Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/02/1996 11:30 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 216
An Act relating to fees or assessment of costs for
certain services provided by state government,
including hearing costs related to the real estate
surety fund; fees for authorization to operate a
postsecondary educational institution or for an agent's
permit to perform services for a postsecondary
educational institution; administrative fees for
self-insurers in workers' compensation; business
license fees; fees for activities related to coastal
zone management, training relating to emergency
management response, regulation of pesticides and
broadcast chemicals, and subdivision plans for sewage
waste disposal or treatment; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-chairman Halford advised that in order to avoid the
accumulation of amendments that occurred for SB 215, a draft
CSSB 216 (Fin) (version "K", dated 5/1/96) was prepared for
review by members. He further referenced a sectional
analysis of the bill. The Chairman then called for a motion
for adoption of the draft as a mark-up vehicle. Senator
Randy Phillips so MOVED. No objection having been raised,
CSSB 216 (Fin) was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford explained that new substantive
provisions include:
1. Language that allows municipalities to charge
prisoners for the cost of incarceration of
municipal prisoners.
2. A gasohol repealer.
The Co-chairman next referenced Amendment No. 3, proposed by
the Dept. of Environmental Conservation. JANICE ADAIR,
Director, Division of Environmental Health, Dept. of
Environmental Conservation, came before committee. She
explained that the amendment would allow the department to
charge a fee for review of subdivision plans to ensure they
comply with waste water laws under Title 46. Authority is
presently vested in the department unless adopted by a local
government. Anchorage and Valdez have elected to take over
this function. The department is thus not involved in those
reviews. The department reviews subdivision plans to ensure
proper disposal of sewage in areas where there is no
community system. Language within Amendment No. 3 was in
the original bill but taken out by Senate Labor and
Commence, in part because the department had general funds
to support the activity. Those funds have since been cut.
Without fee authority, the department will no longer be able
to review subdivision plans.
Co-chairman Halford asked if subdivision plan review by the
Dept. of Environmental Conservation was required by other
law. Ms. Adair responded, "No, Sir. It's under Title 46
only."
Senator Sharp asked if most of the plans are designed by
registered engineers. Ms. Adair answered affirmatively.
She explained that engineers lay out subdivisions based on
Title 29 requirements. However, there is no requirement
(within that title) that engineers ensure that sewage can be
properly disposed of. That requirement is within the Dept.
of Environmental Conservation, and DEC has been relied upon
to provide that part of the review.
In response to a further question regarding fees, Ms. Adair
said the fiscal note was based on a flat rate based on the
size of the subdivision. Senator Sharp attested to
complaints from constituents who have hired registered
engineers to do work that must be submitted to DEC when the
department does not have a registered engineer reviewing the
work. Ms. Adair said the department is required to have a
registered engineer review the work.
Senator Sharp expressed concern over a flat fee. He
attested to complaints from those with professionally
designed subdivisions who are delayed by department review
and reworking of subdivisions that have not had the benefit
of professional assistance. Ms. Adair acknowledged having
heard similar complaints on a number of department programs.
She concurred in need to deal with the problem.
In response to a question from Senator Rieger, Ms. Adair
said that authority to review subdivisions is in AS
46.03.090. Amendment No. 3 would simply provide authority
to change fees for review. Co-chairman Halford voiced his
understanding that authority to review does not constitute a
requirement to review. He suggested that there is no
enforcement mechanism. Ms. Adair concurred. She added that
the chances of a subdivision having failing, on-lot septic
systems rises when the department has not done the review.
The department has assisted developers modify subdivision
layout or size of the lots to preclude problems. If that is
not done, the purchaser ends up "getting stuck with the bill
to develop a sewage system that can be accommodated on their
lot." Review is thus a preventive exercise.
Co-chairman Halford said he had a problem with small
subdivisions of large lots. He suggested that review should
not be necessary for subdivisions of less than four lots
where none of the lots are smaller than several acres. Ms.
Adair concurred that subdivisions cited by the Co-chairman
are generally not a problem. The department tends not to
review larger subdivisions due to lack of staff.
Discussion followed concerning requirements embodied within
HB 80.
Additional discussion followed regarding division of large
parcels (10 acres was used as an example) into two halves
and whether or not that should come under DEC review. When
Senator Rieger cited an example of 10 acres posed for
subdivision into one-acre lots, Ms. Adair said it would
probably be subject to DEC review if on-lot sewage disposal
is involved. The department would review the lots to ensure
that they are developable. If the subdivision would be
hooking up to a community sewage system, the situation is
different. If a lot must accommodate sewage disposal, it
will probably also have to accommodate drinking water.
Further discussion of developability followed.
Co-chairman Halford voiced need to exempt subdivisions of
less than four lots where no lot is less than one acre
before he could support the language within Amendment No. 3.
The fee will give the department ability to set, drive, and
run the program. The program must have bounds. While there
is no direct enforcement mechanism in terms of recording,
there is still a general requirement. Ms. Adair asked that
she be given an opportunity to contact department engineers
to determine whether one acre would be an appropriate
cutoff. Senator Sharp expressed support for comments by the
Co-chairman. He voiced reluctance to provided ability to
charge fees for a program for which "I get nothing but
complaints that DEC shouldn't even be in the business,"
particularly when professional engineers do the design work.
Discussion followed among members regarding costs associated
with redesign and delay of an entire season due to failure
to gain timely approval of designs. Co-chairman Halford
directed that Ms. Adair work with department engineers to
return appropriate amendment language to committee.
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Dept. of Labor, next came before committee. He referenced
Section 4 and advised that it would allow the department to
assess a fee upon self-insurers, similar to that charged
employers who have to purchase a workers' compensation
insurance policy. The fee would be 4% on the previous
year's claim experience. That would be similar to the 2.7
percent premium tax assessed against employers who purchase
workers' compensation insurance. Co-chairman Halford asked
if there was significant opposition. Mr. Grossi responded
negatively. He acknowledged that no one wants to pay more.
However, those who are self-insured view this as a
significant service in that they can save money by
exercising control over their own claims.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Dept. of Labor, next
spoke before committee. He referenced an updated fiscal
note and explained that it reflects removal of
municipalities, school districts, and regional education
attendance areas per action taken in Senate Labor and
Commerce.
Co-chairman Halford referenced CSSB 216 (Fin) and explained
that Amendment No. 4 was included with exception of the
requirement that the municipality charge a fee no less than
the state fee. Amendment No. 5, adding an application fee
on the exploration incentive credit, was also included.
Amendment No. 3 containing the DEC fee for subdivision
review remains the only outstanding amendment.
Senator Zharoff inquired regarding marine and harbor
facility fees within Section 7 (Page 3) of the bill. NANCY
SLAGLE, Director, Division of Budget Review, Office of
Management and Budget, explained that language would allow
municipalities to charge fees to cover operation and repair
work at state harbor and marine facilities. Municipalities
have not previously been able to charge sufficient amounts
to maintain the facilities. SAM KITO, III, Special
Assistant/Legislative Liaison, Dept. of Transportation and
Public Facilities, advised of 100 marine and harbor
facilities owned by the state. There are contracts for
management and operation of approximately 84 facilities.
The proposed bill would allow the department additional
authority to contract and require that a community establish
a fund to take care of extended deferred maintenance and
replacement costs of float facilities within harbors.
Senator Zharoff asked for a list of facilities impacted by
the bill.
Co-chairman Halford directed that the meeting be briefly
recessed.
RECESS - 12:00 NOON
RECONVENE - 12:10 P.M.
Janice Adair from the Dept. of Environmental Conservation
returned to committee and offered the following language for
incorporation within Amendment No. 3:
The fees authorized by this subsection may not be
levied for reviews of subdivisions being divided
into four lots or less where each lot is at least
one acre in size.
The foregoing would exclude larger subdivisions that gave
rise to committee concern. Co-chairman Halford asked if the
department would support inclusion of the foregoing
amendment as the bill makes its way through the House. Ms.
Adair responded affirmatively. Senator Sharp MOVED for
adoption of Amendment No. 3 as redrafted by the department.
No objection having been raised, Amendment No. 3 was ADOPTED
as redrafted.
Senator Rieger MOVED to tighten the title to reflect the
content of the bill. No objection having been raised, a
title amendment was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford noted that associated fiscal notes
should reflect program receipt increases and general fund
decreases. He suggested that fiscal notes not be considered
new revenue sources for net adds to the operating budget.
Members concurred in that understanding.
Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 216 (Fin) with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.No
objection having been raised, CSSB 216 (Fin) was REPORTED
OUT* of committee with a $22.0 fiscal note from Dept. of
Environmental Conservation (Statewide Pub.Services), zero
notes from Dept. of Military & Veterans Affairs, and Office
of the Governor (OMB) as well as the following revenue
(program receipt) notes:
Dept. of Revenue $6,000.0
Dept. of Labor 384.5
Dept. of Education 30.0
Dept. of Natural Resources 10.0
Office of the Governor (Human Rights) 5.1
Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development 841.3
Dept. of Environmental Conservation (Lab.) 100.0
Co-chairman Frank and Senator Sharp signed the committee
report with a "do pass" recommendation. Co-chairman Halford
and Senators Phillips, Rieger, and Zharoff signed "no
recommendation."
[*See pages 8 and 9 of these minutes for action rescinding
passage of CSSB 216 (Fin).]
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 216(FIN)
An Act relating to fees, assessments, and costs for
certain functions of state or municipal government
including hearing costs related to the real estate
surety fund, fees for authorization to operate a
postsecondary educational institution or for an agent's
permit to perform services for a postsecondary
educational institution, fees of the state Commission
on Human Rights, administrative fees for self-insurers
in workers' compensation, fees relating to applications
for exploration incentive credits, charges to
prisoners, marine and harbor facility use fees,
business license fees, fees for training relating to
management of hazardous substances and emergency
management response, fees for regulation of pesticides
and broadcast chemicals; and subdivision plans for
sewage waste disposal or treatment; relating to a tax
exemption; and providing for an effective date.
At this point in the meeting, Co-chairman Frank asked that
CSSB 216 (Fin) be brought back before committee. He then
MOVED to rescind committee action passing the bill. He
expressed a preference for subdivision review at the
municipal rather than state level and voiced need to more
closely review the fee section. No objection having been
raised, committee action passing CSSB 216 (Fin) was
RESCINDED.
[Co-chairman Halford left the meeting at this time, and Co-
chairman Frank assumed the chair.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|