. He wondered if that would be a policy concern. Mr.
Froehlich said it is a policy question beyond the scope of
the bill.
Mr. McCune responded that only permit holders could
participate in the buy back. Representative Stoltze
commented that the association does not want anyone else to
participate. Mr. McCune responded that the permit holders
are the ones that are going to be assessed. Representative
Stoltze noted a reluctance to provide a mechanism. He asked
about buy backs and conservation.
Representative Kerttula noted that there needs to be an
optimum number of permits. She said a theoretical risk is
always there. She noted that sport fishing does not fit
into the commercial fisheries entry. Representative Stoltze
maintained that it is hard to separate them.
9:40:11 AM
Representative Weyhrauch suggested a three-part process for
sport fishers to participate. Mr. Froehlich said that is
accurate since the bill refers to associations qualified
under AS 216.42.50.
Representative Stoltze shared some discomfort but said it is
not his intent to bog down the bill.
Representative Weyhrauch spoke about conflicts between user
groups with a limited resource. He suggested involving all
regions by having a broad policy such as this one.
9:43:20 AM
Representative Kelly voiced a concern about a person with
the intent to shut down the fisheries in order to limit the
market. Mr. McClune reported that only permit holders can
form an association, so that is not a danger. No one has to
sell a permit. The association is trying to reduce permits
for those who want to get out of the fishery.
9:45:32 AM
Representative Kelly asked if there is a danger of a cartel.
Mr. McCune explained market limitations. Representative
Weyhrauch noted that last year the commercial fisheries
entry commission tried to amend provisions of those statutes
that dealt with a moratorium. This bill is a vehicle for
fixing an unworkable statute.
Co-Chair Chenault stated that it is a voluntary buy back
program.
9:48:51 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted a new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Fish and Game.
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, explained
that the House Special Committee on Fisheries drafted fiscal
note #1. She has requested a new zero note by Department of
Fish and Game.
9:50:49 AM
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 484 (FSH) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 484 (FSH) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a new zero fiscal note by the
Department of Fish and Game.
9:51:29 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 360
"An Act relating to the regulation of public
accommodation water supply systems."
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, STAFF, CO-CHAIR MEYER, testified that HB
360 grew out of the Department of Environmental
Conservation's (DEC) subcommittee budget process. The State
of Alaska regulates drinking water systems that are above a
Class C well, one that serves less than 25 people. He
explained that Class C wells were removed from regulation
because of funding issues and because the program was too
broad. He stated that these types of wells pertain to
private homes. He noted that the committee became concerned
in the differentiation between private homes and more public
access areas. He stressed that drinking water was the
foundation of public health. The bill is intended to set
standards for wells that serve the general public. He
pointed out the revised fiscal note from the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Co-Chair Meyer asked what kinds of small wells would serve
the public. Mr. Pawlowski commented that small restaurants
would be such an example. Co-Chair Meyer noted that there
was no regulation for wells serving fewer than 25 people,
and that this was a problem when a small well served a
public day care or other small public facility.
9:55:14 AM
Mr. Pawlowski noted that requesting an annual test of a
drinking water source was a reasonable practice. He
stressed that the state ought be part of the oversight for
public drinking water.
9:56:00 AM
Representative Kelly expressed concern over adding
regulations when a responsible operator might meet the
requirements in any case. He asked if there was a way to
avoid such a costly program. He expressed concern that
adding an entirely new program might be overly expensive for
the state.
Mr. Pawlowski responded that in creating the fiscal note,
cost had been a concern. He also noted that this issue
pertains to nearly 3 thousand wells in the state of Alaska.
He urged that this was also a policy statement, and that the
costs in the fiscal note were as conservative as possible.
Representative Kelly cited experience in dealing with the
standards of drinking water and various water sources. He
again expressed concern over having regulations at this
smaller level. He noted that risks existed and citizens had
the right to pursue a civil law suit. He also noted that it
might place another burden on small businesses.
Co-Chair Meyer observed that one should assume that water
for a nursing home or day care is kept clean and safe.
Representative Stoltze asked if the RCA office has dealt
with this issue. He cited experiences with the RCA and the
costs involved, and wondered if this would be detrimental to
smaller businesses. He explained that there were many such
small businesses in his district, already burdened with
costs and regulations. He asked how this would help those
businesses.
Mr. Pawlowski stated that this regulation affects only those
small wells serving less than 25 people, which is smaller
than most small business, and not an actual water system.
Representative Stoltze noted that it might affect a small
subdivision in the more rural pockets of even larger cities.
He expressed reluctance to have DEC visiting these small
areas.
10:03:26 AM
Representative Holm asked if there had been a case of
illness that caused the change, or rather just an
examination of the regulations. Mr. Pawlowski noted
discussions in the Resources Committee of cases when illness
had developed, potentially from these types of water
sources. He pointed out the Public Health funding contained
in the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Chenault sought clarification for the types of
businesses affected by this legislation. He observed that
any business that was not a private home would fall under
this regulation.
10:05:12 AM
Mr. Pawlowski deferred to the director of the Department to
answer this question.
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, testified
regarding the legislation. She stated that it required
regulation of small public facilities, and not water systems
that serve private homes, such as a subdivision, unless one
of those homes was providing a public service, such as day
care. There are a variety of public services captured under
this legislation. She estimated there were 3,000 wells of
this size that serve the public in some way.
10:07:42 AM
Ms. Ryan noted that two years ago, the regulations stated
that if water was from a surface water system, it should be
approved by an engineer, and tested for substances annually,
as well as being designed by a certified engineer. She
acknowledged that the fiscal note had been controversial.
However, she emphasized that the public should feel
protected with safe water. She noted this would require
four personnel for adequate testing for the current number
of small public wells.
10:09:34 AM
In regard to whether there were cases of illness, she stated
that it was difficult to actually prove the reason for some
sickness. She stated it was indeed a risk.
Co-Chair Meyer asked how many of the 3,000 wells were in
Anchorage. She noted that a large percentage, about half,
of public wells are in Anchorage.
10:10:57 AM
Representative Holm observed that the definition of a public
accommodation in statute reads: "and all other public
amusement and business establishments".
Ms. Ryan interpreted that to mean gas stations and office
buildings, and any facilities that provide business to the
public and have drinking water. She noted that the Resource
Committee discussed circumstances when an individual might
provide services out of their home.
10:12:33 AM
Representative Holm stated that he did not believe it was
important for the Department to interpret the statute, but
rather how the law might be misinterpreted.
Ms. Ryan acknowledged that interpretation would be subject
to individual regulators.
Representative Holm expressed that this bill might be going
too far into controlling water systems. He observed that
the definition contained lack of clarity, and he expressed
reservation about making changes through regulations.
10:14:43 AM
Ms. Ryan cited an example of how to write regulations that
meet the intent of the legislation.
Mr. Pawlowski acknowledged that a similar broad definition
of public accommodation was examined in a bill regarding
pesticides last year. He read from the definition, and
pointed out that it only pertains to a place that serves the
general public.
Representative Holm observed that the Second Amendment was
written to protect citizens from the government.
Co-Chair Meyer stressed that the regulations should match
the intent of the bill. He suggested that AS 188.300 be
examined to ensure that "public accommodation" was the
proper reference.
10:16:37 AM
Representative Stoltze asked if this legislation is
intended to supplant or to enhance the existing regulations.
Ms. Ryan responded that smaller water systems were usually
regulated in other jurisdictions and by local governments,
but she pointed out that Anchorage currently does not
regulate Class C wells. They do regulate private wells if
someone is selling a private residence.
Representative Stoltze pointed out that he does not see a
safety valve that would allow a local government to
substitute its regulations. He cited that the Department of
Environmental Conservation could be fairly stringent and
place undue burden on private individuals and small
businesses. He noted that running a gas station in a more
remote area was already difficult, and wondered what
protections existed for them. He stated that this kind of
regulation was onerous for such business. He opined that
the definition of public accommodations was too broad in
this case.
Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged that the definition caused
concern, and wondered if there was a way to add a greater
comfort with this issue.
10:20:38 AM
Ms. Ryan proposed that there were some exemptions in
regulations, and that smaller facilities other than day care
centers and other high-risk facilities would have less
onerous regulations.
Ms. Ryan added that the regulations were testing for very
serious elements in the water.
10:22:10 AM
Representative Kelly observed that the bill was sponsored by
request, but reiterated his concern over the fiscal note,
and adding a level of oversight to an area that is already
regulated. He cited an example in his area where a water
system of another size was put in, and people were unable to
drink the water due to a federal regulation. Then a new
level of arsenic was decided and the people were told they
could not bathe in the water. He pointed out the current
budgetary problems faced by the state, and questioned the
value of adding more regulatory activity with a large added
cost. He suggested they ought to seek ways to cut the costs
of regulations and reduce the burden to smaller businesses.
10:25:17 AM
Co-Chair Meyer stressed that those in a day care center or
senior center ought to be able to rely upon water quality.
He noted that a cost was required for this surety. He
stated the desire to hold the bill in order to re-examine
the fiscal note and cut costs.
Ms. Ryan pointed out that there were currently no standards
for the water systems in question.
Representative Kelly pointed out that the reason the state
did not regulate water systems for private homes was because
citizens would complain bitterly. He suggested that the
Committee ought to examine the cost of compliance with this
regulation.
10:28:15 AM
THOMAS STRATTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA RURAL WATER
ASSOCIATION, testified that his association is a non-profit
that provides training and technical assistance to small
water systems. He expressed thanks for the desire to
provide safe drinking water in more rural areas. He cited
his own experience in building a home and creating a safe
water system, and his desire to trust the safety of water at
a local day care center.
10:29:43 AM
He referred to the definition of public accommodation, and
stated his belief that the Department had done an excellent
job with language. He applauded the legislature for
addressing this issue and the Department of Environmental
Conservation for working with concerns.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if one did become ill from drinking
water at a public accommodation, whether the state was
liable for not providing adequate regulation. Mr. Stratton
stated he was not able to address liability. Co-Chair Meyer
presumed that one would first approach the private business
and then the state.
Mr. Stratton noted an example of individuals dying from
drinking from a water supply, and supposed there could be
lawsuits in the future.
Representative Hawker MOVED Amendment 1, labeled 24-
LS1468\A.5, Bullock, 4/7/06.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for purposes of discussion.
Representative Hawker MOVED to amend Amendment 1, to change
line 20 from "is used as" to "may be". There was NO
OBJECTION to the motion to amend Amendment 1, therefore it
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG spoke to Amendment 1. He
related that there are over 3,000 homes that are served by
various types of wells in his district. He stressed the
importance of water regulation in the state. He explained
that Amendment 1 asks the Department to adopt regulations to
protect exposed water aquifers. It requires a fee to be
paid by a property developer who is developing around an
exposed aquifer that resulted from previous mining activity.
The bill is not intended to be special legislation, but
applicable to all areas of the state.
Representative Rokeberg gave an example from his district.
He stressed that there is a complete breakdown of regulatory
authority because the local municipality is looking to DEC
to take responsibility and vice versa. Over 200 people with
separate wells would be subjected to the activity revolving
around the development.
Representative Rokeberg referred to the amendment to
Amendment 1 on line 20 as being necessary because that has
been the point of contention between the DEC and the city of
Anchorage. He highlighted frustrations around access issues
and noted three years of dealing with DEC on the matter. He
pointed out that the fees will be paid by the developer and
should offset costs.
10:39:46 AM
Representative Rokeberg warned the committee to look at
private fiscal notes that result in costs to the private
sector. He emphasized that there is an expectation by the
public that public accommodations should have safe drinking
water. The RCA only handles economic regulation, not water
quality issues. He stressed that there are times to accept
some of the costs that go with the constitutional
responsibility toward public safety. This is such an
exception.
10:42:27 AM
Representative Hawker followed through with the intent of
Amendment 1. He questioned if "containing an exposed
aquifer" were the appropriate words to use. He suggested
"development on property affected by an exposed aquifer".
Representative Rokeberg related that the exposed aquifer has
to be a pre-existing condition. Representative Hawker asked
if the intent is that it must be a development that
surrounds and contains an aquifer, not downstream of the
aquifer. Representative Rokeberg said it could be within
100 feet of it. He spoke about contaminated water during
the development of the subdivisions. Representative Hawker
responded that the language reads that the "development must
contain the aquifer and must not be within 100 feet".
Representative Hawker referred to line 11 and line 14,
"property containing". Representative Rokeberg suggested
"adjacent to". Representative Hawker suggested "affected
by". Representative Rokeberg agreed.
10:46:53 AM
Representative Kerttula spoke of a concern with the words
regarding no improvements within 100 feet. She asked when
the construction should have started. Representative
Rokeberg said it would be a pre-existing condition.
Representative Kerttula attempted clarification.
10:48:20 AM
Representative Hawker proposed to change lines 11 and 14 to
read "property within 100 feet of an exposed aquifer" in
place of "containing and".
Representative Kerttula suggested changing lines 21-23.
Co-Chair Meyer suggested that the bill be set aside to have
the amendments re-written.
10:50:48 AM
Representative Kelly asked about if the area is regulated by
Anchorage. Representative Rokeberg replied that the only
regulation involves testing the water. Representative Kelly
asked if they could choose to regulate it. Representative
Rokeberg said he believes so. Representative Kelly
suggested that sometimes locals don't want regulation
responsibility. He suggested a separate bill.
HB 360 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
10:52:13 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to dentists and dental hygienists and
the Board of Dental Examiners; establishing certain
committees for the discipline and peer review of
dentists; excluding the adjudicatory proceedings of the
Board of Dental Examiners and its committees from the
Administrative Procedure Act and from the jurisdiction
of the office of administrative hearings; and providing
for an effective date."
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT the work draft to HB
93, labeled 24-LS0384\3, Mischel, 3/1/06. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HEATH HILYARD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM ANDERSON, explained
changes in the new CS. The bill establishes a peer review
committee and process for disciplinary sanctions against
dentists and dental hygienists. Over the last year a number
of amendments were developed. Members of the Alaska Dental
Society brought the bill to the sponsor's attention,
regarding the disciplinary review process. He referred to a
"Summary of Changes" packet in the members' files (copy on
file). The changes found in the new CS are on page 4, lines
19-27, page 5, line 30, page 7, lines 2-7, page 7, line 12,
page 9, line 14, page 9, line 26, page 9, line 30, page 10,
line 14, and page 10, line 23.
HB 93 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 390
"An Act limiting the amount that a municipality may
charge for an appeal of a residential real property tax
assessment to the municipality's board of
equalization."
HB 390 was scheduled but not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|