Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/20/1995 02:10 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
April 20, 1995
2:10 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Tim Kelly, Chairman
Senator John Torgerson, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 28(TRA)
"An Act relating to transfer of motor vehicle ownership, motor
vehicle registration fees, and motor vehicle emissions inspection;
and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 220(L&C)
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of commerce and
economic development concerning the Alaska Tourism Marketing
Council; relating to the per diem travel expenses of the council's
board of directors; relating to the powers and duties of the
council; extending the termination date of the council; and
providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 28 - See Senate Transportation minutes dated 3/28/95 and
4/18/95.
HB 220 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Dave Donley
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 28.
Juanita Hensley, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 28.
Wally Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer
Quick Lube
1780 Peger Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 28.
Representative Joe Green
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 46.
Catherine Reardon, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, AK 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Vernon Akin, Registered Mechanical Engineer
P.O. Box 22104
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 46.
Graham Rolstad, Vice President
Engineering Construction
Matanuska Telephone Association
Representing the Alaska Telephone Association
1740 S. Chugach St.
Palmer, AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46 as written.
Nancy Schoephoester
ARCO, Alaska
P.O. Box 100360
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Lee Holmes
RSA Engineering
2710 Scarborough Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46 and the intent of Section 3.
Dick Armstrong, Chairman
ALS Board
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 46.
Patrick Dooley, President
Nanatest
P.O. Box 202807
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Janet Reeser
Nanatest
P.O. Box 202807
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Kimberly Chancy
Nanatest
P.O. Box 202807
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Steve Altech
Nanatest
P.O. Box 202807
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Rob White, Project Manager
Raytheon ARCO Alliance Contract
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
John Burdick
300 Hermit, Ste. #7
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 46.
Jim Rowe, Executive Director
Alaska Telephone Association
4341 B St., Suite 304
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Colin Maynard
1400 W. Benson Ave., #500
Anchorage, AK 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 46.
Ken Brock
ARCO, Alaska
P.O. Box 100360
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46.
Bob Hancock
Anchorage Telephone Utility
600 Telephone Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 46 as written.
John Litten
P.O. Box 1001
Sitka, AK 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 220.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-18, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 28 MOTOR VEHICLE REG FEE/EMISS'N INSPECTIONS
CHAIRMAN KELLY called the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 2:10 and announced SB 28 to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, sponsor, said SB 28 is designed to change the
I.M. testing program in Alaska from every year to every other year.
Almost all other states, including California, do it every other
year.
He said, at the request of Senator Rieger, there was a
restructuring of DMV fees. Currently, there is an additional $10
fee if you come to a DMV office in person when you could do it by
mail. Senator Rieger thought the fees should be $10 with a rebate
if you use the mail. Personally, he said, he is very ambivalent
about this change and really wanted to just do away with the fee.
However, financially it is hard to do that since DMV has become
dependent on that extra revenue.
SENATOR DONLEY said the point of the legislation is to get bi-
annual testing which would be a real positive thing to do for the
people of Alaska.
SENATOR KELLY asked if you still have to register every year, but
get the emission test every second year. SENATOR DONLEY responded
that was correct. He elaborated that there has been interest in
bi-annual registration, but the argument against it in past years
has been because we have to get I.M. tests every year and there is
the shock of having to pay twice as much every other year rather
than scheduling the payments out, so to speak. He thought bi-
annual registration would save the state a lot of money in
administrative costs, but this particular bill doesn't do that.
Number 93
JUANITA HENSLEY, Division of Motor Vehicles, explained the reason
they have not gone to bi-annual registration is because of programs
that have been added over the years, such as the yearly emissions
program and the collection of 13 communities' motor vehicle
registration taxes which are collected on an annual basis.
SENATOR SALO asked why you couldn't collect taxes on a bi-annual
basis. MS. HENSLEY explained the statute says it has to be
collected annually.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if insurance was required before you
register your vehicle now. MS. HENSLEY answered that is a
requirement.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked what would bi-annual do to that. MS.
HENSLEY said they don't look at insurance verification. They just
have the person sign a certified statement on the registration
saying they have insurance as required by law and they are expected
to keep it.
WALLY HOPKINS, Quick Lube Chief Executive Officer, said they are
the largest provider of emission testing in the state, employing 25
people in the Anchorage and Fairbanks emissions program. The
annual payroll for these people is $1.1 million. In recent years
the violation of federal standard has fallen a maximum of three or
four times a year when Anchorage or Fairbanks has an extreme
temperature inversion.
Current programs operating in Anchorage and Fairbanks are recently
new, he explained. They have invested over $1 million in
facilities, equipment, and personnel to be able to provide these
services. After a successful 90-day pilot program in Anchorage,
including a reregistration service, they hoped to open another
facility in Fairbanks within the next 30 days. He thought this was
a prime example of private enterprise and government working
together. With the reregistration process the state does not have
any cost and they are not charging their customers any fee for this
service.
At their facility in Anchorage they can test eight cars at a time
and they are gearing up to do 12 cars at a time. The average wait
to get a vehicle tested there is less than 10 minutes. They are
currently testing 22 1/2% of vehicles in Anchorage, according to
the number of registrations that are being mailed out to the public
in Anchorage.
He concluded saying that if this bill passes, it will eliminate 50%
or more of the jobs within the emission testing industry. It will
put a hardship on the residents of Alaska who are subject to
emissions testing by doubling the cost of repairs for failed
vehicles. It would put an extreme hardship on good businesses that
in good faith planned, developed, and provided emission testing
based on established programs.
SENATOR KELLY asked Ms. Hensley if there was a cap for an emission
inspection in statute. She replied that she didn't have that
answer, but knew that DMV collects $1 for the processing of those
certificates. In this bill it would go up to $2.
SENATOR KELLY asked if there was a set fee for emission inspections
at his shops. MR. HOPKINS said they are charging $29.95 for the
inspection and they add the $10 registration fee at this time. He
said he thought Anchorage had $45 as a cap. Fairbanks has
something like $65.
Number 260
RON KING, Department of Environmental Conservation, said that state
statute and regulations do not limit what an inspection cost could
be. Local statutes and ordinances in Anchorage and Fairbanks limit
what the facility can charge. In Anchorage it is $40 and Fairbanks
has a $40 or $45 upper limit.
SENATOR KELLY asked him how many vehicles are tested in Anchorage
every year. MR. KING replied approximately 150,000 vehicles that
qualify for this program are in Anchorage and approximately 50,000
in Fairbanks.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if he had a position on going to two years.
MR. KING replied that the department has been concerned with going
to an every other year inspection until the communities have
attained the standard. Based on the failure rates, however, and
working with DMV and Senator Donley, they believe they put together
a package that will enable them to convince EPA to approve an every
other year inspection.
SENATOR KELLY commented that Mr. Hopkins has already recovered his
investment. MR. HOPKINS disagreed and explained that it would take
about three years to amortize their investment.
Number 291
SENATOR TORGERSON asked Mr. Hopkins what the average cost of fixing
an emission problem would be. MR. HOPKINS replied the average cost
would be about $100 - $125 per repair. He explained with an every
other year scenario, instead of 17% of vehicles failing (the figure
for now) there would about 35% or more.
SENATOR DONLEY said the last committee changed the effective date
to 1996 which would give businesses time to adjust to the new plan.
The Division would have some discretion to deal with problem
automobiles. They also have some authority, through regulation, to
address the cost issue. He noted that after some review of
correspondence, he was struck with the discrepancy between fees
charged for I.M. testing in Alaska versus other states. Our fees
up here are twice as much.
SENATOR KELLY said he liked the idea of bi-annual registration, but
he didn't think there would be time with 30 days left to go. He
hoped legislation like that would be introduced at a later time.
SENATOR SALO said she was concerned because she had many
constituents call her about the $10 fee and thought the bill just
flip flopped the issue around. If the argument is revenue, and
having become dependent on that revenue, she thought that was
negated by the fact that every one of those fees is going up $10.
She would like to see the elimination of that section unless there
is compelling information from the DMV that it's a good idea.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that section is not related to the bi-
annual testing proposal.
MS. HENSLEY said the original bill did do away with the $10 fee
proposal if you walked in as opposed to mailing in the
registration. Since they have gone to the $10 fee, mail has been
increased to total 60%. Senator Rieger's amendment would increase
everyone's registration by $10 unless you mail it in and get a
rebate, with the exception on page 2, lines 9 - 12, which deletes
language that allowed them to waive the $10 fee if you are required
to be in the office to handle a transaction.
People who choose to register their cars at the I.M. stations are
not charged the $10 walk-in fee, although some of the stations
charge a $10 processing fee. This bill makes it equitable for
everyone and will generate approximately $2.5 in general fund
revenue which their department doesn't receive unless it is
appropriated to them, MS. HENSLEY explained.
SENATOR KELLY asked if SB 28 encouraged smaller lines in the DMV
offices. MS. HENSLEY agreed that it did.
SENATOR DONLEY said he didn't think the fees section of the bill
had an effect one way or the other on that. He said SB 28 didn't
change the incentive to register by mail. He said the committee
could delete the fee section and the status quo would remain that
the division would be assessing the $10.
SENATOR SALO said her intention would be to take out the section so
they would lose the ability to collect the $10. She didn't think
people would automatically start going back to DMV instead of using
the mail.
MS. HENSLEY said offering a program with incentive to keep people
from standing in a line so you can give better service to someone
who has to be there is what they are seeking. She said it was
working.
Number 435
SENATOR KELLY commented that even if this bill passes people could
still register their vessels at the various I.M. stations. MS.
HENSLEY agreed that was correct.
SENATOR KELLY asked if DMV supported this bill. MS. HENSLEY said
they support it as drafted.
SENATOR DONLEY said one amendment was recommended by DEC to make a
different effective date to allow them to begin enforcement
earlier.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved amendment #1. There were no objections and
it was so ordered.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to pass CSSB 28 (L&C) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
HB 46 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
SENATOR KELLY announced HB 46 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, sponsor, explained that HB 46 is a "fix
bill." It straightens out when a registrant will issue drawings or
reports, etc. that will be sealed. Section 2 was an attempt to
tighten up who can actually be called an engineer, because some
people were calling themselves engineers without being registered
engineers. Section 3 is the addition of engineering types of
people under the exemption category that compromises 8.48.331 of
the code. It attempts to exempt engineers who do not perform
engineering functions for the public. In other words, they are
doing it for their employer and it is to be used only in that
connection.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
first discussed section 3, where the exemption for employees who
are doing engineering work for their companies is added into the
law. The reason people support this is because they believe the
statutory definition of the practice of engineering is broad and
ambiguous. There is a certain degree of mistrust of the
architects, engineers, and land surveyors Board and believe they
use this broad language to require engineers where they aren't
really necessary. She felt that if the Board was extending the
definition of engineering excessively, that could be corrected by
creating a more balanced board.
Another argument you can hear is that industry has technicians who
do not have formal engineering education, but have on-the-job
experience who are as good or better than registered engineers.
Their position is that while unlicensed employees can certainly
safely perform some design work, there are some types of work that
require the educational background of a registered engineer. She
pointed out that HB 46 does not just exempt utilities or the oil
industry or some of the larger businesses in the state from the use
of engineers, it exempts everyone and it doesn't require that well
trained technicians do the work in the place of engineers. It says
that any employee can which raises the possibility that a day
laborer, for example, could be designing and constructing a public
building.
Finally, MS. REARDON said, one of the arguments they would hear is
that the occupational licensing statutes should not determine when
a registered engineer is required, because that's the proper role
of other regulatory agencies, like DEC or the fire marshall. She
argued that the whole purpose of occupational licensing statutes is
to determine who is adequately prepared to safely perform certain
service and who should be prevented from doing that work, because
there is potential public danger. That is what a medical statute
does, also.
The CS to HB 46 does not completely satisfy the division's
responsibility to protect public health and safety, MS. REARDON
said. Although on page 3, buildings and structures that are
primarily used for public occupancy are excluded from the
exemption. Buildings and structures that are used by employees are
still exempted. They still have some concern with fish processing
plants and office buildings that are used specifically by one
company and making sure they are all structurally sound.
The second concern would be electrical systems. It is not just
utilities who design and construct electrical systems.
Finally, MS. REARDON said, there is discussion that the uniform
building code, through the fire marshall, is providing protection
for structural soundness. However, the fire marshall only reviews
plans to see if they satisfy the fire standards. No one looks at
the plans to see if the structural requirements of the uniform
building code are being met and there is no one to investigate a
complaint that a building does not meet a building code.
She, therefore, supported an amendment which would narrow the
exemption. She suggested to do this would be to exempt electrical
systems over 35 kilovolts and exempt all buildings rather than
those just used for public occupancy. Another alternative would be
to simply delete the word "public occupancy" from line 29 on page
3 and replace it with "human occupancy."
SENATOR KELLY asked her if her department had the same position on
the House bill. MS. REARDON replied that when it went through the
House, their position was that they would listen to public
testimony and hope there would be a compromise developed that would
protect both public safety and address industry interests.
Number 576
VERNON AKIN, Registered Mechanical Engineer, said the word engineer
is used very loosely these days. The reason "registered" was
dropped from in front of "engineer" was so that #10 would be legal.
He supported keeping the word "registered," because that is being
specific.
TAPE 95-18, SIDE B
MR. AKIN said that registration of an architect, engineer, or land
surveyor shows that an individual has passed the requirements of
the state and has the proficiency required to practice the
profession. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, chiropractors, and
barbers, etc. must all be registered. Boards were established to
give the public some measure of confidence that a member that is
registered in that field has competence. It also puts the
responsibility on the members that they either perform as required
or lose their license.
Item 10 was added so that an employee of large company could do
engineering work even though he had no proof required by the state
to indicate he was qualified to design. This allows a company to
produce a design by a non-registered individual and the company
guarantees the work. He pointed out that there is little solace in
that for any injured or dead persons who suffer because of poor
design.
Yet it says that 10 does not apply to buildings or structures whose
primary use is public occupancy. He asked what kind of building
wouldn't be used for public occupancy or could be used for it in
the future. He asked why would we want to lower our standards to
allow more chance of incompetent designs.
MR. AKIN opposed HB 46.
Number 570
SENATOR LEMAN said he is a registered professional engineer,
although his work would not be in the possible exemptions. He said
it is his opinion that some relief is necessary to accommodate
utility companies and industry who do a lot of this work, because
of how the 1990 change has been enforced. To make a change as
broad as this restores almost exactly the wording that was in there
in 1990 and is the wrong approach.
He proposed putting in a new "e" that would provide some size limit
to what a commercial building could be. In item 10 he proposed on
line 3 inserting "unless the health, safety, or well-fare of the
public, including employees and visitors is involved." He also
suggested added "employees and visitors" in other appropriate
places and adding "high voltage electrical systems." Third, he
suggested inserting "other requirements of state law, local
ordinances, building officials, property owners, or adopted
construction and safety codes."
He noted that there are requirements other places in state law for
engineering seals on designs and engineering reports. It needs to
be clear that these are not exempted and this is not what is being
sought.
He also said there may be future possibilities for exemptions that
come up and he thought those should be addressed when they come up
and suggested item 11 "other exemptions granted by the ALS Board by
regulation when the health, safety, or welfare of the public are
not substantially involved."
Number 511
SENATOR SALO asked if the bill needed language to assure that other
requirements in law for a P.E. certification, as well as municipal
ordinances requiring P.E. certification. SENATOR LEMAN said he
would like that comfort, although the drafting attorney might not
think it necessary.
GRAHAM ROLSTAD, Vice President, Engineering Construction, Matanuska
Telephone said he represented the Alaska Telephone Association. He
said he supported the bill as written and felt that section 3, item
10 is very critical to the telephone utilities in providing cost
effective services to their customers.
MR. ROLSTAD said prior to 1990 there was an exemption that was
removed without public hearing. He said there wasn't a problem up
until that time, and he didn't see the need for over-regulation.
He said there are specialists in telephone work and national
standards they live by which allow them to put in telecommunication
facilities that protect the public. The bottom line is that the
people are well trained and the companies are responsible for their
work and they take that responsibility seriously.
Number 450
NANCY SCHOEPHOESTER, ARCO, Alaska, supported CSHB 46. She noted
that section 3, reinstating the in-house exemption for engineers
which existed in Alaska prior to 1990 currently exists in 37 other
states. They feel there is a licensing board whose duty it is to
determine what the qualifications are to become a licensed
engineer. They feel it is within the purview of the regulating
local state and federal agencies to determine and regulate the
activity.
She said that Ken Thompson, President of ARCO has established as
one of his priorities within ARCO that there will be a safe, low-
cost, and long-term company.
LEE HOLMES said he is a licensed mechanical engineer in Alaska. He
supported the first two parts of the bill and the intent of the
third part of the bill. The exception he has is with the wording.
He didn't have a problem with MTA, for instance, in designing
telephone systems, but he didn't see where that would qualify them
to design a new office building for MTA. The wording of the
exception would allow them to do that.
Number 426
DICK ARMSTRONG, Chairman, ALS Board, opposed HB 46, because they
feel the exemption proposed in section 3 is too broad and does not
protect the public from unsafe buildings or facilities. With the
amount of remote construction that occurs in Alaska and the
relatively few building code officials, passage of this exemption
will lose a key component of safety in resulting facility
construction.
Future purchasers of facilities that are not designed by licensed
professionals are going to be purchasing potentially non-code
conforming properties that are a very real threat to public safety.
PATRICK DOOLEY said he supported HB 46 without change. He said all
it does is restore the exemption for in-house engineering work
which would save the state many millions of dollars. Their
experience with those people is that their work is professional and
in compliance.
JANET REESER, Engineering Services Manager, said they are well
regulated and very responsible and supported HB 46 as written.
Number 362
KIMBERLY CHANCY, registered engineer, said that registration alone
does not insure individual competency to work in specific
industrial applications. She has found that the industry is pretty
comfortable in knowing where their reputations lie.
STEVE ALTECH, Manufacturing Manager, supported HB 46 without
change.
ROB WHITE, Raytheon ARCO Alliance Contract, supported HB 46 in its
unamended form. This bill is in the best interests of Alaskans
providing quality control. He specifically mentioned he supported
section 3.
Number 294
JOHN BURDICK, registered engineer in Alaska, said he thought
section 10 was too broad as written. In addition the increased
cost is a red herring. He said a lot of his students work for ARCO
and it wouldn't be hard for them to become registered and it would
be a hurdle that would protect the public.
JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association,
supported HB 46 in its current version. He emphasized that this is
a compromise piece of legislation. He appreciated the legislature
making review of this issue a very public process as it didn't
happen in 1990 when essentially the same wording in section 3 was
taken out. In the interests of his customers who will bear the
burden of the increased cost of having registered engineers do
every piece of infrastructure development he pleaded that they do
not increase their telecommunications costs.
KEN BROCK, Engineer with ARCO Alaska, supported HB 46 and in
particular the reinstatement of licenses and exemptions for in-
house engineers.
COLIN MAYNARD said the registration law is to protect public safety
by requiring minimum qualification to do engineering work. The
state has the responsibility to make sure that engineering is done
by qualified people. He supported HB 46 and the language Senator
Leman proposed.
SENATOR KELLY asked if professional engineers were required to keep
up continuing education. SENATOR LEMAN replied no.
Number 169
BOB HANCOCK, Anchorage Telephone Utility, supported HB 46 as
written. He said their plant is designed in accordance with
industry standards. They use AT&T guidelines and national safety
codes. They have had no complaints of substandard construction.
They have had no incidences of physical injury or harm caused by
construction or their engineering methods. They do not offer
engineering services outside of their business.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to pass HB 46 from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
HB 220 ALASKA TOURISM MARKETING COUNCIL
SENATOR KELLY announced HB 220 to be up for consideration and said
the committee was concerned with the travel provision in this bill.
SENATOR MILLER moved to adopt a conceptual amendment adopting the
senate language into HB 220.
SENATOR KELLY asked Jerry Gernigan and John Litton if they
supported this bill. JOHN LITTEN said they supported it.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR MILLER moved to pass SCSHB 220 (L&C) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SENATOR KELLY adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|