Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/06/1998 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act authorizing the Department of Environmental
Conservation to charge certain fees relating to
registration of pesticides and broadcast chemicals;
and providing for an effective date."
JANICE ADAIR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC), informed
Committee members that the language referencing direct and
indirect costs would limit the Department by charging only
direct costs. The stipulation has been part of AS
44.60.025(a) since it was first adopted by the Legislature
in 1990 in passage of HB 85.
Direct versus Indirect Costs. Ms. Adair stated that in
1993, when the Legislature passed legislation establishing
the comprehensive air program in the State (HB167), it
included what is now AS 44.46.025(c), and allowed DEC to
include in its air permit fees both direct and "indirect"
costs. Adding the authority for "indirect" costs was
necessary because AS 46.14.400(h), also a part of HB 167,
prohibits the Department from delegating or enabling
another department or government entity (i.e.
municipalities) from establishing air permit fees or
collecting them. Therefore, since the air fees established
by DEC were intended to cover the costs of a municipality
that might run the air permitting program rather than just
the department's own costs of providing the service, the
term "indirect" was added to give the necessary authority.
Other Services Provided by the Department. Ms. Adair spoke
to the language, which originated in AS 44.46.025(a)(1)
relating to the food and public facility activities of DEC.
The language was moved into the introductory paragraph of
AS 44.46.025(a) as part of SB 99, which passed the
Legislature in 1993.
The language was moved in recognition of the fact that
there are a number of other services the Department
provides which directly benefit individuals. The
Legislature wanted DEC to charge for those services. Ms.
Adair noted, currently, the types of services charged for
that are not included as part of an inspection, permit
preparation, administration or plan review and approval
include:
? Laboratory analyses of food products for export;
? Certification of seafood products for export;
? Certificates of Origin for seafood products for
export;
? Sanitary surveys of public drinking water
systems;
? Domestic wastewater installer certification;
? Dog and cat health certificates;
? Food Service facility recognition program
(planned);
? Monitoring waivers for public drinking water
systems;
? Determinations of whether or not a public water
system is groundwater under the direct influence
of surface water;
? Determination of optimal corrosion control for a
public water system that exceeds the lead and
copper action levels;
? Certified Pool and Spa operator training;
? Various other training opportunities as they
arise and are needed.
Ms. Adair continued, there are some services in the current
statuary list for which the Department can charge fees that
are not part of an inspection permit or plan approval. The
proposed amendment to the introductory paragraph would make
the Department's authority to charge a fee for those
services highly questionable.
This would create a problem of funding, not authority. In
a program that is heavily reliant on fees, every hour of an
employee's time must be charged to a project. The costs
incurred by answering questions about a facility or permit
have to be covered. The only way to do that is to charge
the costs to the project because there are insufficient
general funds to cover the costs.
Water and Wastewater Operator Training. Ms. Adair noted
that in this section, DEC specifies how to address the
advisory board because they cover the training and
certification of operators for certain public water and
wastewater systems. The primary authority used for
domestic wastewater certified installers program is found
in AS 46.03.020(a)(10)(D).
Prohibition on Hourly Fees. She noted that hourly fees are
"tough" for the Department. The reason that they exist is
that those who pay these fee have asked for them.
Currently, the only fees on the books that would be
affected by the prohibition are the solid waste fees. For
the new industrial solid waste component, the prohibition
would create a large problem since the Department was given
direction by the Legislature, last session, to make that
aspect of the solid waste program fully funded by fees.
Reimbursement Agreements. Ms. Adair pointed out that the
Department's ability to enter into these funding
arrangements has been supported in previous testimony
before the Committee. These arrangements are used for
large development projects, primarily mines. They
essentially pay the cost for DEC services. Ms. Adair
thought that for site-specific determinations in the water
quality program area, an hourly fee would be the fairest
fee to establish.
Pesticide registration. Ms. Adair continued that if the
Department has fees strictly based on the cost to the
Department to register a pesticide product, it would be
approximately $100 dollars per label. However, the
Department needs only to cover the match for the federal
pesticide grant. If pesticides are not divided into
categories, it would appear that a $50 dollar per label fee
for all products would bring in enough money to provide the
match. She recommended that a $50 dollar label might be
too high, depending on how many of the 2,000-3,000
pesticides the market survey found being sold in the State.
Ms. Adair pointed out that the distinction between a
household pesticide and a non houseshold pesticide made in
the bill is problematic for the Department. She added that
if categories had to be divided, it would be much easier to
determine between restricted use and non-restricted use
pesticides. If these categories were to be delineated, it
would become an administrative nightmare for the Department
and the companies involved.
Co-Chair Therriault asked how many chemicals registered in
the State would fall under "restricted". Ms. Adair noted
that it would be the smallest amount presented. She added
that the Department's proposed number of 2,000 - 3,000 was
based on a recently conducted market survey. She pointed
out that Alaska does not have a lot of pesticides being
used in comparison to other states. Most of the
agriculture here is organic. She reiterated that the
determination is problematic and is another reason why the
Department would like to have the fee established in a
regulatory process which matches the federal grant.
Co-Chair Therriault commented that the proposed committee
substitute would not preclude the Department from entering
into the reimbursable service agreement.
Ms. Adair noted that the proposed water fees are creating
angst and that they have not gone out for public comment
yet. She stated that many changes occur during the public
comment process.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if there was an appeal process
available for those who want to challenge their permit
application. Ms. Adair replied there is. Some cases have
been more informal than others. The regulations are in the
process of being amended.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if training Department
personnel was included in the fees. Ms. Adair responded
that the hourly fees only cover the actual personnel
service costs plus a certain percentage of the common
costs. The fees do not cover costs associated with travel
or training. This requires a well-trained staff. Ms.
Adair concluded her testimony.
HB 144 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 57, Side 2).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|