Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1994 09:07 AM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= 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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|