Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/2000 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. 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."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with Amendment 2 (copy
on file).
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT provided
information on Amendment 2. He observed that the amendment
was drafted in response to concerns expressed by the
Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of
Natural Resources and the Department of Law.
Mr. Tibbles discussed amendment 2. On Page 2, line 10
"sales" was deleted and "sale or lease" inserted. The change
makes sure that the limitation on fees does not apply to the
state of Alaska's interest in leases on property. This was
in response to concerns of the Department of Natural
Resources.
On page 4, line 3 "serve upon" was deleted and "provide to"
inserted. This was in response to concerns expressed by
Representative J. Davies. This clarifies that the
determination would be provided to the applicant.
A new subsection was added on page 4, line 10: "(f) No
action taken by a resource agency or the Office of
Management and Budget under (c) of this section is subject
to AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act)." This assures
that no one is required to establish fees in regulations.
On page 7, line 16 "for" was added before "associated with"
to clarify that if there is a pipeline right-away-lease that
other fees associated with the lease would not be included.
The last change was on page 8, line 31. The Office of
Management and Budget was added to section 4, which gives
each agency involved the authority to adopt regulations to
implement the act.
Co-Chair Therriault reiterated that the amendment addresses
concerns by the Department of Natural Resources, Department
of Law and by Representative J. Davies.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2.
KEN FREEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL (RDC) observed that RDC is in support of the
amendment.
In response to a question by Representative Williams, Co-
Chair Therriault explained that the Office of Management and
Budget was given the authorization to adopt regulation at
the request of the Department of Law.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW explained that the legislation previously referenced
only the natural resource agencies and gave them the
authority to adopt regulations. The Office of Management and
Budget was given responsibility, but was not included under
the definition of a natural resource agency and therefore
did not have regulation adoption authority. He emphasized
that regulation adoption authority is needed for
implementation of the bill.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the regulation adoption
authority is only given for implementation of HB 341.
PATRICK GALVIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL
CORDINATION (DGC), OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR explained that DGC would carry out the
petition portion of the Office of Management and Budget's
functions that are recognized in the legislation. He spoke
in support of Amendment 2 and noted that DGC was uncertain
if regulations would be needed to fulfill their legislative
mandate. He stated that he would be uncomfortable if DGC
were precluded from adopting regulation through omission of
regulatory authority.
JACK KREINHEDER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR observed that the Office
of the Governor did not submit an updated fiscal note. The
original fiscal note requested two positions at $157.6
thousand dollars. Contractual costs of $20 thousand dollars
were also included. He acknowledged that the committee
substitute would reduce their fiscal cost by authorizing
appeals at the agency level. He emphasized the difficulty of
predicting the workload.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Representative Phillips MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3:
Page 6, line 31:
Delete " or"
Page 7, line 2, following "provided;"
Insert "or (G) travel expenses for inspecting
businesses having not more 6 than 20 employees;"
Representative Phillips explained that the amendment is an
attempt to help small miners in Alaska, who are located in
very remote, rural areas.
Co-Chair Therriault expressed concern that the amendment
would carve out one section of the regulated industry, but
emphasized small operations would have had to pay for the
cost of flying someone to remote sites and that he is
sensitive to the needs of small placer miners.
Vice Chair Bunde observed that small mining operations pay
only 20 percent of what it actually costs the state to
permit and supervise them. He questioned if more expenses
would be put on large mining operations to exempt the small
miners.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that the amendment would retain
the status quo for small miners. Vice Chair Bunde pointed
out that the status quo is being changed for the rest (of
the mining operations). He questioned how long miners would
be subsidized.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4: insert
on page 6, line 12 "food, drugs, and cosmetics under AS
17.20." He explained that the amendment would bring the
inspection of restaurants under the legislation. He
maintained that the amendment fits under the legislation.
The Department of Environmental Conservation could implement
the amendment with a minimal of additional work.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that drugs and cosmetics
would be added. Representative J. Davies explained that
drugs and cosmetics were included because they are part of
the statutory site.
Mr. Freeman stated that the Resource Development Council
would have difficulty supporting the amendment. He stated
that he had envisioned the bill as a model that could be
applied to other programs. He maintained that the best
approach would be to look at the four programs that are
currently within the regulatory services. These are the
programs that RDC has worked with. He stressed that there
would be complexities with the addition of restaurant and
hair salon inspections. He spoke in support of addressing
restaurant inspections in other legislation.
Co-Chair Therriault spoke against the amendment. He
emphasized that the food industry had not had sufficient
time to respond to the amendment.
Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the amendment.
He felt that the food industry would support the amendment.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that resource industries have
good associations for collecting and disseminating
information. He did not think that there was sufficient time
to disseminate the information to the restaurant industry.
He stated that he would like to see more participation by
the restaurant industry.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that significant budget
impacts were made on the industry, in increasing fee rates
while decreasing service, without their input. He stressed
that the amendment would level the playing field and give
them the same kind of protections in terms of the
development of fees. He felt that the food industry would be
supportive.
JANICE ADAIR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION testified via
teleconference. She observed that the amendment would result
in lower permitting fees for food facilities in the state.
The food industry is currently assessed a flat fee. She
clarified that the department does not charge fees to
hairdressers or salons. The amendment would eliminate some
of the items that are currently included in fees from the
fee structure.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the hospitality industry
had reached a unified decision on which direction they wish
to pursue.
Ms. Adair stressed that she had not heard from a single
business that did not support the reduction of fees. She
noted that there is recognition, in the food industry, that
state oversight of food service and processing is needed.
There is also a strong desire to see fees reduced.
Mr. Freeman acknowledged that fees need to be addressed from
a broader perspective, but emphasized that it has taken two
years to get to the current point with the four programs
included in the legislation. He expressed concern that
additional programs would inhibit the legislation's chance
to be enacted.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Ms.
Adair pointed out that the Department of Environmental
Conservation's overriding concern with the bill is the issue
of equity. She acknowledged that there needs to be an
overriding policy on setting fees. The restaurant industry
has a lot of small operators that are paying as much as 93
percent of the cost to the state to oversee the industry.
There should be a rational basis for any inequity in fee
structures. This would be the only other program in the
Department of Environmental Conservation that would not be
covered. She did not think that the inclusion of the food
industry would be difficult to administer.
Representative J. Davies maintained that inclusion of the
food industry would round out the bill and bring all aspects
that are under the Department of Environmental Conservation
under the legislation. He observed that the legislation was
limited to the Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Department of Fish and Game. He maintained that the food
industry is the only obvious piece, left out, that fits in
the purview.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the impact of the amendment
on the fiscal note. Ms. Adair responded that the fiscal cost
would be approximately $300 thousand dollars with the
adoption of Amendment 3 and $250 thousand dollars without
Amendment 3.
Representative G. Davis observed that restaurant fees are a
problem throughout the state. He felt that the industry
would support the amendment.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that there were no discussions
with the food industry. He observed that the addition would
increase the fiscal cost.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Ms.
Adair reiterated that the Department of Environmental
Conservation does not have authority for fees on drugs or
cosmetics.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
4.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Foster, Grussendorf, Moses
OPPOSED: Phillips, Williams, Bunde, Therriault
The MOTION FAILED (4-5).
BARBARA FRANK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION observed
that the fiscal note would have to be reviewed and
resubmitted to reflect changes made in the committee
substitute. She noted that there would be different sets of
fees for small and large facilitates (based on Amendment 3).
There would be no change in the first year. Support for a
paralegal would be reduced by approximately $55 thousand
dollars. The revenue projections would reflect a loss of $75
thousand dollars. In the water quality program $256 thousand
dollars in statutory designated program receipts would be
changed to general fund program receipts. She noted that the
department could not anticipate the mix between fixed fees,
time and materials, and negotiated agreements.
Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the legislation could be
moved from committee and that the updated fiscal notes could
follow.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 361 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations.
CSHB 361 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|