Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/21/2000 02:00 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. 361 An Act relating to charges for state services; requiring that fees levied by resource agencies for designated regulatory services be based on the actual and reasonable direct cost of providing the services, except in the case of certain negotiated or fixed fees; relating to negotiated or fixed fees of resource agencies; relating to invoices for designated regulatory services; establishing a petition process regarding fees charged by resource agencies for regulatory services; and providing for an effective date. Representative Bunde MOVED to ADOPT the work draft for HB 361, #1-LS1299\I, Kurtz, 3/21/00. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT, provided an overview of the work draft. He noted that there were a few items which did not make it into the draft. The first change would be to Page 2, Line 15, the language "Except as provided in AS 37.10.052(a)" was added. He noted that the language would provide for an annual review to the Legislature about statutory changes. Representative J. Davies questioned if it should be required annually. Mr. Tibbles stated that this is existing law and is an annual review required for all agencies. Mr. Tibbles continued, Page 3, provides a provision to limit the amount of the fix fee to $250. There was an exception to the $250 dollar limit if it could be justified as an actual direct cost. The deletion was requested by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Language was added on the ends of Lines 3-7, which require a review of all fixed fees. On Page 3, Line 9, there was a deletion of the word "standard" for negotiated agreements. Language was modified on Lines 11 & 12 regarding negotiated agreements. Page 3, Subsection c is new. It is replacement of the petition process established in the statutes. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 76, Side 2) Co-Chair Therriault explained that the provision had been submitted by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Representative J. Davies asked about Page 4, Line 3. Mr. Tibbles explained that the language was "held over" language from a procedure that required the regulatory process. The intent was that it be demonstrated why the Department would need to justify when they denied the act. Representative J. Davies questioned if there was distinction between "served upon" and "provides to". Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that was a language change. Mr. Tibbles addressed Page 4, Line 24, the "invoicing section", noting that the original bill required the Department to establish a uniform accounting system. That would have been very expensive and that language was removed. The goal was to create an invoice that one could look at to determine if they were being billed for the actual service that they received. In that section, there is a new provision which establishes that these requirements apply to negotiated agreements as well. The language would give Department of Environmental Conservation and the permittee the option to negotiate different requirements for the invoicing. Mr. Tibbles noted that on Page 5, Lines 6 & 7, language was added "request that the resource agency review the invoice". That language was recommended by the Department of Environmental Conservation. The first "stop review" would be with Department of Environmental Conservation. If a person was not happy with that review, then they could go to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On Page 5, Line 17, the petition was removed for a single project fee. All that remains in that section is a petition for a modification of a new fixed fee. Mr. Tibbles referenced Page 6, Line 3, language "under the following" was added by a request from Department of Natural Resources. The technical change modified the definition of direct costs in Subsection (3). Page 3, Line 28, removes "notice" which will now allow the Department of Environmental Conservation to charge the permittee for the cost of public notices. Mr. Tibbles commented that on Page 7, Lines 15 - 17, another modification was made at the request of the Department of Natural Resources to the definition of "fee". There was a concern that the Joint Pipeline Office would not be able to charge the full amount negotiated under their leases. That was never the intent of the bill. Additionally, Subsection (g) was removed at the request of the Department of Law and Department of Environmental Conservation. Page 7, Line 20 increases the multiplier for salary and benefits at the request of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Tibbles explained that on Page 8, Subsection (10), the definition of "standard designated regulatory service" removed the inclusion list for small-scale mining. The agency wanted to be able to determine which activities were more complex. Representative Grussendorf observed that the Office of Management and Budget was included in the legislation. He commented that the Office of Management and Budget does not have the authority to develop regulations on the appeal process. He questioned why no fiscal note had been included from that agency. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the proposed legislation has "greatly" lessened OMB's participation. Mr. Tibbles added that there was a $176 thousand dollar fiscal note submitted at the last hearing from OMB. He reiterated that the proposed legislation has reduced their involvement. Co-Chair Therriault added that the bill would be held in Committee until the new fiscal notes were received. Mr. Tibbles reviewed Amendment 1. [Copy on File]. He noted that the amendment suggests striking the language "this determination upon request" and inserting "the fixed fees". On Page 3, Line 22, after "services" new language was added, "at least one of which is a designated regulatory service". Representative J. Davies observed that if there was more than one agency involved then the Office of Management and Budget would become involved. He believed those would be more complex issues. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that within the Governor's budget there is both OMB and the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC). DGC would act as the coordinator of multi agency functions. He believed that DGC would handle these issues given their coordination function. Representative Grussendorf questioned who would be responsible to collect the program receipts. Co-Chair Therriault explained that the unified fee would be a tabulation of the separate fee amounts. The parts could then be tracked. Mr. Tibbles explained that in Amendment #1, Page 4, Line 10, Subsection c(3) would be deleted and the following sections would be renumbered. Page 4, Line 25, would insert "AS 37.10.052(b) or (c)" and delete "AS 37.10.052(b)". This language indicates the new petition for a single fee. Page 5, Line 14, would add language "and AS 37.10.052(d)". Mr. Tibbles explained that language would move some of the standards to a different section. Mr. Tibbles referenced Amendment #1, Page 7, Lines 22 & 26, stating that section was requested by the Department of Environmental Conservation. He pointed out that language would address charges for plan approval. The Department currently is charging for this service and did not want it excluded. Mr. Tibbles referenced Page 8, Line 7, of Amendment #1. That section of the bill addresses Department of Environmental Conservation's general fee authority for more than just the designated regulatory services. Concern exists with the definition of direct costs used in, AS 37.10.058, which did not apply to other items outside those services. The amendment would insert "AS 37.10.056". JANICE ADAIR, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, recommended that approval be added. She noted that they were referring to "plan approval" as that is the issue for water and wastewater. Representative J. Davies asked if there were other kinds of approval. Ms. Adair responded that they are all "plan approval" of one sort or another. She believed that it would be safer to use the broader term. Representative J. Davies asked if the Department was satisfied with the last change proposed in the amendment. Ms. Adair responded that if it does the effect indicated by Mr. Tibbles, the Department would support it. Representative J. Davies asked if Ms. Adair could recommend any additional changes to Amendment #1. Ms. Adair responded that the Department intends to provide an amendment to address their remaining concerns. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. KEN FREEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CENTER (RDC), ANCHORAGE, commented that RDC is a statewide, member- funded, non-profit trade association. The organization's mission is to grow Alaska's economy through the responsible development of the state's natural resources. The membership includes individuals and leading companies from all of Alaska's basic industries, mining, oil and gas, fisheries, timber and tourism. Mr. Freeman noted that in January 1999, RDC was tasked with building industry-wide consensus on legislation designed to deal with State agency permit fees. Sealaska Corporation had taken an earlier lead on the issue with a draft bill known as the "Permittee Bill of Rights." The concepts articulated in the "Permittee Bill of Rights" served as the starting point subsequent discussions. Mr. Freeman commented that while industry recognizes its responsibility to pay for the services it receives, the issue of allocating program costs between the public and the regulated community remains unresolved. He noted that RDC applauds the Legislature for its past involvement in the issue, and appreciates having had the time to design a well crafted product. Mr. Freeman advised that HB 361 would accomplish several important objectives: ? First, it requires the resource agencies to establish a schedule of fixed fees for relatively simple and repetitive regulatory activities. These fees must he based on the actual and reasonable direct cost of providing the service and cannot include additional charges such as program overhead. That change is important for two reasons. It will provide the regulated community with more predictability in determining the costs to permit an activity. Also, it would ensure the person requiring a designated regulatory service will only pay for the costs associated directly with providing that service. ? Secondly, recognizing that not all services provided by the resource agencies lend themselves to fixed fees, the bill directs the resource agencies to enter into negotiations with any person requiring a service to determine the costs of complex or controversial permitting activities. In the event that negotiations are unsuccessful, the bill requires the agency to bill on a strict time and expenses basis for the work. That system will act as an incentive to both the agency and the permittee to conduct good-faith negotiations. ? Third, the bill will provide the regulated community with flexibility through a petition process. Petitions may be used to request that the agency supplement its schedule of fixed fees, they may be used to create a fixed fee for an activity specific to a distinct economic sector, and they may be used to request a single project fee for an activity requiring multiple permits. This type of flexibility will make doing business in Alaska easier. ? Fourth, the bill requires that any resource agency providing a designated regulatory service establish a uniform accounting system capable of producing an audible invoice. Services billed on a time and expenses basis will require monthly invoices. Some negotiated fees will also incorporate the use of invoices. This requirement makes the costs of providing regulatory services more transparent. ? Lastly, in the interest of clarification, Mr. Freeman pointed out two additional details. First, the bill is written to encompass all of the resource agencies, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Game and Department of Environmental Conservation, on a program by program basis. Currently, the only programs included in the bill fall under Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Freeman concluded noting that the legislation is an appropriate step toward fulfilling Alaska's promise or being open and ready for business. CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, commented on Amendment #1, the change to Page 6, which would sufficiently addresses the concerns of the Department over large mine activities. Co-Chair Therriault asked about the fiscal note. Ms. Carroll clarified that the note would be lowered to zero. STEVEN DAUGHERTY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, commented on some of the legal issues which exist in the bill. He voiced concern with the issue of OMB's authority. He commented that authority to adopt regulations or an explicit exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is still needed for fee agreements and the appeal process. Under Alaska law, if something effects more than one person, it must be adopted by regulation. The fee agreement, under the State's Administrative Procedure Act will be required to be in regulation. Mr. Daugherty added that in the same section, it is not clear whether those same fee agreements would be treated as a binding contract. If they were, there would need to be a review provided by the Department of Law. He emphasized that section needs to be clarified. A change would need to be made on Page 3, and inserted on Page 4, Line 4, "a fee negotiated under this section is not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act". Mr. Daugherty stated that there is a potential problem on Page 2, where a change was made to the definition of fees. He noted that Page 7, Line 13, defines fee. He thought the language insinuated that other than pipeline right of way leases, other leases would be included. He did not know the impact of that language and did not believe it was the intent of the provision. Mr. Daugherty thought that concern could be addressed on Page 2, Line 10, inserting "fees associated with the sale of property". Mr. Daugherty noted another issue of concern was the interagency charges. That section does not address the Department of Law's need to be able to charge for services. Under the new version, interagency charges are only recoverable as listed on Page 6, Line 25. The Department of Law charges would not meet those requirements. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 77, Side 1). Mr. Daugherty recognized that the proposed bill was greatly improved over the previous version. Ms. Adair voiced her appreciation to Mr. Tibbles for all his work. She noted that Mr. Daughtery had indicated a concern of the Department of Environmental Conservation in clarifying that the provision regarding negotiations for fees are not subject to the APA. She believed that a specific provision included could make that clear. Ms. Adair indicated concern on Page 3, Line 5, in that the fee could be based on an estimated reasonable direct cost. At the end of the four years when the Department has to make the review, they will need to make changes based on the average actual costs. The Department will still be required to do cost accounting for every person involved in the project. The Department proposes that the flat fee continue to be based on the estimated average reasonable direct cost. Co-Chair Therriault interjected that if the first 4 years were based on the estimated, the information would already be available. Ms. Adair explained that this would be a matter of detail. Actual costs are much more detail oriented than the estimated average cost. Representative J. Davies asked Ms. Adair for suggested language to address that concern. Ms. Adair would prefer to see Line 4, include "estimated average reasonable direct costs". (Page number inaudible). She added that would have a significant impact on the fiscal note. JON TILLINGHAST, ATTORNEY, SEALASKA CORPORATION, LEGAL COUNCIL TO RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (RDC), JUNEAU, provided response to suggestions made by the Department of Law and Ms. Adair, Department of Environmental Conservation. He thought that most of the concerns could be addressed easily. With respect to OMB and writing regulations, he stated that there would be two things for OMB to do. One would be to hear appeals on specific invoices. OMB's other authority would be to set a multi agency fixed fee that will have some longevity to it. He suggested language to Page 4, between Lines 16 & 17, "no action by resource agency of the Office of Management and Budget under this subsection is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act". He stated that would provide a "blanket" exemption for anything, anybody does under that subsection. Mr. Daughtery agreed that would be sufficient. Mr. Tillinghast stated that the actual coordinating role would be done by DGC, which is a subdivision of OMB. In response to Mr. Daugherty's second concern, Mr. Tillinghast advised on Page 2, Line 10, it would be appropriate to state that it would not apply to sales on leased property. Mr. Tillinghast advised that the remaining concerns would be more difficult to address as they enter into policy such as the Department of Law's concerns that their charges to the Department of Environmental Conservation would not be paid by the applicant because they include overhead. The bill establishes one important public policy and that is that those expenses should not be charged to the applicant but instead spread to the entire public. The purpose of the bill is to change if an agency is charging their overhead. In response to concerns voiced by Ms. Adair, Mr. Tillinghast argued that if your estimates, after four years, differ from your actualized costs, then there is something wrong with the way you compute your estimates. Representative J. Davies countered that the point is not doing the actuals. That data would not be available as it was billed and was based on the estimates. Representative Phillips pointed out that if there were dispute in what was being billed, those would be the accepted fees. Co-Chair Therriault agreed with Representative J. Davies that the first four years of billings are based on estimates. The hours agreed to were based on estimates. Mr. Tillinghast observed that even though the fee charged to the applicant will be based on an estimate, he thought that the Department would be doing a "reality check" of the actual records to guarantee that the charge was correct. It is safe to assume that the acutal numbers will be available whether or not they are billed to the applicant. Representative J. Davies disagreed. He stated that it would not be cost effective to keep track of all the actuals. Mr. Tillinghast noted that on Page 5, Line 14, that subsection is the OMB review portion. An invoice would be scrutinized under a standard and that standard appears in AS 052, which is on Page 4, Lines 17-21. The reason that Section D is referenced and not Section C, is because Section c is the multi agency OMB fee and Section (B) is the agreements. The way that the bill is structured, OMB does not have any review authority in either instance. By referencing an additional subsection, it would expand OMB's review authority. Mr. Tillinghast and was surprised that OMB would advocate an expansion of authority. Co-Chair Therriault noted that final action on the bill would be HELD for further consideration and receipt of the final fiscal notes. Representative G. Davis noted that the Department of Law had recommended a change to Page 7, Line 17, which would affect the Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Carroll recommended waiting to make that change until the fiscal note had moved through the Division. HB 361 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|