Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1994 09:07 AM STA
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE April 6, 1994 9:07 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Loren Leman, Chair Senator Mike Miller, Vice Chair Senator Robin Taylor Senator Jim Duncan Senator Johnny Ellis MEMBERS ABSENT All Members Present COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 357 "An Act relating to certain study, publication, and reporting requirements by and to state agencies; relating to certain fees for reports; and providing for an effective date." SENATE BILL NO. 358 "An Act relating to the existence and functions of certain multimember state bodies, including boards, councils, commissions, associations, or authorities; and providing for an effective date." CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 315(JUD) am "An Act relating to the unauthorized use of or unauthorized interference with transmission and delivery of subscription cable services; and amending the definition of the offense of theft of services and the penalties for its violation." HOUSE BILL NO. 402 "An Act requiring that an owner's motor vehicle liability insurance policy used as proof of financial responsibility designate by description or appropriate reference the motor vehicles it covers; and providing for an effective date." SENATE BILL NO. 365 "An Act relating to the improvement of state finances and fiscal accountability by increasing fees, by collecting additional revenue, by reducing certain program expenditures by changing services or eligibility requirements for programs, by changing certain statutory limitation periods, by providing for use of certain electronic records, by making changes to state agency functions or procedures including certain reporting and planning procedures, and by authorizing extensions for state leases for real property if certain savings can be achieved; and providing for an effective date." CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 323(JUD) am "An Act relating to requests for anatomical gifts and to the release of certain information for the purpose of facilitating anatomical gifts." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 357 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/30/94. SB 358 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/30/94. HB 315 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/30/94. HB 402 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/30/94. SB 365 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/30/94. HB 323 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated 3/21/94, and State Affairs minutes dated 3/30/94. WITNESS REGISTER Linda Rexwinkel, Budget Analyst Division of Budget Review Office of Management & Budget P.O. Box 110200, Juneau, AK 99811-0200¶465-4694 POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 357 Sharon Barton, Director Division of Administrative Services Department of Administration P.O. Box 110208, Juneau, AK 99811-0208¶465-2277 POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 357 Wallace Olson, Ret. Professor Box 210961, Auke Bay, AK 99821¶789-3311 POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 358 Bea Shepard Museums Alaska 12585 Glacier Hwy., Juneau, AK 99801¶789-7354 POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 358 Kristie Leaf, Director Boards & Commissions Office of the Governor P.O. Box 110001, Juneau, AK 99811-0001¶465-3500 POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 358 Eric Musser, Aide Representative Porter State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-4930 POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 315 John George National Association of Independent Insurers 9515 Moraine Way, Juneau, AK 9801¶789-0172 POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of HB 402 Juanita Hensley, Chief Driver Services Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 20020, Juneau, AK 99802-0020¶465-4335 POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 402 Diane Schenker, Special Assistant Department of Corrections 2200 E. 42nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99508-5202¶561-4426 POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 365 M. Clyde Stoltzfus, Special Assistant Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive, Juneau, AK 99801-7898¶465-3906 POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 365 Deena Henkins, Chief Drinking Water & Wastewater Section Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 105, Juneau, AK 99801-1795¶465-5300 POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 365 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-23, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at 9:07 a.m. HB 323 (RELEASE OF CERTAIN DEATH CERT. INFO) was not heard on this day. Number 010 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 357 (REQUIRED REPORTS OF STATE AGENCIES) as the first order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee today. The chairman asks why, under section 13 of SB 357, would it be desirable to shift the reports two months. He has heard that it is recommended practice by a national organization of auditors that audits be performed within six months of the end of a fiscal year. His initial reaction to shifting reports two months is that it is not an appropriate action. Number 030 LINDA REXWINKEL, Budget Analyst, Office of Management & Budget (OMB) introduces Ms. Barton, and says Ms. Barton will answer questions on that particular section. Number 035 SHARON BARTON, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Administration (DOA) states some of the reports needed from other state agencies are not available until October. Therefore, the DOA is unable to meet the October 16 deadline. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if a deadline of December 16 is needed, or if a deadline in November would be acceptable. Why is two months needed? MS. BARTON responds that, as the chairman is aware, DOA was even later in getting out the report this year due to staffing requirements. The combination of the lateness of reports from other state agencies to DOA and the staffing levels within the Division of Finance require at least two months to prepare the report. Number 057 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Barton what her projection is for reports becoming available. Number 061 MS. BARTON replies it would be sometime after December 16, but she cannot answer as to a definite time. Number 065 MS. REXWINKEL adds the audits are done for the previous fiscal year, so they are actually a year behind. The current year's audit is not done within that period of time. What is in this report is merely the financial statement from the Division of Finance. These are not the audited statements that originate from Legislative Audit. Number 085 CHAIRMAN LEMAN states he was told by the commissioner of the Department of Revenue that it was the policy guideline of a national organization of auditors, that audits be completed within six months of the end of a fiscal year. He wonders if that is something that should be important to the State of Alaska. Number 097 MS. REXWINKEL responds, as she understands it, one of the concerns the Department of Revenue has relates to the bond underwriters. The underwriters review those financial statements in underwriting and rating the State of Alaska for bond issues. So the timeliness of those reports is of concern to them. Number 102 MS. BARTON adds that the situation is that, in order for the state's annual financial report to comply with government accounting standards, the state must have previously audited reports going into that annual financial report. Those previously audited reports are not available, particularly on federal programs, until after October 16. So if the state proceeds with the October 16 deadline, the state would not be using materials to compile the annual report that comply with GASBY (?) requirements. Number 125 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are further questions or if anyone else wishes to testify on SB 357. Hearing none, the chairman asks the pleasure of the committee. Number 127 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 357 from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. Number 129 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders SB 357 released from committee with individual recommendations. Number 131 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 358 (ELIMINATE SOME STATE MULTIMEMBER BODIES) as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. The chairman calls the first witness. Number 139 WALLACE OLSON, Retired University Professor, states he has worked with universities and museums around the world, and is familiar with museums and museum operations. Mr. Olson gives background information on why the current Museum Collections Advisory Committee exists as it does today. Apparently, in 1973, one man decided to trade items back and forth. It was really a bad deal. At that point, the state decided that, in the future, all museum collections would be monitored by a Museum Collections Advisory Committee. SB 358 would drop that committee, giving authority over collections to the Commissioner of the Department of Education. This would lead us right back into that same problem in 1973. If the control of a museum collection lies with one person, the same problems will arise again. Mr. Olson says other museums have told him that, and he has seen it himself. Museums do not operate in this manner. Number 166 MR. OLSON points out that, even though the museum is under the jurisdiction of the Division of Libraries, Archives, & Museums, museums are totally different from a library. Comparisons cannot be made as far as purchasing books for a library and making acquisitions for a museum. Museum collections reflect the heritage of the state for the next hundred years or so. Whoever decides what acquisitions will be made is deciding what will be preserved for future generations. Those decisions should be made by a committee representing all the population of the state. MR. OLSON states that, if the concerns with the committee relate to the fiscal costs related to the committee, those costs can be overcome with the application of modern technology. Mr. Olson thinks the costs associated with the committee could possibly be cut back to almost nothing, but he urges that the committee not be eliminated. Number 197 CHAIRMAN LEMAN informs Mr. Olson of the existence of an amendment to SB 358 which would restore the committee, making changes to save costs. The Museum Collections Advisory will be allowed to meet by teleconference, and it does change the value of items that must be approved by the committee from 1,000$ to 5,000$. The chairman asks that a copy of the amendment be given to Mr. Olson. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Shepard if her testimony is along the same lines as Mr. Olson's testimony, and asks Ms. Shepard if the amendment would satisfy her concerns. BEA SHEPARD, with Museums Alaska, responds the amendment would satisfy her concerns and she hopes it is adopted. Number 215 MR. WALLACE adds that his testimony is in written form, and he will submit it to the committee. Number 219 CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Mr. Wallace for his testimony and asks Ms. Leaf if there is opposition to amendment #2 from the governor's office. Number 221 KRISTIE LEAF, Director, Boards & Commissions, Office of the Governor, states there is no opposition to amendment #2 from the governor's office. The purpose of the bill is to improve efficiency. Number 228 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if anyone else wishes to testify on SB 358. Hearing none, the chairman brings up amendment #1 and asks for a motion to adopt the amendment. Number 229 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to adopt amendment #1 to SB 358. Number 233 SENATOR TAYLOR objects and asks for an explanation of amendment #1. Number 235 MS. LEAF responds amendment #1 would increase the Worker's Compensation Board from five panels to six panels. Concern has been expressed that decisions from the board have been tardy. There would be no fiscal cost associated with amendment #1 because there would not be additional meetings, the panels would simply meet sooner. SENATOR TAYLOR withdraws his objection to amendment #1. Number 265 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no further objection to amendment #1, states the amendment has been adopted. Number 267 CHAIRMAN LEMAN introduces amendment #2 to SB 358. SENATOR TAYLOR makes a motion to adopt amendment #2. Number 271 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is discussion or opposition to amendment #2. Hearing none, the chairman states amendment # 2 has been adopted. CHAIRMAN LEMAN introduces a conceptual amendment to SB 358 which would add language from SB 286. The opinion of legislative counsel is that for the language in SB 358 to match the language in SB 286, the committee should simply adopt language directly from SB 286. The portions of SB 286 which relate to sections 7 and 9 of SB 358 would be adopted into SB 358. Number 328 SENATOR ELLIS asks the chairman if there would be any substantive changes with the adoption of the technical amendment. CHAIRMAN LEMAN replies there would be no substantive changes with the adoption of the amendment. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are any objections to amendment #3, the conceptual amendment. Hearing none, the chairman states amendment #3 has been adopted. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are further amendments or discussion on SB 358. Number 342 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge SB 358 from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. Number 343 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders SB 358 released from committee with individual recommendations. Number 344 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 315 (THEFT OF SUBSCRIPTION TV SERVICES) as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. Number 348 SENATOR TAYLOR asks if a committee substitute has been drafted for HB 315. CHAIRMAN LEMAN replies there was not a cs drafted for HB 315. SENATOR ELLIS asks if the bill has been heard previously. CHAIRMAN LEMAN responds the committee has heard the bill and taken testimony on it. Number 355 SENATOR DUNCAN asks what the penalty for theft of cable services would be under HB 315. CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls a representative of the prime sponsor to respond to that question. Number 364 ERIC MUSSER, Aide to Representative Porter, responds that the manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of converter boxes, if convicted, would be guilty of a class C felony. Users of unauthorized boxes could be subject to a penalty of a class A misdemeanor. SENATOR DUNCAN asks if this type of theft is occurring at this time. MR. MUSSER replies that it is. Presently, Alaska's theft of service statute makes unauthorized use of converter boxes illegal. But at this time, the theft of services statute is too broad and undefinable. HB 315 would define the crime. Number 381 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge HB 315 from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. Number 382 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, orders HB 315 released from committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 402 (PROOF OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE) as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. The chairman calls the first witness. Number 394 JOHN GEORGE, Representing the National Association of Independent Insurers, states HB 402 would correct an unintentional equity. Insurance companies insure specific vehicles. If a person is determined to have driven without insurance, or a person has their license suspended, that person is required to file a form SR22 with the State of Alaska, which verifies that that person now has insurance on their vehicle. Unfortunately, the SR22 form does not list specific vehicles. This means a person could have five vehicles, insure only one, and when an insurance company fills out an SR22 for that driver, the courts interpret that as meaning that person has insurance on all five vehicles. If one of those vehicles was an 18 wheel truck, that person's policy would cover that. The insurance companies feel this is inequitable. If a person wants coverage on all the vehicles, that should be paid for. If a person does not have an SR22, they are not covered for vehicles not on their policy. So a person who is required to file an SR22 actually has broader coverage under their insurance policy than someone who has not broken the law. Number 428 MR. GEORGE states a person can get a policy that covers the driver, and not the vehicles they drive. It may be appropriate for someone who has a number of vehicles to get that type of a policy. However, if that person loans one of their vehicles to another person, the borrower would not be covered while driving the borrowed vehicle. Unless, of course, the borrower had a conventional policy. SENATOR DONLEY adds the borrower would not be covered if he also is an SR22 driver. Number 449 MR. GEORGE states the standard auto insurance policy covers someone when they are driving someone else's vehicle. Number 458 SENATOR TAYLOR states, under a standard policy, if a person owned eight vehicles, but only insured one, he would not be covered while driving one of the seven uninsured vehicles. However, if that person borrowed a friend's car, that person would be covered. Number 464 MR. GEORGE responds that is correct. However, the owner policy is primary. But if the owner is uninsured or underinsured, then the borrower's insurance would kick in. Number 469 SENATOR MILLER asks how many people in the state have SR22's. Number 474 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety says there are currently 26,000 persons who have revoked or suspended licenses. Those drivers are required to have an SR22 policy at the time they reinstate their licenses. Number 479 SENATOR TAYLOR wants to ask the Division of Insurance if anyone is keeping track of the claims made and the actual costs of SR22 policies, or if the state is allowing the insurance industry to rip SR22 drivers off as they choose. He wonders if anyone has ever looked at those policies to see if they reflect the actual cost of insuring those drivers. Number 491 MS. HENSLEY responds that is something the Division of Motor Vehicles does not track. She would like to clarify a statement made earlier by Mr. George regarding a commercial vehicle being covered by an SR22. If that commercial vehicle is operating inter- state, they are required to have a lower limit of liability insurance of 700,000$. So their private SR22 would not cover a commercial vehicle. Number 496 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are any further questions of Mr. George or Ms. Hensley. Hearing none, the chairman invites Senator Donley to present his testimony. Number 498 SENATOR DONLEY states HB 402 will create an especially dangerous situation. The only people required to show proof of insurance up front, are those drivers who have exhibited some reason for that requirement: drunk drivers, dangerous drivers, persons who have been caught driving previously without insurance. When mandatory auto insurance was reinstated in 1989, the decision was made to require dangerous drivers to show proof of insurance for all the vehicles they owned. SENATOR DONLEY states he was the prime sponsor of the legislation that was passed in 1989, and he remembers specifically discussing this very point. The representation that it was a mistake or inadvertent that dangerous drivers be covered for all the vehicles they own, even though they actually insure just one vehicle, is completely false. That was the subject of intense discussion and debate, and a vote on this very issue in committee. Senator Donley states he remembers it very well; he remembers, at the beginning of the discussion, being torn about which side was best. He was convinced by the debate that the way the law stands now, is the right thing to do. Number 545 SENATOR DONLEY states HB 402 is simply making it easier for dangerous and drunk drivers. Under HB 402, if an SR22 driver injures a person while driving a vehicle not covered by his policy, the state and social service agencies will end up footing the bill for the accident. SENATOR DONLEY believes the proponents of HB 402 twist the facts to support the bill. SENATOR DONLEY states automatic coverage of all vehicles an SR22 driver owns are reflected in the high rates paid by SR22 drivers. He also states it is not entirely true that SR22 drivers are not required to disclose all vehicles under their ownership. While it is true that SR22 drivers are covered, even when not disclosing all vehicles under their ownership, non-disclosure is clearly grounds for termination of coverage by the insurance company. SENATOR DONLEY restates the only people he thinks will benefit from HB 402, if their rates are structured properly, are the dangerous drivers. Number 591 SENATOR DONLEY states a much better option than HB 402 would be to require dangerous drivers to show proof of insurance for every vehicle they own. Make the policies vehicle specific, and make dangerous drivers insure every vehicle registered to them. TAPE 94-23, SIDE B Number 593 SENATOR DONLEY continues his analysis of alternatives to HB 402. He thinks that, at a minimum, the penalties for dangerous drivers who do not carry insurance on their vehicles be increased. HB 402 will increase the risk to citizens of the state; it will make the problem worse than it is. SENATOR DONLEY's last point is that the Division of Insurance no longer supports HB 402. The division is, at a minimum, neutral on HB 402. The division originally supported HB 402, but they have now withdrawn their support of the bill. Number 496 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are any questions of Senator Donley, or if anyone else wishes to testify on the bill. Hearing none, the chairman asks the pleasure of the committee. Number 578 SENATOR MILLER makes a motion to discharge HB 402 from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. Number 573 SENATOR TAYLOR objects to the motion to discharge HB 402 from the State Affairs Committee. CHAIRMAN LEMAN notes the objection and asks if there is any discussion regarding the objection. Hearing none, the chairman asks for a roll-call vote on whether to discharge the bill. The motion fails, with Chairman Leman and Senator Miller voting in favor of the motion, and Senators Taylor, Ellis, and Duncan voting against the motion. Number 568 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 365 (GOVERNOR'S OMNIBUS BILL) as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. The chairman announces that the committee has two amendments to SB 365. Amendment #1 has been suggested by the Department of Corrections, and amendment #2 has been suggested by the Department of Law. The chairman offers amendment #1 and moves the amendment. Number 555 SENATOR ELLIS objects for purposes of discussion and asks for an explanation of the amendment. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Schenker to explain the amendment. Number 552 DIANE SCHENKER, Special Assistant, Department of Corrections states the amendment would address section 27, line 10. It would delete the reference to AS 33.30.071 (c). It is a technical error to refer to subsection (c). Subsection (c) actually refers to people for which the Department of Corrections does not have medical responsibility. The rest of the amendment would allow the department to collect payments from inmates or other sources for a broader scope of services than the medical, psychological, and psychiatric services originally listed. This would allow the department to collect for any service provided that is listed under AS 33.30.011 (a). MS. SCHENKER states she is not certain which services might or might not be collected for by the department. It will depend on the level of tension in the institutions, etcetera. Not only could it generate some program receipts, but it can also be used to discourage frivolous use of services. For instance, persons filing fifty grievances per day. Number 535 SENATOR ELLIS asks Ms. Schenker to explain how the level of tension in an institution could affect the fees that are collected. Number 533 MS. SCHENKER responds that overcrowding in the institutions causes management problems, and if the tension level is already high, it can cost the state more money than actually will be collected by instituting the fee. There would be a careful assessment of how well the department is able to manage the population before instituting collection of fees. Also, if it is a service to which the inmate has a constitutional right, then obviously the department cannot charge a fee for that service if the inmate is indigent. Number 520 SENATOR ELLIS asks if Cleary addresses fees for medical services. Number 516 MS. SCHENKER replies there is nothing specific in Cleary addressing charges for medical services or the other services listed under this section. Cleary does define an indigent prisoner. It is very restricted as to what must be provided to indigent prisoners, but it does not speak to fees. Number 509 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is any further objection to amendment adopted. CHAIRMAN LEMAN offers amendment #2 from the Department of Law. Amendment #2 redrafts section 33 of AS 37.07.060. The chairman asks if there is anyone from the executive branch to address the redrafting of section 33. Number 495 CLYDE STOLTZFUS, Special Assistant, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities states he initially raised the question about the original draft of section 33. Mr. Stoltzfus states the original draft was not understandable. Number 490 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if everyone understands the redraft of section 33. Hearing no comment, the chairman asks if there is any objection to the adoption of amendment #2. Hearing none, the chairman states the amendment has been adopted. Number 483 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Stoltzfus, under section 10, if the term "standard plans and specifications" should be changed to the term "standard drawings and specifications". MR. STOLTZFUS responds the chairman is correct, and the term should be changed. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is objection to using the term "standard drawings and specifications" and offers that change as amendment #3. Number 466 CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, states amendment #3 has been adopted. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks, under section 42, line 9, what is intended to be regulated under the term "sewerage". Number 449 DEENA HENKINS, Chief, Drinking Water & Wastewater Section, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) states that language is intended to make clear that DEC can delegate sewer system (sewerage) plan review to other competent government agencies. However, she does not think it is important whether the term sewer system or sewerage is used there. Sewerage is just all- encompassing. Number 433 CHAIRMAN LEMAN states it would be his preference to use the most precise term. The chairman asks if it is intended that the term be applied only to domestic sewerage. MS. HENKINS replies the term is intended to apply to domestic sewerage. Number 426 CHAIRMAN LEMAN offers, as amendment #4, to delete the words "wastewater collections and", and asks if there is any objection. CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, states amendment #4 has been adopted. Number 424 CHAIRMAN LEMAN notes there is similar language on lines 13 and 14, and asks, as amendment #5, that "wastewater collection and" be deleted. Number 419 SENATOR TAYLOR asks what authority the State of Alaska has to impose state law on a military facility or base. Number 416 MS. HENKINS states she is an engineer and not an attorney, but she thinks it can depend on whether there is a federal law that gives the state that authority. She also thinks there are executive orders telling the military to comply with state and local regulations as well. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is objection to amendment #5. Hearing none, the chairman states amendment #5 has been adopted. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Henkins what the reason is to have, on page 16, lines 5 and 7, why the language states, "sewerage system or treatment works", and asks why "treatment works" is included. MS. HENKINS thinks that may be more in line with Title 46 of Alaska Statutes. CHAIRMAN LEMAN states if that language is already in statute, he will not go into it. Number 396 SENATOR TAYLOR makes a motion to delete section 38, 39, 42, and those provisions within section 43 impacted by that be deleted. Number 388 SENATOR ELLIS objects to that motion. Number 387 SENATOR TAYLOR states his reasons for that motion are because the department will establish regulations increasing fees wherever the department determines that they have an "indirect cost". It is obvious to him that DEC is reaching out to further increase what he considers to be already astronomically high fees. He thinks everything DEC is doing under this authority is offensive. SENATOR TAYLOR then adds he will also ask that, as his next amendment, AS 44.46.025 (a). Number 363 CHAIRMAN LEMAN notes that there was objection to Senator Taylor's first motion. The chairman lists the sections Senator Taylor just motioned to be deleted and notes that section 42 is the section the committee just worked on amendments to. Chairman Leman states he also objects to Senator Taylor's motion. SENATOR TAYLOR withdraws his motion, saying he does not think the state has any business "dinking" around with military facilities. SENATOR TAYLOR states he will modify his amendment so as not to delete section 42. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is any objection from the committee to the amendment to the amendment. Hearing no further objection, the chairman states Senator Taylor's amendment has been amended. CHAIRMAN LEMAN states Senator Taylor's amendment now is to delete sections 38, 39, and those portions of section 43 that relate to those two sections. SENATOR TAYLOR states he did not ask to delete section 39. All he wanted was sections relating to DEC. CHAIRMAN LEMAN clarifies that Senator Taylor only wanted his amendment to delete section 38 and those portions of section 43 that relate to DEC. SENATOR DUNCAN asks that Senator Taylor withdraw his original motion for an amendment and propose a new amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR makes a motion to withdraw his amendment. CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, states Senator Taylor's amendment has been withdrawn. SENATOR TAYLOR proposes a new amendment, that being to delete section 38 and replace it with, " AS 44.46.025 (a) is hereby repealed." SENATOR DUNCAN and SENATOR ELLIS object to Senator Taylor's amendment. CHAIRMAN LEMAN notes objection has been made and asks Ms. Henkins if she would like to speak to the amendment. Number 315 MS. HENKINS states she deals principally with fees for drinking and wastewater issues, including plan reviews and permit issuing. In her opinion, DEC has taken a very conservative approach in establishing fees for services. Fees typically reflect the time of the professional involved in the permitting process. For the most part, DEC has avoided fees based on hourly computations because of potential abuses of that. DEC's fees currently only recover a fraction of the direct costs involved. Number 290 CHAIRMAN LEMAN states adding the words "and indirect" to page 15, line 2 trouble him. MS. HENKINS responds that language is to allow DEC to come closer to recovering the entire cost of some of the programs. Number 283 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks what is included in direct costs at this time. Number 280 MS. HENKINS replies she is speaking only for those fees in which she has been personally involved, says it tends to be the cost of the one person conducting the plan review or issuing the permit. It hasn't included any kind of clerical support, management costs, or any other costs. Taken into the calculations are the salary and benefit costs of the person involved. Number 259 SENATOR TAYLOR states he does not understand what the additional, indirect costs are, since inspections, permit preparation, administration, plan review- administration ought to include every secretary. He cannot imagine an indirect cost that is not currently included in law. Number 252 MS. HENKINS responds that if that is Senator Taylor's interpretation, then Ms. Henkins would certainly not have any objection to deleting the "and indirect". Number 248 SENATOR TAYLOR asks why ten through fourteen (unclear as to what he is referring) have been added. Number 245 MS. HENKINS replies she can personally only speak to about three of these. The on-site water and sewer system certification and audit program is in reference to section 41. This is the so-called bank loan certification program, where banks want DEC, or someone overseen by DEC to look at the water and sewer systems on a property before making a loan on that property. For about ten years, DEC did do this, as a service to the banks. In 1990 it was estimated that the program was costing the department 540,000$ per year. DEC instituted a 250$ fee for those inspections in early 1993. When the FY 94 wastewater budget was cut, DEC elected to try to back out of the bank loan certification program, because it is not required by Alaska Statute or regulations. The lenders simply will not let DEC get entirely out of the program. So DEC is proposing a statute allowing registered engineers to do the certifications, with an audit of the engineers to satisfy the banks that the engineers are doing adequate certifications. DEC proposes that they be allowed to charge a fee to audit the engineers doing the certifications. Number 220 CHAIRMAN LEMAN agrees that the private sector should be doing these certifications. He thinks the banks and lending institutions are being overly cautious in this case. Number 206 MS. HENKINS agrees that professional engineers can easily do these certifications. However, the banks do not agree and want at least minimal involvement by DEC or say they simply will not lend. DEC thinks the program provided for in section 41 is the least costly way DEC can continue to be involved, while making sure that the banks will continue to lend. CHAIRMAN LEMAN appreciates the department working to try to resolve this problem. Number 193 SENATOR TAYLOR states this is not the least costly way. What we are talking about is DEC wanting to get out of the business of testing drinking water for people in Alaska. To suggest the evil banks and lending institutions are behind this is garbage. We can't even have decent water and sewage systems for half of our villages. Number 174 CHAIRMAN LEMAN notes for Senator Taylor that the Municipality of Anchorage has had this type of program for a number of years. The chairman further states that he does not think DEC should be doing a lot of the testing that it does; the testing should be done by private laboratories. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is further discussion regarding the amendment. Hearing none, the chairman asks if there is objection to the amendment. SENATOR DUNCAN voices his objection to the amendment. CHAIRMAN LEMAN restates the amendment, it being to delete section 38 and repeal the ability of the Department of Environmental Conservation to collect fees. The chairman asks for a roll-call vote on adoption of the amendment. The adoption of the amendment fails by 2 yeas, 3 nays, with Senators Miller and Taylor voting in favor of the amendment, and Chairman Leman and Senators Ellis and Duncan voting against the amendment. Number 145 CHAIRMAN LEMAN offers amendment #7, which would delete "and indirect" on page 15, line 2. SENATOR ELLIS voices objection to amendment #7. Number 141 SENATOR TAYLOR makes a motion to amend amendment #7 by also deleting lines 21 through 30. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Senator Taylor if he would offer that as a separate amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR withdraws his amendment to amendment #7. CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are questions on amendment #7. Hearing none, the chairman asks if there are continued objections to the amendment. CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing continued objection, asks that a roll-call vote be taken on the amendment. Amendment #7 fails by a vote of 2 yeas, 3 nays. Voting in favor of the amendment are Chairman Leman and Senator Miller, voting against the amendment are Senators Taylor, Ellis, and Duncan. CHAIRMAN LEMAN announce SB 365 will not be passed from the Senate State Affairs Committee today. Number 122 CHAIRMAN LEMAN adjourns the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting at 10:35 a.m.