02/25/2004 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 25, 2004
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 428
"An Act relating to civil liability for acts related to
obtaining alcohol for persons under 21 years of age or for
persons under 21 years of age being on licensed premises."
- MOVED HB 428 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 430
"An Act relating to employees under 21 years of age in the
premises of hotels, restaurants, and eating places that are
licensed to sell, serve, deliver, or dispense alcoholic
beverages."
- MOVED HB 430 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 402
"An Act relating to fees for the inspection of recreational
devices, for certificates of fitness for electrical wiring and
plumbing, for filing voluntary flexible work hour plans, and for
licenses for boiler operators; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 428
SHORT TITLE: CIVIL PENALTY: UNDERAGE ALCOHOL PURCHASES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MEYER
02/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/04 (H) L&C, JUD
02/25/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 430
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYEES UNDER 21 AT LICENSED PREMISES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KERTTULA
02/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/04 (H) L&C, JUD
02/25/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 402
SHORT TITLE: LABOR & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FEES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/28/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/04 (H) L&C, FIN
02/25/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 428.
O.C. MADDEN, Owner
Brown Jug
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 428.
DOUGLAS B. GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 428, testified in
support of efforts to combat underage drinking, saying the bill
could be an effective tool for that; testified in support of HB
430.
CINDY CASHEN
MADD Alaska Chapters [Mothers Against Drunk Driving]
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that her organization supports HB
428.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 430.
AURORA HAUKE, Staff
to Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 430 on behalf of
Representative Kerttula, sponsor.
HERB FREER, Owner
The Broiler Restaurant
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 430.
GREG O'CLARAY, Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 402 on behalf of the governor
and answered questions.
GREY MITCHELL, Director
Division of Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 402.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m.
Representatives Rokeberg, Lynn, Crawford, and Guttenberg were
present at the call to order. Representative Gatto arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 428-CIVIL PENALTY: UNDERAGE ALCOHOL PURCHASES
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 428, "An Act relating to civil
liability for acts related to obtaining alcohol for persons
under 21 years of age or for persons under 21 years of age being
on licensed premises."
Number 0085
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 428, testified:
This bill is a good example of private industry
working with [nonprofits] to help the whole community
and the state without any government intervention.
What this bill does is allow civil action of up to
$1,000 to be applied against an adult who is trying to
buy [alcohol] for people under age 21, and also allows
for a civil fine up to $1,000 for kids who try to get
an adult to buy alcoholic beverages for them
"underage."
This bill was actually brought to my attention by the
Anchorage Assembly and by Brown Jug liquor [store]. I
think Brown Jug is on line to testify. The Anchorage
Assembly has passed this bill, and when I was on the
Anchorage Assembly, we passed a similar bill to this
for kids who tried to use fake IDs [identification].
Then allowing ... Brown Jug and Chilkoots to take
action, I guess, up to $1,000. This one goes
specifically for the adults who are buying for the
kids, and/or kids who are trying to get adults to buy
for them.
Number 0203
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER continued:
[House Bill 428] ... is a combination of Brown Jug
working with nonprofits because the $1,000 fine that
these kids or adults are assessed will be waived, if
they agree to go to this intervention training, which
is about a 16-hour training. I think what we're going
to hear today from Brown Jug - who is, for the most
part, the only liquor licensee who is using this
particular program - is that a lot of people are
taking advantage of that, which is a good thing. Now
they are getting education from MADD [Mothers Against
Drunk Driving], as well as (indisc.), and Brown Jug.
The success of the program has been very good in
Anchorage, and you will hear from Brown Jug that they
have had over 900 cases that they have actually
brought against kids or adults.... You've probably
heard of the "hey mister" where a kid is trying to
"tag down" someone to go buy beer for them.
[Representative Rokeberg], you in particular are aware
of this, that this is a problem - adults buying for
minors. ... I think you brought it up to the felony
level, which is where it belongs. Unfortunately, 40
percent of the time, kids are still able to get people
to buy booze for them. Theoretically, you could be
sitting at the 7-Eleven [convenience store] lot and
every third person you ask will still buy booze for
you.
Number 0337
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER continued:
Programs like this help in the sense that it's all
done on the civil side; it's outside the criminal
side. A person doesn't even have to be prosecuted on
the criminal side for the Brown Jug or other liquor
licenses to take civil action against these folks.
Almost all of [the fine] is waived, up to $700, if
they agree to go to the training put on by these
various nonprofits.... All this is being done without
any government intervention and, because of that, I've
asked for your support on this.
Frankly, we just don't have enough police officers in
this state to enforce the laws that we have,
especially the liquor laws. The more private industry
that we can get helping us, like Brown Jug, who is
willing to go after these adults and kids who are
trying to buy [alcohol], the better off our whole
community and, I think, our state will be.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that he did not make [the
violation of law that Representative Meyer had referred to in
his testimony, minor in possession] a felony; he changed it from
a violation to a misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated he had referred to buying for a
minor as being a felony.
Number 0427
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Carl
Gatto.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for clarification on the types of
penalties that would come into effect with the passage of this
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied that a criminal penalty applies for
an adult buying a minor alcoholic beverages and a civil penalty
would apply if this bill passes. He also noted that it's
difficult to prove the felony, but less difficult to prove the
civil case. He stated:
They catch these guys on camera, or they catch the
kids out in the car waiting for the adults to come
back out and hand the booze to them. A lot of times,
that alone is enough for them to take civil action.
Again, I think you'll hear that rather than paying the
$1,000 civil action, the adult who is buying for the
kids will just go through this intervention training
program put on by MADD, and (indisc.), and other
nonprofits.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if the licensee could suffer civil
damages.
Number 0573
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied:
If you knowingly sold to a minor, it could be pretty
severe penalties to the liquor establishment that does
that. Again, Brown Jug would be better to say. In my
experience on the assembly, if that happened, there's
a good chance that their license would not get
renewed, and, of course, economic heartache.
What happens here is that Brown Jug could go ahead and
take the civil action of up to $1,000, which the court
lets them do now. The Anchorage Assembly has already
passed this. This is law, a municipal ordinance in
Anchorage. They could keep that full $1,000, but
their intent is not to make money off of this program.
Their intent is to educate - especially these young
kids, the minors, who are trying to get the booze - of
the harmful effects, or potentially harmful effects,
of drinking underage.
They are also trying to teach the older people who are
buying for the kids that you should not do that. They
don't make any money in the process. In fact, they
are waiving $700. I imagine they probably keep $50 or
$100 there just for their administrative costs to file
the civil suit. The rest goes to the nonprofits to
put on the 16-hour [program].
Number 0680
O.C. MADDEN, Owner, Brown Jug, Anchorage, testified:
We approached Representative Meyer with this bill
because it's been so effective here in Anchorage.
I've had requests from other parts of the state
wondering when something like this was going to be
available for them to use. I got a request from a
licensee in Fairbanks, in particular, after they read
an article in the paper about the program we'd
instituted in Anchorage. We decided we would approach
Representative Meyer and see if he would sponsor this.
What the problem is that we're seeing is (indisc.)
percent of the people are approached by total
strangers in the parking lot to buy alcohol for
minors. We deal with those sorts of situations on a
regular basis. What we look for, we've put together
some profiles of people that like to buy for minors,
or profile transactions that we look for. We conduct
surveillance with trained security personnel, then
intervene in these matters, and conduct interviews
with the people involved to determine if they are
actually purchasing for minors. If they are, we
proceed from there.
Number 0725
MR. MADDEN continued:
We've determined there's basically three types of
people, three categories of people, that buy for
minors. There's the friends and siblings, that sort
of thing. Public inebriates make up a big group,
[since it's] easy to get them to buy for minors.
Then, disturbingly, we find a pretty substantial
number of the people we arrest for these crimes are
sex offenders with minors, and they're purchasing
alcohol for them.
We're using this right now in conjunction with Akeela
[House], Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and STAR
[Standing Together Against Rape]. We will waive $700
of the civil penalty if they will go ahead, sign up,
and successfully complete these classes. We're
getting a really good response right back. Virtually
all of the kids have signed up for the classes. We've
got a few adults that have not signed up for the
classes. One, I believe, is incarcerated and a couple
others, we're going to actually go through the whole
process, and go after the civil penalty and small
claims with them....
Number 0796
MR. MADDEN continued:
Representative Meyer made reference to 900 cases.
We've had over 900 cases of fraudulent ID seized.
We've got a little over 120, I think, so far, in the
last couple of years, of these third-party purchases
that we proceeded in.
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked Mr. Madden to explain how he is able to
profile his customers.
MR. MADDEN replied:
What we look for is a profile situation. ... The
perfect profile situation would be a car that's parked
behind the building, when there's parking available
directly in front of the door. There are minors in
the vehicle, and there's an adult in the store that's
buying multiple products. He's got a six-pack of
Budweiser, a four-pack of wine coolers, a bottle of
this, a bottle of that. He's clearly buying for more
than one person, and the vehicle is parked in such a
manner that it's pretty suspicious. Those are the
type of situations that we see where we initiate
interviews.
Number 0920
DOUGLAS B. GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
("ABC" Board), Department of Public Safety, testified that he
thought this bill could be an effective tool in combating
underage drinking and that the ABC Board was supportive of any
efforts to advance that goal.
Number 0979
CINDY CASHEN, MADD Alaska Chapters [Mothers Against Drunk
Driving], representing the Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su and
Juneau Chapters of MADD, testified that her organization
supports HB 428. She stated:
We support House Bill 428, as it will assist in the
prevention of underage drinking. Representative
Meyer's bill will provide a tool to Alaskan liquor
licensees, and empower responsible businesses to
participate in community policing. Each week in
Alaska, courtrooms hear from our teens who are able to
successfully obtain alcohol that they were able to get
it from shoulder taps or, like Representative Meyer
called them, "Mister Wouldyas". Basically, they
[underage youth] go up and say, "Mister, would you buy
me some booze?" [They do this] often for little or no
cost at all. I have sat in those courtrooms and
listened to teen after teen, and the judges usually
question where did they get the alcohol. They say, "I
don't know" or "It was someone walking into the
store." They'll ask how much did it cost, and [the
underage youth will] say "$5," "nothing," "$1."
I have the Alaska youth risk-behavior study from 2003,
in which 42 schools from 19 districts with 2,175
completed questionnaires were handed in. According to
the YRBS [Youth Risk Behavior Survey], 38.7 percent of
teenagers who completed this survey claimed that they
had at least one drink in the 30 days prior; 26.5
percent claimed that they had binged, that they had
consumed five or more drinks within a couple of hours
in the 30 days prior to the survey. It's pretty high;
it's over 45 percent of the students who completed
this survey.
In comparison, 29.9 percent of Alaskan adults reported
binge drinking one or more times in the past month.
The kids are right up there with the adults, already.
This survey also showed that 23.2 percent of Alaska
high school students had their first drink of alcohol
before the age of 13.
House Bill 428 will deter those who might otherwise
consider contributing to Alaska's minor-consuming
problem, and punish those who feel it's a right of
passage, or they're going to do it anyway. Providing
alcohol to minors results, as you all know, in
senseless tragedies: drunk driving, burglaries,
assault, rape, death by alcohol poisoning - I could go
on and on.
This is a good bill, and like Representative Meyer
said, it doesn't involve government, there's no cost
to it, and it's empowering members of our community.
We strongly support [HB 428], and we're glad to see
that the Brown Jug brought it before Representative
Meyer.
Number 1146
VICE CHAIR GATTO mentioned an experience that he had while
teaching in a classroom, which involved a drunken student.
MS. CASHEN responded:
The studies show that people who begin drinking at an
early age are four times more likely to become
alcoholics or have serious alcohol problems. So, the
longer we can keep them from drinking, the better. I
want to add that this summer I received a phone call
from an employee of a successful liquor store in
Juneau. He had been employed there, and currently is,
for over a decade. He was frustrated because they are
having the same problem that Brown Jug sees, and there
was nothing they could do. He wanted to know if there
was anything that MADD knew of that could empower them
to stop [the problem].
Usually, it was older, about 21- to 25-year-old-men,
who were purchasing alcohol for young, teenage girls.
The girls would be parked across the street, exactly
as Mr. Madden described. They would even accuse the
person, and sometimes they were brave enough to kick
the person out who was attempting to buy [alcohol].
The guy would just say, "I'm just going to go buy it
somewhere else." This [bill] would make a big
difference.
Number 1251
VICE CHAIR GATTO said, "If it was just because the kids got
drunk, that would be one issue, but sometimes they trade sexual
favors for this, and then the consequences are forever."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 428 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 428 was reported from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 430-EMPLOYEES UNDER 21 AT LICENSED PREMISES
VICE CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 430, "An Act relating to employees under 21
years of age in the premises of hotels, restaurants, and eating
places that are licensed to sell, serve, deliver, or dispense
alcoholic beverages."
Number 1327
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
stated that her staff, Aurora Hauke, would introduce HB 430 on
her behalf.
Number 1348
AURORA HAUKE, Staff to Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska
State Legislature, testified:
This bill deals with the employment of people under 21
in hotels and restaurants that are licensed to serve
alcoholic beverages. Currently, 16-, 17-, and 18-
year-olds can work in these establishments with
permission of their parents. They need to get a work
permit signed. 19 and 20-year-olds do not need
parental permission.
This bill would allow 18-year-olds to work without
parental permission as well, since they have reached
the age of majority. They would still not be able to
deal with the alcohol, as nobody under 21 would be
able to. This change would correct some of the
deterrents that 18-year-olds have in finding gainful
employment in restaurants. It has been pointed out,
that it would increase the prospective labor pool as
well for employers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for clarification on page 1, lines
6-14.
MS. HAUKE replied:
The first page, line 6 through 14, used to say
"between 16 and 19", meaning 16-, 17- and 18-year-
olds. This is the section that requires them to get a
work permit. On page 2, the section lines 2 through 6
is the portion where they don't need a work permit.
What we've done is moved the 18-year-olds from the
first paragraph to the second paragraph.
Number 1517
Douglas B. GRIFFIN, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC
Board"), Department of Public Safety, testified:
There's plenty of protection, we believe, for underage
people. We are dealing with the 18-year-olds. The
way that language -- I don't think bill drafters do
that "between 16 and 19" anymore. That probably was
an in-artful way of drafting that language. For the
most part, I'm glad that's being removed. But we are
looking at focusing on 16- and 17-year-olds: [they]
would still be required to have written parental
consent to get a work permit from the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development. We work with that
department, and if paperwork is in order when we do
inspections of licensed premises that do employ
underage people, we do make sure that that paperwork
is in order.
This really does focus on just that very narrow
segment of 18-year-olds. We have run across some
instances and cases where 18-year-olds are out on
their own. They really have no connection with
parents, and to secure parental permission sometimes
is difficult because they are out of state, their
parents are in another state, or whatever. So, we do
believe that they are basically adults for most
things, except for purchasing tobacco and alcohol.
But for a lot of other things in terms of being able
to enter into contracts, and being treated as adults
for purposes of being able to exercise their right to
vote, and many other things, they are adults.
We think that there are still plenty of protections.
In light of the bill that the committee has just heard
from Representative Meyer, there's still plenty of
protection to prevent access to alcohol by underage
persons. This bill does clean up a little anomaly
that exists between our alcoholic beverage laws and
the laws for the Department of Labor [& Workforce
Development].
We think that this is a good fix, a good change, that
it won't create any more opportunities for underage
abuse of alcohol in these work situations.
MR. GRIFFIN completed his testimony by giving background on the
restaurant-like environment required for underage employment.
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked if Mr. Griffin got complaints from people
about the working or dining environments.
MR. GRIFFIN replied:
An area that's clearly a bar, where there really isn't
much food, that's a no-brainer. You're always going
to have a few, sort of, on the cusp. We do things
like segregate where people can work, that the
underage person can work in the dining room, in the
kitchen, for example.... We do try to keep them out of
that setting that would appear, to the most reasonable
people, to be a bar.
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to a question from Vice Chair Gatto,
said his inspectors do work with owners and let them know what
is needed to be in compliance.
Number 1830
HERB FREER, Owner, The Broiler Restaurant, Juneau, testified in
support of HB 430. He gave an example from his hiring
experience of an 18-year-old who had come through the foster
care system, no longer had a legal guardian, but could get no
one to sign his work permit. He stated that the law needed to
be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Freer if he had a beverage or
beer and wine license.
MR. FREER replied he had a beer and wine license.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that HB 430 made common sense.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that the statutes appeared to
be "the government and the Department of Labor [& Workforce
Development] protecting the workforce from itself, and I'm glad
to see this bill come forward."
Number 2004
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HB 430 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 430 was referred from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 402-LABOR & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FEES
VICE CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 402, "An Act relating to fees for the
inspection of recreational devices, for certificates of fitness
for electrical wiring and plumbing, for filing voluntary
flexible work hour plans, and for licenses for boiler operators;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 2044
GREG O'CLARAY, Commissioner, Department of Labor & Workforce
Development, presented HB 402 on behalf of the governor and
answered questions. He also introduced Grey Mitchell, Director
of the Division of Labor Standards & Safety, who would be
available for questions. Commissioner O'Claray testified:
Mr. Gatto, I'm here protecting the workers against
themselves, as indicated in the prior bill.... With
respect to this particular bill, I am following the
administration's belief that users of these services
should bear a portion of the cost. This bill you have
before you delineates some additional increases in
fees for various certificates and activities
undertaken by the department, on behalf of those folks
that are accessing the services ...
Number 2128
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this bill was a revenue-raising
device and questioned, "Why are we increasing these fees on the
workers of Alaska?"
COMMISSIONER O'CLARAY stated:
We are increasing some fees on some workers,
commensurate with the cost to the department to
perform the services. Our main approach here is to
try to make some of these services we provide cost-
neutral to state government, except in one particular
case, and that is the $100 fee for the filing of flex
plans, the increases are pretty much commensurate with
inflation and (indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was glad Commissioner O'Claray
had pointed that out.
Number 2189
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD recalled testimony in years past
regarding inspections and there being a problem with having an
adequate number of inspectors. He asked if raising the fees as
proposed in HB 402 would allow for an increase in inspectors.
Number 2300
GREY MITCHELL, Director, Labor Standards & Safety, Department of
Labor & Workforce Development, testified:
The costs to operate the mechanical inspection program
include inspections for boilers, inspections for
electrical systems, plumbing systems; all come from
one account. Right now, there is insufficient revenue
in that account to fund some of the positions that we
currently have, and to fund our needs in terms of
electrical inspections.
Right now, we only have one electrical inspector for
the state, and with the additional revenues that this
bill creates, we plan to create a statewide electrical
inspection force, if you will. Right now, we have a
vacancy that we're keeping open in Juneau ... because
we don't have the revenue to pay for that position.
We're planning on filling that position and
establishing a new position, which you will see in the
fiscal note, which we plan to station in Fairbanks.
That way, we'll have ... statewide coverage because
right now, we have an inspector in Wasilla.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for clarification on how the funds
resulting from the fees would be accounted for.
MR. MITCHELL replied:
This question gets to be a bit complicated. I'm not a
financial wizard in the workings of the state. As I
understand it, there's a statute that creates
authority for revenues that are produced through
inspections to be deposited into a "subfund" in the
general fund. It's not statutorily designated or
protected, so to speak. It's off on its own in a
separate pot to allow for some more, I don't know,
credibility in how those funds are used.
... If you're going to charge people for a service, a
lot of times they want to know that those funds are
going to be used for their benefit. If we're talking
about ... fees for boilers, those people who are being
charged a fee want to know that they're going to get
adequate services in boiler inspection.
In this case, where we're increasing fees for
certificates-of-fitness, the primary revenue
generator, we're talking about enforcing the
certificate of fitness requirements for electricians
and plumbers throughout the state. Those groups are
people who currently have those certificates [and]
tend to support that kind of approach. So, I don't
know if I've explained it.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said, "This fund is in the general fund; it
doesn't really have a fence around it."
MR. MITCHELL stated that was correct.
VICE CHAIR GATTO noted that the University of Alaska has tuition
that goes directly back to the university, unlike these funds
that go into the general fund but are held "harmless."
TAPE 04-18, SIDE B
Number 2374
MR. MITCHELL stated: "As I understand it, this is a portion of
the general fund; it's part of a sub account within the general
fund."
COMMISSIONER O'CLARAY added, "Actually, it's called a building
safety account."
Number 2364
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the sectional analysis of HB
402:
In Section 2 it says you have a $200 fee for a license
as a boiler operator. In the sectional [analysis] it
says $200 for a three-year license. Is that what it
says in the statute? It doesn't say anything in the
bill about three years.
MR. MITCHELL replied, "The three-year license duration is in
regulation."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated:
That's not good - not if you want to change it for the
statute and don't even have a term of it in the
statute. That's not a very good idea, is it? From a
bureaucrat's standpoint, you don't care, but from a
legislative [standpoint], I guess we care. It's
easier for us to fix a statute than it is a
regulation. I guess I have a concern about that.
[In the] Section 3 language, are there certificates of
fitness? I'm trying to see what they relate to. It's
Chapter 62, certificates of fitness, and then in the
fiscal note it says this is for both mechanical and
electrical inspectors. So, it seems to me, your
sectional [analysis] says you are redoing building
code inspections in non-municipal areas without
building inspectors now, both electrical and
mechanical inspectors.
Number 2270
MR. MITCHELL replied that the jurisdiction for state laws, with
respect to plumbing and electrical work, is statewide. He
stated that his division does not generally do the inspections
within municipalities where there are inspectors to perform
those inspections.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if his division was doing them
outside the municipalities.
MR. MITCHELL replied that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested clarification about the
division's building inspections in non-organized areas.
MR. MITCHELL replied, "Generally, the codes only apply to
certain types of projects. Residential projects are excluded.
I believe it's anything more than a four-plex."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for clarifications about the
certificates of fitness. He said:
I'm kind of confused because you're talking about, in
the sectional [analysis] here, having mechanical and
electrical inspectors, and here, you're charging the
journeymen and apprentices in that program to increase
their fees. I don't get it.
COMMISSIONER O'CLARAY replied:
In the sectional [analysis], we're indicating where
the revenue is being generated from, and what it's
intended to be used for. In the bill itself, the
adjustment to the fees is an increase from the current
$160 to $200 for the certificate of fitness for
journeymen level for, I believe, it's both of those,
electricians and plumbers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated:
I guess I'm not getting it. If building code
inspections for larger commercial style, above four
plex buildings, are we not charging for those
inspections sufficiently to offset the cost of those
services?
COMMISSIONER O'CLARAY replied, "Apparently not. The raising of
this fee will generate sufficient revenue for us to."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this bill covered all trades;
did all journeyman trainees have to acquire certificates of
fitness, regardless of their trades?
COMMISSIONER O'CLARAY replied:
Under the statutes, a journeyman electrician, in order
to practice his or her trade in the state of Alaska,
or a journeyman plumber, must be certified or have a
certificate of fitness issued by the (indisc.), which
means they have to meet certain criteria....
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if anyone from organized labor was
going to testify.
VICE CHAIR GATTO noted that the one witness from organized labor
had exited the room.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he was concerned and said,
"It seems to me, if I was a member and had to have a certificate
of fitness, I'd be upset about this."
MR. MITCHELL replied:
These fees have been paid for a number of years by
electricians and plumbers who are certified in their
trades. The last time these fees were increased was
in 1993. We have seen increases in our costs, and
this program is not just the inspections, there's also
the testing of the applicants and the issuing of the
certificates.
[Due to technical difficulties the remaining log numbers on this
tape are not available.]
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated:
You're telling me you need to increase their fees
because of the other work you're doing? You're
actually charging people to perform a trade and using
it for other purposes. This is a tax on the worker
here for you to do your work. There's no connection
between building inspections and a certificate of
fitness that a worker is buying here. There's no
connection between these other activities or granting
examinations. There's an examination fee right here.
I don't get it. I've heard people in the labor force
that, frankly, complain about this. They say, "What
the heck are we paying this fee for - it's a nuisance
fee, it's a tax on workers." It's just as bad as a
business license.
MR. MITCHELL responded:
They're not just inspections that are being paid for
out of this, although I believe the workers in the
trade, by and large, would support those inspections,
because they want to make sure that the work is being
done to the level that they aspire to perform that
work to. These workers have to go through an intense
training program and show that they have developed a
certain number of hours - thousands of hours - in the
trade, before they can qualify to take this test to
get this certificate that allows them to hold this
journeyman license.
The people who go out and do the inspections also make
sure that the people who are doing the work have that
level of credential, that they have put in their dues,
so to speak.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked for clarification of the certificate
of fitness: "Has it got to do with a license? Has it got to do
with a permit? Is there another word that would clarify it?"
MR. MITCHELL responded that the term "license" would be clearer.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Are you telling us, Mr.
Mitchell, that the certificates of fitness, they are issued
biannually, is there a requirement for continuing education or
anything else to be reissued on a biannual basis?"
MR. MITCHELL replied there was a continuing education
requirement for electricians but not for plumbers, at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked: Isn't the certificate more like
a driver's license since there are no criteria for a reissuance
of a certificate for plumbers?
MR. MITCHELL replied that this was correct and said:
The difference from a driver's license is that the DMV
[Division of Motor Vehicles] does not put enforcement
people out on the street to check for driver's
licenses. Our inspectors are those enforcement people
who check to make sure that the people in the trades
are credentialed to do the work.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said:
Let me understand this, then. Someone works thousands
of hours and years to work through the apprenticeship
program, become a journeyman, and he's reached that
level. You give him a certificate, but then he's got
to go every two years to get another certificate when
he's already reached that level of education. Then
you're going to charge him for this privilege. You're
taxing him every two years for this privilege to
pursue his trade. I don't get it.
VICE CHAIR GATTO noted that school nurses were required to take
certain certifications and credits, and were also required to
pay the fee for accreditation. He asked if that example was not
similar.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that Representative Gatto's
example was about continuing education, but that the plumbers in
Alaska don't have to have any continuing education [but are
required to have certificates of fitness].
MR. MITCHELL noted:
In this case, the difference is that there are two
functions being performed by the Mechanical Inspection
section based on this fee income. These are not fees
being charged to building owners for inspections. The
entire cost of this program, which includes a public
safety element to make sure that work is performed to
code, and a certificate-of-fitness enforcement
element, is basically all being funded out of this
fee. Historically, it's been working that way. We
haven't really had a lot of complaints from the
industry on this.
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked if there had been complaints from
building owners and, if so, how many.
MR. MITCHELL said he had not received any of those kinds of
complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if it was the intent of this bill
to increase the number of electrical inspectors in the state.
MR. MITCHELL replied:
The fiscal note reflects that we are adding one
position ... and that would be an electrical inspector
position. We also have an electrical inspector
position that we've been forced to maintain vacant,
because our revenue-generating ability in mechanical
inspection has been limited to a point where we can't
fill it because we don't have the money to do it.
There are two positions that have been maintained
vacant to cover these shortages, and it's to do with
increased costs, shifting of costs, from other
departments, lease costs, all kinds of different costs
have been laid upon the Mechanical Inspection section
in the last year. [This is so] Especially because we
have just recently gone to this new formula for
funding the program, completely out of the building
safety fund. There is no general fund in this
program; the entire program is funded out of the fees
that are charged for the services that are provided
out of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how many certificates of fitness
had been issued.
MR. MITCHELL responded that there are approximately 6,000
certificate-of-fitness holders in this state. He said [the
division] is adding one position, and it planned to use the
additional revenue [generated by HB 402] to fill a vacant
position and the position it had requested in its fiscal note.
He said this would result in three plumbing inspectors and three
electrical inspectors for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG wondered why there was a need for
someone to inspect a certificated worker's work, since the
worker had thousands of hours of experience and a reputation to
maintain. He asked how many inspections the division did a
year.
MR. MITCHELL replied approximately 400 inspections per year were
done by each inspector. He noted that the inspectors found
numerous code violations during inspections that needed
correction.
VICE CHAIR GATTO offered the example of a fire extinguisher that
was out of compliance with codes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether or not there were fees
charged for building inspections in this state.
MR. MITCHELL clarified that the Mechanical Inspection section
does not charge fees for the inspections it performs in the
electrical and plumbing areas.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if mechanical inspectors were
making retro-inspections.
MR. MITCHELL clarified that the Mechanical Inspection section
houses all of these inspection functions. The electrical
inspections and the plumbing inspections do not have fees
associated with them.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "So we are charging workers
for inspection fees that building owners should be paying...."
MR. MITCHELL replied:
I suppose that it could be characterized that way.
There is a fee in the statute for plumbing
inspections, but it has not been addressed by the
legislature for many years, and it's just not
something that we have charged because municipal
plumbing inspectors charge their own fees for plan
reviews and inspections, and we just haven't gotten
into that area for charging for those inspections.
It's been working pretty well as it is.
TAPE 04-19, SIDE A
Number 0041
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked who inspects recreational or
amusement rides.
MR. MITCHELL replied that that function was performed by
employees of the Mechanical Inspection section who have received
certifications for those particular inspections.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated:
Section 1, you're charging an inspection fee. In
Section 3, we're not. We're charging the worker for
inspections.... According to the sectional analysis
here, $100 fee for "each voluntary flexible work hour
plan that the employer files with the department".
This means that if you request that one worker in your
small business wants to have a flex work plan, wants
to do a 4-10 deal on your one little, simple form,
which I'd say that the department easily approves,
that you're going to charge the business $100 for
that?
MR. MITCHELL replied, "Yes, that's the plan."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern, saying, "I don't like
this at all.... I've got a lot of problems with this section."
Number 0188
MR. MITCHELL noted that the one-time fee would be paid by the
employer, not the employee. He said it did not seem onerous for
an employer to pay $100 for a plan that increased workplace
efficiency in the business. He also provided one clarification:
"If an employer has less than four employees, then they would be
exempt from overtime anyway, and a flexible-hour work plan would
not be required."
Number 0282
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how often a business had to
reapply for a flex plan.
MR. MITCHELL replied:
The only time an employer would need to reapply is if
they were changing their plan. Once the employer
identifies what the hours of work are to be, and gets
that approval, then the process allows that to be a
master, which then can be used, at the employer's
discretion, with any employee that wants to join into
that plan. The statute does allow for the employee to
voluntarily participate in the plan. Once the
employee agrees to participate in the plan, then they
are stuck to that, except for an opt-out period each
year, which is a one-month period. If an employee
decides that they don't want to do that, they're stuck
with it, except for that one period when they can get
out of it.
VICE CHAIR GATTO noted that a flow chart could have helped
clarify what he thought was a confusing fee schedule.
Number 0473
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the bill affects the fee
schedule for the working people of Alaska. He proposed holding
the bill over so they have a chance to testify and "see if it's
OK with them that their fees will be raised for landlords to
have free building inspections." He added, "Then I won't make
an amendment to strip out Section 4, yet. We can wait for that.
Maybe the department can do a little research on this."
Number 0526
VICE CHAIR GATTO stated that he would hold HB 402 over and
asked:
When it is up for review, I would appreciate seeing a
flow chart ... to help us identify those things
[discussed today]. It would be up to the individuals
here. If the public wants to testify, then that's
certainly their option. If you want to recruit
people, that's fine. It would be good to get some
public testimony.
VICE CHAIR GATTO went on to note areas of confusion: "Who's
paying the fee - the owner, or is it being paid by the employee,
and are these fees being paid twice?" [HB 402 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:41 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|