Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/12/2001 09:07 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
February 12, 2001
9:07 AM
TAPES
SFC-01 # 13, SIDE A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Pete Kelly convened the meeting at approximately 9:07 a.m.
PRESENT
Senator Dave Donley, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Loren Leman
Also Attending: LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill
Prevention and Response, Department of Environmental Conservation;
PAUL FUHS, Marine Technical Advisor; HEATHER BRAKES, staff to
Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature; PAT DAVIDSON,
Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division; MARY JACKSON,
staff to Senator John Torgerson, Alaska State Legislature;
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development
Attending via Teleconference: BRIAN ROGERS, Information Insights
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 16 - OIL DISCH PREVENTION: NONTANK VESSELS/RR
The Committee heard testimony from the Department of Environmental
Conservation and Information Insights. The bill was held in
Committee.
SB 2 - MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BOND REIMBURSEMENT
The bill was held in Committee.
SB 21 - FINES BY THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD
The bill was scheduled but not heard.
SB 52 - TERMINATION OF STATE PHYS THERAPY BOARD
The Committee adopted an amendment and the bill was reported from
Committee.
SB 53 - EXTENDING THE BD. OF BARBERS/HAIRDRESSERS
After brief debate, the bill was held in Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 16
"An Act regarding oil discharge prevention and cleanup
involving self-propelled nontank vessels exceeding 400 gross
registered tonnage and railroad tank cars and related
facilities and operations and requiring preparation and
implementation of oil discharge contingency plans for those
nontank vessels and railroad tank cars; amending the
definition of 'response action' that relates to releases or
threatened releases of oil and thereby amending the duties and
liabilities of response action contractors; and authorizing
compliance verification for nontank vessels and for trains and
related facilities and operations; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Kelly indicated that Co-Chair Donley had formally
submitted some questions and wondered if those were answered to his
satisfaction.
Co-Chair Donley answered no. He explained that they first asked
them to clarify the funding source, because on the fiscal note it
just refers to "1052-OHSRPRF-Prevention Account" as the funding
source. He indicated that they gave him a list of codes used for
the Alaska budgeting system and "1052-OHSRPRF-Prevention Account"
was one of 15 codes that stands for "response fund." He believes
that it should be amended so that it is not an obscure code.
Co-Chair Kelly affirmed that the discussion would be on the fiscal
note.
Co-Chair Donley made a motion to amend the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities and Department of
Environmental Conservation fiscal notes. This amendment replaces
"1052-OHSRPRF-Prevention Account" with "oil spill response fund".
Second, he wondered why the Task Force recommended against user
fees. Third, he pointed out that the department did not explain
why they felt that the response fund would be a preferred source
rather than user fees. He indicated that he had hoped that there
would be a better explanation of the different sections of the
response fund.
Co-Chair Kelly explained that it was the general consensus with the
people working on the Task Force that industry did not see the
fairness in having them pay for it when they have the response
fund, which, by statute, would be an appropriate use for it.
LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, indicated that
Senator Kelly's explanation was a fair characterization of the Task
Force discussion.
BRIAN ROGERS, Information Insights, explained that the issue was
that the users in this case are businesses that are going to be
paying for the cost of acquiring response equipment; therefore,
since they were already going to face some costs due to the
legislation passed last year and the oil spill response fund
appeared to the Task Force to include the prevention of oil spills
it seemed an appropriate use of that fund.
Co-Chair Donley wondered if any of the people required to take
action under the new legislation were paying into the oil spill
response fund.
Mr. Rogers explained that there were two companies, BP Exploration
and Tesoro Alaska, who paid into the fund.
Co-Chair Donley voiced concerned that the people who would be using
the money from the response fund would not be paying into it;
therefore, it would be really easy for them to recommend that the
money be taken from the response fund.
Co-Chair Kelly indicated that he looks at it a different way. He
pointed out that when they asked last week if there was a Federal
statute hanging over their heads forcing the state into these sets
of regulations the answer was no. He said that he could see how
the Task Force would gravitate toward the response fund. He
indicated that he was most displeased with the fact that in light
of declining production any withdrawal from the fund would
ultimately deplete it. He noted that the answer given on the sheet
does not necessarily address that and it does in fact deplete the
fund.
Mr. Dietrick said that they did look at the out years on the fiscal
note in order to do some long-term assessment on the health of the
fund. He indicated that they used the Department of Revenue
forecast as the official state forecast for the revenue that would
be generated by the three-cent surcharge. He said that when they
looked at the out years the three-cent surcharge roughly brought in
$9 to 10 million as the continued level of revenue that would be
produced by the current production forecast. The $141,000 fiscal
note, which is the long-term permanent cost, was about one to two
percent of the three-cent surcharge revenue, which they felt was
sustainable.
Co-Chair Donley wondered if they have done any analysis on what a
fee-based system would look like.
Mr. Dietrick indicated that the Task Force did do some research on
a fee-based system from an incentive standpoint in order to
determine if there were some ways to provide incentive. For the
most part they turned them down in the end in favor of
Recommendation 31.
Co-Chair Donley said that he does not see fees as an incentive.
Mr. Dietrick explained that one part of the Task Force report was
to come up with incentives for encouraging the industry to pursue
prevention measures. He noted that in almost all cases there was a
lot of effort to try to encourage industry to prevent the spills,
because in the long run that was the cheaper way to go. He pointed
out that a number of incentive systems were looked at, as ways for
the industry to accomplish prevention measures as part of the
effort. He added that tax incentives were one of the things looked
at as a way to encourage the industry to pursue prevention
measures.
Co-Chair Donley reiterated his original question whether there was
any analysis of a fee-based system to pay for this.
Mr. Dietrick indicated that the thing the Task Force relied upon,
beyond the tax incentives that were discussed for the prevention,
were to use the private sector to the maximum extent possible to
implement the legislation. He explained that the package is
dependent on the use of existing oil spill response cooperates,
stevedoring operations and ship agents; those were felt by the
Committee as the best way to keep the cost down. He added that
there was not a cost benefit done, because before the cooperatives
could lock in a certain rate they had to know the pool of vessels
that were going to participate and they felt that it would be
worked out in time.
Co-Chair Donley requested clarification on whether they were
hesitant to do an assessment of fees, because they did not know
what vehicles would be subject to this.
Mr. Dietrick responded that is correct. He explained that the
total pool of vessels is approximately 900. The percentage of
those vessels that want to share in a single cooperative is
something that will not be worked out until they engage in those
negotiations with the cooperatives. In other words if one vessel
were to meet all the requirements that single vessel operator would
have to bear the full cost of meeting that compliance; however, if
500 vessels bear in that single response capability than that cost
is shared amongst those 500 vessels. He indicated that knowing
those arrangements and whether vessel groups will want to build
their own capabilities or join the same cooperative or form a new
cooperative or pursue other business arrangements with other
partners is something that the legislation depends on, but was not
worked out ahead of time.
Co-Chair Donley commented that the answer should have been that
there was difficulty in assessing fees because of the complexities
of the systems that were involved.
PAUL FUHS, Marine Technical Advisor, explained that they did not
look at what the fees would be if they charged in addition to the
fees of complying with it and paying the cooperatives and getting
the certificate of financial responsibility. He indicated that
when they looked at it they realized that the three-cent fund or
response fund was designed for purposes such as this one. He noted
that the historical compromise that was reached years ago was that
the two-cents would lead up to $50 million and the industry new
that they would have the three-cents forever. He said that they do
not mind if the money is spent on things such as prevention.
Mr. Dietrick noted that the industry's thinking behind this is that
there would be additional vessels participating in the safety net;
therefore, there would be a potential decrease in cost for the
payer of the three-cents.
Co-Chair Donley wondered if there was a cap or if this was just an
estimate of what was going to be assessed against the three-cent
fund. He pointed out that if they develop a system of virtually
unlimited revenue there might not be a guarantee that the costs are
going to be restrained.
Mr. Fuhs responded that their guarantee is the Senate and House
Finance Committees, since they are in charge of appropriating the
budget every year.
Mr. Dietrick augmented that they changed the two positions back to
temporary to accommodate the peak load in FY03 and FY04 in response
to the concerns that permanent positions would be on the books and
carried on.
Senator Leman wondered how the production level decline from last
year's estimate of a million barrels a day affects their estimates
of the balance.
Mr. Dietrick responded that the production estimates are from the
Department of Revenue tax division in the "Fall 2000 Revenue
Sources Book;" this is the document the agencies use for planning
their fiscal budget. He explained that the budget planning for the
response fund is done on an annual fiscal year basis. He
formulated that what they do is at the end of the fiscal year they
take the balance and add to it the projected revenue over the next
fiscal year, in this case it would be FY02, and subtract the
expenditures that are planned for that year in the budget and that
would determine the balance for the end of FY02. He pointed out
that during that year, in answer to the question, the actual
production does fluctuate from the number that they select to
prepare the budget. He noted that they use the spring forecast
number and then update it in the fall. He believes that they do
have an advantage, because the fluctuations in production are not
anywhere near the fluctuations in the price per barrel. He
asserted that even though there is some fluctuation over the course
of the year it usually balances out by the end of the fiscal year
and they do not think there will be any substantial negative impact
on the flow.
Senator Leman asked if that was even for the out years.
Mr. Dietrick responded that the farther they get out in FY04 and
FY05 certainly the more speculative it becomes. He explained that
BP just announced that they want to go for an increase as their
goal by FY05 and that kind of information is not reflected in the
revenue forecast, but an upside potential target that the companies
hit will enhance the fund and drive it the other way.
Senator Leman wondered if they concur with the fiscal analysts
assessment of the amount available for appropriation of $27.7
million.
Mr. Dietrick responded that they did work with the Legislative
Finance Division and the fiscal analysts and that is a correct
starting number that they used for their FY02 forecast.
Senator Leman wondered if the response monies that are RSA'd
(Reimbursable Services Agreement) to other departments included in
the operating budget total approximately $22 million.
Mr. Dietrick responded yes.
Senator Leman wondered whether the 20 staff currently reviewing the
140 c-plans were in one division and asked Mr. Dietrick to explain
the rational for the additional positions. He further inquired as
to whether there were additional workloads to accommodate the
additional positions.
Mr. Dietrick explained that all of the positions were in the
Division of Spill Prevention and Response. He noted that by
comparison the staff now currently reviews, for the crude and non-
crude industry, approximately 140 plans and the number of vessels
that will be brought in by SB 16 is approximately 900 vessels and
500 plans. He explained that they are only counting on two people
to do that in the long run, because they are relying heavily on the
streamline plan and further that the existing marine infrastructure
will carry the load.
Senator Leman asked whether they were fairly confident in the
projections that the department would not be coming back asking for
additional funds.
Mr. Dietrick asserted that was what they had been driven toward in
trying to prepare the fiscal note and they understand the long-term
fiscal situation and they have tried to throttle it back so they do
not have to come back in future years.
Senator Leman wondered how many of the staff are currently working
on and reviewing c-plans.
Mr. Dietrick indicated that there were approximately 20 that were
currently managing the c-plans for the crude and non-crude oil
industries.
Senator Leman further inquired as to whether they were working on
testing as well.
Mr. Dietrick responded correct.
Senator Leman asked if the c-plans were updated every three years.
Mr. Dietrick responded correct.
Senator Leman wondered how long the department has been involved in
reviewing c-plans.
Mr. Dietrick said that it started in the 80s and they actually had
legislation on the books prior to the 1989 event that required c-
plans. He added that they took a significant new direction in the
passage of HB 567 following the 1989 event.
Senator Leman wondered since HB 567 passed if they have worked on
models for streamlining the plans.
Mr. Dietrick indicated that they have been working with the
industry on how to do that and they now have plans in place for
what they call "umbrella plans." For example, for the spot charter
industry in Cook Inlet they will have one operator that will
prepare the plan and have the plan and as they bring in new spot
charters they can add those vessels to the c-plan in as short as
five days. He added that they were doing the same thing on the
North Slope.
Co-Chair Kelly referred to the amendment to the fiscal note that
had been offered by Senator Donley.
AT EASE 9:33 AM / 9:49 AM
Co-Chair Donley asked the department to submit a new fiscal note
that accurately reflected the sponsor and the request to the
legislation.
[It was established that such a fiscal note had been prepared and
Senator Donley's staff would submit it to the Committee.]
Co-Chair Kelly announced that SB 16 would be HELD in Committee.
AT EASE 9:52 AM / 9:53 AM
Co-Chair Kelly announced that SB 2 would roll to the bottom of the
calendar and SB 21 would be HELD in Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 52
"An Act extending the termination date of the State Physical
Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board."
HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Gene Therriault, explained that SB
52 would extend the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy
Board an additional six years from June 30, 2001 to June 30, 2007.
She pointed out that in the packet they would find a sponsor
statement, letters of support, a draft zero fiscal note and a
legislative audit that was released on September 6, 2000. She
indicated that the audit found that the board is operating in an
efficient and effective manner and that they should continue to
regulate physical and occupational therapists. She further noted
that the legislative audit believes that the board is safeguarding
the public interest by promoting the competence and integrity of
those that hold themselves out as such. She indicated that they
continue to serve a public purpose and to conduct a business in a
satisfactory manner. She pointed out that the legislative audit
also continued to propose changes to regulation and improve the
effectiveness of the board and ensure that the occupations it
oversees were licensed in the State of Alaska. Finally, it
recommended that the board be continued to June 30, 2007.
Co-Chair Donley offered a conceptual amendment on page 1, line 6,
to delete "2007" and insert "2005." There being no objection,
Amendment #1 was adopted.
Senator Leman offered a motion to report from Committee, CS SB 52
(FIN), as amended with accompanying zero fiscal note from the
Department of Community and Economic Development.
There was no objection and the bill MOVED FROM COMMITTEE.
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers."
HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Gene Therriault, indicated that SB
53 extends the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers an additional four
years from June 30, 2001 to June 30, 2005. She referred to the
legislative audit and explained that the audit found that the board
should be reestablished and that it is a benefit to the public's
health, safety and welfare. She pointed out that the board
benefits the public by establishing minimum educational experience
requirements, but provide reasonable assurance that the person's
licensed are qualified. She noted that the Division of Legislative
Audit recommended that the board be extended to June 30, 2005.
Senator Green asked that the Committee to hold the bill until
tomorrow.
Co-Chair Donley addressed the auditors and wondered if there was
any inquiry into the concept of self-testing on behalf of the
educators of barbers and hairdressers. He indicated that it was an
issue that came up several years ago as a way to improve the
efficiency and to make sure that the testing was offered on a more
convenient basis for persons wishing to enter into these
professions.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
indicated that they looked at how often the tests were being
offered and statute calls for twice a year. She noted that the
testing was being done four to six times in Anchorage and three
times in Juneau and Fairbanks. She said that there seemed to be an
adequate dispersion and because of that they did not delve into
that area any further.
Co-Chair Donley commented that he had constituents contact him
saying that in other states they do it more efficiently with the
schools themselves doing the testing and the certification; that
way if someone misses one portion of the test they do not have to
wait three months until the next opportunity. He said that he is
interested in making the process more efficient.
Mrs. Davidson reiterated that when it was looked at there seemed to
be a sufficient minimum number of tests being offered; therefore,
they did not look into expanding it any further. She offered that
the school that educated the student to be the sole determinate of
whether or not they are qualified there might be a conflict of
interest there. She noted that there is always some discussion of
how a board member who runs a school should be evaluating their
students.
Co-Chair Kelly indicated that there were some questions that
Senator Green had.
Senator Green indicated that they were questions having to do with
standards for nail and skincare.
Co-Chair Kelly said that in that case he would like to move the
bill, because those are issues beyond the scope of an extension
bill.
Co-Chair Donley mentioned that is part of the sunset review. First
of all, he indicated that it is something that is still a need or
value to the state. He noted that even though sometimes they make
light of this particular board it is very important that these
people be qualified and skilled in their jobs. He pointed out that
the other function of the sunset review is to possibly improve the
existing system. Although, he is not suggesting spending a lot of
time on this, but he is hopeful that the audit would examine that
further. He said that it would helpful for him to explore this
further with the auditors.
Co-Chair Kelly said that his intent was to hold the bill.
Senator Green wondered about body pearcing and tattooing.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development, indicated that no
licenses have been issued for body pearcing or tattooing in
permanent cosmetic coloring at this point. She said that the board
decided, during the meeting in January, what it was going to public
notice for comprehensive regulations about these professions. She
indicated that they are waiting for another month in order to issue
the board's public notice at the same time that Department of
Environmental Conservation issues its public notice about the
sanitary conditions of the shops. The requirement for a license
with these professions does not go into effect until July 2002.
She noted that the grandfather license deadline is July 1, 2001;
therefore, they are still in the beginning stages of licensing and
regulation of those two professions.
Co-Chair Kelly indicated that SB 53 would be HELD in Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 2
"An Act relating to reimbursement of municipal bonds for
school construction; and providing for an effective date."
MARY JACKSON, staff to Senator John Torgerson, indicated that the
bill is pretty straightforward. She explained that SB 2 is a fix
to the language in last years' HB 281. There was language in that
bill that has presented and posed a problem for the Anchorage
School District, in particular, in terms of sales of the bonds for
school construction. She said that there are articles in the
packet from the Anchorage Daily News that describes the dilemma and
support from the Anchorage School District and the Northwest Arctic
Bureau School District for the language revision.
Co-Chair Kelly announced that SB 2 would be HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Kelly adjourned the meeting at 10:07 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|