Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/06/2000 09:04 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 6, 2000
9:04 AM
TAPES
SFC-00 # 47, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 9:04 AM
PRESENT Co-Chair John Torgerson, Co-Chair Sean Parnell,
Senator Al Adams, Senator Lyda Green, Senator Pete Kelly,
Senator Loren Leman, Senator Randy Phillips, Senator Gary
Wilken
Also Attending: Senator Pearce, Senate President; Sue
Mossgrove, Staff, Senator Robin Taylor.
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: Jay Seymour,
Attorney, Perkins Coie; Janis Adair, Director, Division of
Environmental Health, Department of Environmental
Conservation; From Tok: Betty Revis.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 193-COLLECTION OF UNPAID WAGES
The sponsor testified. The amended bill was passed out of
committee.
SB 269-LEGISLATURE & STATE EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS
The sponsor testified. The amended bill was passed out of
committee.
SB 271-FEES FOR FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTIONS
The sponsor's staff and the Division of Environmental
Conservation testified. The bill was held in committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 193(L&C)
"An Act relating to the payment of wages and claims
for the payment of wages."
Senator Wilken made a motion to adopt the Committee
Substitute for SB 193, Version 1-LS1263\H.
Co-Chair Parnell objected for explanation purposes.
Senator Pearce explained that on page 1, line 10, the word
"penalties" was deleted and a new Section 3 (f) was added,
which reads: "In an action brought for unpaid overtime
under AS 23.10.060 that results in an award of liquidated
damages under AS 23.10.110, the provisions of (d) of this
section do not apply unless the action was brought by the
department under (e) of this section."
JAY SEYMOUR, Attorney, Perkins Coie, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that "Version H"
as outlined was a first good step in bringing some
reasonableness to wage and hour law. He added that this
version takes out the harsh double penalties that can be
assessed under current law AS 23.05.40.
Co-Chair Torgerson hearing no objection ADOPTED SB 193,
Version 1-LS1263\H.
Amendment #1: This amendment inserts a new bill section to
read as follows:
Sec.3. AS 23.05.140(b) is amended to read:
(b) If the employment is terminated, [REGARDLESS
OF THE CAUSE OF TERMINATION,] all wages, salaries, or
other compensation for labor or services become due
immediately and shall be paid within the time required
by this subsection [THREE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE
TERMINATION] at the place where the employee is
usually paid or at a location agreed upon by the
employer and employee. If the employment is
terminated by the employer, regardless of the cause
for the termination, payment is due within three
working days after the termination. If the employment
is terminated by the employee, payment is due at the
next regular pay day that is at least three days after
the employer received notice of the employee's
termination of services.
Sec. 4. AS 23.05.140(d) is amended to read:
(f) If an employer violates (b) of this section
by failing to pay within the time required by that
subsection [THREE WORKING DAYS OF TERMINATION], the
employer may be required to pay the employee a penalty
in the amount of the employee's regular wage, salary,
or other compensation from the time of demand to the
time of payment, or for 90 working days, whichever is
the lesser amount."
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "within three working days of termination"
Insert "within the time required by (b) of this
section"
Senator Wilken made a motion to adopt Amendment #1. He
explained that it sets forth that if someone quits a job
voluntarily, the payroll is not due until the next
scheduled payroll run.
Senator Adams asked if under current law, an individual
would be paid within three working days of termination. He
wondered if this amendment would put an undue hardship on
individuals that might be relocating to the lower 48, or to
another area statewide.
Senator Wilken responded that he did not think so and added
that these funds would essentially be considered money in
the bank, regardless of whether someone terminated his or
her employment.
Senator Adams OBJECTED to Amendment #1. A roll call vote
was taken.
IN FAVOR: Senator Phillips, Senator Leman, Senator Wilken,
Senator P. Kelly, Senator Green, Co-Chair Parnell, Co-Chair
Torgerson.
OPPOSED: Senator Adams.
The MOTION PASSED: (7-1)
Chair Parnell made a motion to move the Finance version of
SB 193, Version 1-LS1263\H as amended from the Committee
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note from Labor and Workforce Development.
Co-Chair Torgerson hearing no objection passed SB 193 FROM
THE COMMITTEE.
SENATE BILL NO. 269
"An Act relating to the deadline for the submission of
monetary terms of collective bargaining contracts
between the state and a labor or employee organization
representing state employees to the legislature."
SENATOR PEARCE stated that SB 269 would modify current law
and set an April 1st deadline for the submission of
monetary terms included in collective bargaining agreements
negotiated by the State Employee Union. She continued that
often the Alaska Legislature finds itself receiving
monetary terms of contracts in the final days of session
often before they are able to look at the intricacies of
the different contracts. She noted that under the current
law, the legislature must make reasoned decisions involving
these contracts in an extremely short period of time. She
added that SB 269 allows the state to begin the negotiation
process whenever necessary, while still providing a
significant amount of time within a calendar year for
legislative review of the terms. She cited the case
University of Alaska vs. The Alaska Supreme Court, where it
was decided that monetary terms in collective bargaining
agreements do not become effective until the legislature
specifically funds them. She then gave the history of this
litigation.
Senator Leman asked how this legislation would affect the
legislature trying to limit session to a 90-day period. He
wondered if it would not accomplish the same thing by
stating that, "terms shall be submitted no later than 40
days before the constitutional deadline for regular
session," rather than specifying a date.
Co-Chair Parnell suggested that language could state that
the final contract terms must be in place so many days
following the commencement of the legislative session. A
general discussion about how this language should be
drafted took place.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if the Committee should consider
an immediate effective date.
Senator Pearce responded affirmatively. She added that the
legislature usually responds to the monetary aspects of
these contracts, while there are changes to language should
be considered at the same.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to page one, line ten, which
makes note of a calendar year, rather than a fiscal year.
Senator Pearce responded that if for some reason the
legislature did not deal with contractual terms, she
assumed that most governors would bring the body back for
special session. She noted that Alaska's session did work
on a calendar year and then weighed the pros and cons of
each calendar year versus a fiscal year.
Amendment #1: This amendment makes the following changes to
this legislation.
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "monetary terms of"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "terms"
Insert "final contract"
Co-Chair Parnell made a motion to adopt Amendment #1. He
explained that this amendment would make clear the contract
language presented to the union members for ratification,
the same language that the administration will submit to
the legislature for appropriation purposes.
Senator Adams asked if all final contracts in this
situation would be arrived at by April 1, as noted in this
legislation and pointed out that the previous "terms"
language was a bit more general.
Co-Chair Parnell responded to this query with his previous
statement regarding language consistency.
Senator Adams pointed out that this legislation affected
numerous contracts and he wondered if negotiations could be
completed by April 1.
Co-Chair Torgerson responded that the unions are only
required to submit the monetary terms of an agreement to
the legislature within 10 days of final negotiations. He
added that the parties can adjust negotiations to arrive at
a new deadline regardless of what final date is chosen.
Co-Chair Torgerson hearing no objection ADOPTED Amendment
Senator Leman proposed a conceptual amendment, which would
read "40 days before the end of the constitutional
deadline," rather than a set date of April 1.
Senator Pearce felt as though so many days from the
beginning of session for a deadline might be a better
approach. She outlined her reasoning for this assessment.
There was additional discussion about the rational behind
an up-front session deadline or at the end of session
deadline for these employee contracts and how either of
these options would affect future constitutional language
changes to terms of session.
Amendment #2: This was a conceptual amendment which would
conceptually strike "April 1," on page one, line ten and
insert "45 days after the start of the legislative
session."
Senator Wilken made a motion to adopt Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Parnell responded that this language would square
with the language in existing law. There was additional
discussion about deadlines for contract negotiations.
Co-Chair Torgerson hearing no objection ADOPTED Amendment
Co-Chair Parnell made a motion to move SB 269, Version
LS1386\A as amended from the committee with individual
recommendations and attached zero fiscal note from the
Department of Administration.
Co-Chair Torgerson hearing no objection moved SB 269 FROM
THE COMMITTEE.
SENATE BILL NO. 271
"An Act relating to fees charged for inspections by
the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date."
SUE MOSSGROVE, Staff, Senator Robin Taylor stated that SB
271 had been introduced as a matter of fairness for all
businesses providing food services from restaurants to day
care centers. She noted that currently food inspection
fees are included as a part of the permit process within
Department of Environmental Conservation Food Safety and
Sanitation Program.
Ms. Mossgrove continued that during the interim, the
Administrative Regulation and Review Committee held a
hearing to review the increased fees proposed by the
Department of Environmental Conservation. She added that
while they continue to raise fees, they have not proved the
services for which they have charged. She noted that
several business owners have complained that this practice
is unfair; for example, the fees for one establishment
showed an increase from $75 in 1995 to $525 in 1999. She
commented that another showed their fees increasing from
$50 to $985. She disclosed that in the last two years they
were inspected only one time.
Ms. Mossgrove asserted that the Department of Environmental
Conservation changed rate setting from one permit for the
entire establishment, to individual permits and fees based
on type of facility and risk. She noted that by separating
food inspection fees from the permit process and not
allowing Department of Environmental Conservation to charge
for a service until they provide it, the sponsor hoped to
bring equity to the businesses around the state.
Senator Phillips asked for an example of the Department of
Environmental Conservation charging for an inspection
without following through on this service.
Ms. Mossgrove presented an example of a business out at Dot
Lake, a restaurant and convenience store that was charged
$75 for an initial permit. She noted that this same
business a few years later is paying for two separate
permits, one for $150.00 and the other for $575.00 and
added that this business was only inspected once over the
last two years.
Senator Adams asked if the sponsor would consider
established rates for these inspections. He noted that the
present statutes do not allow for this.
Ms. Mossgrove responded that she did not think Senator
Taylor would oppose such a measure. She noted that in
previous legislation, the Department of Environmental
Conservation was given the authority to charge fees without
set guidelines on what is reasonably allowed.
Senator Green clarified that if a business cannot get their
license to operate they do not pay fees for an inspection.
She referred to the attached fiscal note and pointed out
that schools are exempted as well as charitable
organizations. She asked what any of these charities were.
Ms. Mossgrove stated that she could give no specific
examples of these entities.
Senator Green asked if Head Start could be one of them?
Ms. Mossgrove stated that she believed so and noted that
there was some discussion about other daycare facilities
being overburdened with fees, which Head Start was exempt
from.
Senator Green referred to discussions with the Finance
Subcommittee Chair for Department of Environmental
Conservation and the potential of a refund for overcharges
and increases. She asked if these considerations were
taken into account while drafting this legislation.
Ms. Mossgrove responded that no, this had not been
considered.
BETTY REVIS testified via teleconference from Tok. She
stated that she runs a coffee cart, which only serves
coffee and tea. She pointed out that even though this is
the only service she provides, she is nonetheless charged
the same inspection fees as a grocery store down the
street. She continued that when she opened her business in
1993, she was required to pay $50.00 for inspections and
noted the fees were presently increased to $210.00. She
stated that she did not understand the reasoning for this
or the fairness of it. She concluded that her business had
not been inspected, this year or last.
JANIS ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation testified via
teleconference from Anchorage that the fees charged to
businesses have been equally problematic for them. She
noted that the fees for inspection were raised due to a
funding switch from general funds to general fund program
receipts. She continued that the remaining general funds
were reduced by the conference committee last year. She
stated that these two things have exacerbated the
situation. She added that it has been years since the
department has been able to inspect every permitted
facility. She pointed out that these inspections are
conducted from a "risk based" perspective, to help
understand why some facilities and businesses are not
charged. She then explained how fees are broken into
schedules and how they are allocated. She also explained
why this proposed legislation would mean multiple billings
to customers and additional increased costs.
Tape: SFC - 00 #47, Side B 9:51 AM
Ms. Adair noted that Head Start and public schools are
exempted from these inspection fees, but because they are
considered high-risk facilities, the department conducts
inspections anyhow. She noted that children are more
susceptible to food-borne illnesses than others. She
responded to Ms. Revis' concerns by noting that the
department intends to amend food service regulations, which
will exempt espresso and coffee carts from the permitting
and fee process.
Co-Chair Torgerson wondered how many facilities are
inspected as versus those being billed.
Ms. Adair responded that this depends on the year, since
any given year, inspectors quit and she noted that some of
these same employees periodically go on family leave. She
added that taking these factors into account, about fifty
percent of the deemed facilities were inspected overall.
She noted that most of these were seafood related, about 80
percent, since the department is mandated by the federal
government to do so.
Senator Wilken asked if the department bills 100 percent of
these facility, but that only 40 percent of these are
inspected.
Ms. Adair responded that there are a host of facilities,
which the department inspects and a subset of these are
charged a fee. She noted that Senator Wilken was correct,
that the department does charge a fee, which includes the
total cost of the program, including inspections, but not
all of these are inspected.
Senator Wilken asked if some of the establishments receive
a bill for inspection, but are not inspected.
Ms. Adair responded that if a facility receives a bill,
this reflects an allocation of the cost of the program,
including the amount of inspection. She added that the
food service aspect of the program was changed from a mix
of general funding programming fees to 93 percent of
programming fees, therefore, the cost of the program at
seven percent would consist roughly of travel. She
continued that the "costed-out" amount must be allocated
across all users that are permitted and not exempted from a
fee. Ms. Adair and Senator Leman discussed how the billing
process worked for this inspection program.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if Alaska has laws requiring that
a facility be inspected every year.
Ms. Adair responded that there was not, much less a law
requiring an inspection. She noted that an inspection is a
way to determine compliance with food safety laws. She
added that the Food and Drug Administration recommends that
full service restaurants be inspected at least twice a
year, but the department does not have the staff to do
this. She explained in detail how inspections are
presently conducted and noted that she would be happy to
work with the Committee on this legislation.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted that he would contact Ms. Adair
for a list of inspections, those businesses inspected and
how much money is charged.
Senator Leman asked if the department would support the
divestiture of some of these duties to some of the larger
municipalities to conduct their own food service
inspections such as which, Anchorage is currently involved.
Ms. Adair responded that the department has considered
this, but found that in the smaller communities the economy
of scale does not exist.
Co-Chair Torgerson ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNED
Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 10:07 AM.
SFC-00 (11) 03/06/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|