05/01/1998 03:32 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 1998
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 389
"An Act relating to an exemption from the requirement for payment
for overtime under a voluntary written agreement for certain
employees in the airline industry; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 389(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 300
"An Act relating to health insurance; and providing for an
effective date."
- TABLED
* HOUSE BILL NO. 490
"An Act relating to insurance premium taxes."
- MOVED CSHB 490(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 305(L&C)
"An Act establishing a standard for determining when an injured
worker is eligible for reemployment benefits and establishing a
procedure for adopting a new, revised, or replacement standard for
determining when an injured worker is eligible for reemployment
benefits."
- MOVED CSSB 305(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 388
"An Act relating to the right to refuse to sell, give, or serve an
alcoholic beverage."
- MOVED HB 388 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 336(L&C)
"An Act relating to excluding professional hockey team members from
workers' compensation coverage."
- MOVED CSSB 336(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 330(RES)
"An Act relating to locations of underground facilities and
excavations in the area of underground facilities."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 330(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 389
SHORT TITLE: OVERTIME WAGE EXEMPTION AIRLINE EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COWDERY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/11/98 2279 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/11/98 2279 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/22/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/22/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/24/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 300
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BUNDE, James, Rokeberg
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/98 2023 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98
01/12/98 2023 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/98 2023 (H) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE
02/19/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/19/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/24/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/24/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/25/98 2423 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 1DP 2DNP 2NR
02/25/98 2423 (H) DP: BUNDE; DNP: PORTER, VEZEY;
02/25/98 2423 (H) NR: DYSON, GREEN
02/25/98 2423 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
02/25/98 2423 (H) REFERRED TO L&C
03/20/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/20/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/23/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/23/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/27/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/27/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/98 3444 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
BILL: HB 490
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/27/98 3279 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/27/98 3279 (H) L&C, FINANCE
05/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 305
SHORT TITLE: IMPLEMENTATION OF WORK COMP EDITION
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DUNCAN, Ellis; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Rokeberg
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/16/98 2524 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/98 2524 (S) L&C, JUD
03/10/98 (S) L&C AT 3:45 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/10/98 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/10/98 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/12/98 2841 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
03/12/98 2841 (S) DP: LEMAN, KELLY, MACKIE, HOFFMAN
03/12/98 2841 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (LABOR, ADM)
03/23/98 2957 (S) COSPONSOR: ELLIS
04/15/98 (S) JUD AT 1:45 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/17/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/18/98 3361 (S) JUD RPT 2DP 1NR (L&C)CS
04/18/98 3361 (S) DP: TAYLOR, MILLER; NR: PARNELL
04/18/98 3361 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM, LABOR)
04/20/98 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/23/98 3457 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/23/98
04/23/98 3458 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/23/98 3458 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/23/98 3458 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/23/98 3458 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 305(L&C)
04/23/98 3459 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
04/23/98 3459 (S) DONLEY NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/24/98 3491 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/24/98 3492 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/27/98 3271 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/27/98 3271 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
05/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/98 3444 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
BILL: HB 388
SHORT TITLE: RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SERVE LIQUOR
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/06/98 2241 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/06/98 2241 (H) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE
04/09/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/09/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/16/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/17/98 3036 (H) HES RPT 3DP 3NR
04/17/98 3037 (H) DP: DYSON, BUNDE, PORTER; NR: GREEN,
04/17/98 3037 (H) KEMPLEN, BRICE
04/17/98 3037 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
04/17/98 3037 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
04/29/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/29/98 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 336
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMP: EXEMPT HOCKEY PLAYERS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/98 2791 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/09/98 2791 (S) L&C, FIN
03/19/98 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/19/98 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/23/98 2946 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/23/98 2946 (S) DP: LEMAN; NR: KELLY, MACKIE
03/23/98 2946 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (LABOR)
04/20/98 (S) FIN AT 5:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/22/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/22/98 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/22/98 3433 (S) FIN RPT 1DP 5NR (L&C)CS
04/22/98 3433 (S) DP: PHILLIPS; NR: PEARCE, SHARP,
04/22/98 3433 (S) DONLEY, ADAMS, PARNELL
04/22/98 3433 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LABOR)
04/23/98 3457 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/23/98
04/23/98 3459 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/23/98 3459 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/23/98 3459 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/23/98 3460 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 336(L&C)
04/23/98 3460 (S) PASSED Y13 N5 E1 A1
04/23/98 3460 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/24/98 3491 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/24/98 3492 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/27/98 3271 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/27/98 3271 (H) L&C, FINANCE
05/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 330
SHORT TITLE: LOCATING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/24/98 2631 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/24/98 2631 (S) L&C, RES
03/12/98 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/12/98 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/23/98 2945 (S) L&C RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/23/98 2945 (S) DP: LEMAN, HOFFMAN NR: MACKIE
03/23/98 2945 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (S.L&C)
03/30/98 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
04/07/98 3178 (S) RES RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/07/98 3178 (S) DP: LEMAN; NR: HALFORD, SHARP, GREEN
04/07/98 3178 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (S.L&C)
04/08/98 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/08/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/08/98 3197 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DCED)
04/14/98 3242 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/14/98
04/14/98 3243 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/14/98 3244 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/14/98 3244 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/14/98 3244 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 330(RES)
04/14/98 3244 (S) PASSED Y16 N- E4
04/14/98 3248 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/15/98 2979 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/15/98 2979 (H) RESOURCES, LABOR & COMMERCE
04/23/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/23/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/24/98 3242 (H) RES RPT HCS(RES) 1DP 6NR
04/24/98 3242 (H) DP: MASEK; NR: OGAN, HUDSON,
NICHOLIA,
04/24/98 3242 (H) JOULE, BARNES, WILLIAMS
04/24/98 3242 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 4/8/98
04/24/98 3242 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.L&C)
3/23/98
05/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES HORNADAY, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6848
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 490.
JERRY REINWAND, Lobbyist for
Blue Cross Blue Shield Alaska
2 Marine Way, Suite 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-8966
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 490.
ED LINDQUIST, Director
Contract Administration/Benefits
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6614
Telephone: (907) 269-2428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 490.
LINDA HULBERT
P.O. Box 81402
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 452-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of the amendment to HB 490.
PATTI BLATTMACHR
Alaska Trust Company
1029 West Third Avenue, Suite 601
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-6775
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of the amendment to HB 490.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
for University Relations
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755200
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-7582
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 490.
MARIANNE BURKE, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
Telephone: (907) 465-2515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 490.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
Legislative Affairs and Government Affairs
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959
520 East 34th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 565-8236
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of proposed committee
substitute for HB 490.
SANDY BURD, Researcher
for Senator Jim Duncan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4766
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor on SB 305.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2199
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 388.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 113
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3844
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 336; presented SB 330.
PAUL GROSSI, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 25512
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5512
Telephone: (907) 465-2790
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 336.
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant
to Chairman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 330.
JIM ROWE, Executive Director
Alaska Telephone Association
201 East 56th Avenue, Suite 114
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 563-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 330.
ERIC YOULE, Executive Director
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association
703 West Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-6103
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 330.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:22 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery,
Sanders and Ryan. Representative Hudson arrived as the meeting was
in progress [NO ARRIVAL TIME WAS NOTED FOR REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON IN
THE TAPE LOG NOTES OR IN RECORDED TESTIMONY. THE BEGINNING OF THIS
MEETING WAS NOT RECORDED.]
HB 389 - OVERTIME WAGE EXEMPTION AIRLINE EMPLOYEES
[NO TAPE NUMBER AVAILABLE. THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING, WITH THE
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT THE COMMITTEE WOULD TAKE UP HB 389 AS ITS
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTE, WAS NOT RECORDED. TESTIMONY RECONSTRUCTED FROM TAPE
LOG NOTES.]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
was HB 389, "An Act relating to an exemption from the requirement
for payment for overtime under a voluntary written agreement for
certain employees in the airline industry; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 389, labeled 0-LS1448\E, Cramer, dated
4/27/98. There being no objections, the proposed committee
substitute was adopted.
[BEGINNING OF RECORDED TESTIMONY]
TAPE 98-56, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated, "... and we had some problems, our -
our labor people got together with the employees and worked out
this committee substitute." He indicated it was unlikely the
legislation would make it through the process because it was so
late in the session, but he would like to move the legislation
unless "labor" or somebody wanted to speak. Representative Cowdery
made motion to move the proposed committee substitute for HB 389
out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
zero fiscal note.
Number 0052
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. There being
none, CSHB 389(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee.
HB 300 - ALASKA PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS
Number 0075
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was HB 300, "An Act relating to health insurance; and providing for
an effective date." He stated there was a proposed committee
substitute, Version M, labeled 0-LS1248\M, Ford, dated 4/30/98, and
he explained the changes which had been made. Chairman Rokeberg
indicated on page 1, line 1, the word "care" had been placed in the
title so the language read, "health care insurance". The chairman
noted the same addition had been made on page 1, line 2, also in
the bill title. The next changes had been made in Section 3 of
Version M, "AS 21 is amended by adding a new chapter to read:
Chapter 07. Regulation of Health Care Insurance Plans.". On page
2, line 28, Sec. 21.07.010(5)(E) had been modified to read, "(E)
current, usual, customary, and reasonable reimbursement schedules,
and methodology.". On page 3, line 3, Sec. 21.07.020(2), emergency
room provisions had been changed to read, "(2) emergency room
services shall be covered if authorized by the attending
physician;". Chairman Rokeberg indicated the language which had
been subsection (3) in Version J, "copayment requirements shall be
uniform between health care providers", had been deleted from
Version M. He commented, "Subsection 3, the word 'provided' was
put in there in Amendment 1. We're still on page 3." On page 3,
line 13, in Sec. 21.07.030(a), after "insurer" the words "or
managed care contractor" had been inserted to "pick up the
definition."
Number 0266
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted in Sec. 21.07.250(1) "health insurance" had
been changed to "health care insurance", indicating this subsection
had formerly been had been subsection (3) and was now (1). He
indicated Sec. 21.07.250(3), on page 4, the health care services,
had been redefined to mean "services for diagnosis, prevention,
treatment, or cure or relief of a health condition, illness,
injury, or disease" ["subsection 2" stated on tape]. Managed care
plan was redefined in Sec. 21.07.250(6). In Sec.07.250(9) the
utilization review definition had been changed to read, "(9)
"utilization review" means a system of reviewing the medical
necessity, appropriateness, efficacy, or efficiency of health care
services, procedures, settings, and supplies provided under a
managed care plan using specified guidelines, including
preadmission certification, case management, second opinion, the
application of practice guidelines, concurrent review, discharge
planning, ambulatory review, and retrospective review.". Chairman
Rokeberg explained the change in Section 4, which would amend AS
21.42 by adding new section, "Sec. 21.42.390. Required health care
insurance coverage provisions.". He indicated the language, "this
paragraph does not apply to a health care insurance plan or
contract if the covered person signs a written waiver of the
provisions of this paragraph" had been added to Sec.
21.42.390(a)(1) after "prohibits a covered person from obtaining
health care service from a health care provider of the person's
choice, including a specialist". He continued, "And it goes on to
... and the old 'c' sub '1' was deleted." He noted those were the
changes in Version M.
Number 0449
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if he heard a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute, Version M. There being no motion to adopt
Version M, Chairman Rokeberg stated HB 300 had been tabled.
HB 490 - INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
Number 0474
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was HB 490, "An Act relating to insurance premium taxes."
Number 0500
JAMES HORNADAY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
came forward to present HB 490. He stated HB 490 was introduced by
request; it exempted certain premiums paid by employers
participating in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) of
Alaska or in the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) of Alaska, and
premiums paid under contracts purchased under AS 39.30 from the tax
levied on insurers found in AS 21.09.210. He stated, "This
amendment, we hope, will encourage participation in the systems
(indisc.) it will strengthen those programs as well as assist the
individual employees in those systems." Mr. Hornaday said he
understood, from brief discussions with Representative Ryan and
also the director of the Division of Insurance, there was an
amendment which Representative Kott did not oppose, and which Mr.
Hornaday said he was told would make this an even better bill. The
sponsor statement read:
Current Alaska law (AS 21.09.210(I)) prohibits taxes of
any kind from being imposed on insurance premiums paid by
the State. However, buried in Alaska's voluminous
insurance laws is a provision which could be interpreted
to require the Director of Insurance to levy a unique
type of premium tax on certain health insurance policies
issued to the University of Alaska, municipalities and
school districts.
HB 490 leaves in place this seldom used tax but clarifies
that the tax does not apply to health insurance premiums
written to the University of Alaska, municipalities and
school districts.
The public policy issue which HB 490 clarifies is that
the State of Alaska will not impose a tax on health
insurance sold to the University of Alaska,
municipalities and school districts. To impose a "back
door" health insurance tax on the University and the
State's political subdivisions makes no sense from either
a policy or fiscal perspective.
I urge your support of the legislation.
Number 0600
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee had distributed to the
members a May 1, 1998, letter from the Anchorage school district
written by Mr. Lindquist. Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Hornaday if
he wished to speak to the provisions on the "jumbo" insurance.
MR. HORNADAY deferred to Mr. Reinwand.
Number 0656
JERRY REINWAND, Lobbyist for Blue Cross Blue Shield Alaska (Blue
Cross), came forward to testify. He noted they had put some
information in the bill packets. Mr. Reinwand indicated some
information the director of the Division of Insurance somehow
unhappy with an aspect of this information and he apologized. Mr.
Reinwand summarized the issue in Blue Cross's view, stating,
"Should insurance that is sold by Blue Cross and any other insurer
to municipalities, school districts, REAAs [Rural Education
Attendance Areas] -- there's a question about whether the
university is covered or not covered. The premium tax has never
been collected on the university, but there has been a debate about
whether they're in or they're out. The bottom-line question is:
Should those insurance policies be taxed for public entities? The
state -- there's a specific provision in the insurance code that
exempts the state when the state was purchasing insurance before it
went self-insured that exempted the state from paying taxes on any
insurance that they bought. And at least us, and again we may ...
be open to error on this, but that's - that's really what we
believe the public policy is, should the legislature or should
anyone impose a tax on insurance purchased by public entities other
than the state. ... The Section 2 of the ... proposed committee
substitute basically says that if you're a member of PERS or ...
TRS, you do not have to pay the tax. ... That is an
oversimplification, but that's the basic issue." Section 2 of
Version E read:
* Sec.2. AS 21.09.210(i) is amended to read:
(i) Premiums paid by the state, premiums paid by
employers who participate in the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska or in the Teacher's
Retirement System of Alaska, [FOR INSURANCE POLICIES] and
premiums paid under contracts purchased under the
provisions of AS 39.30 are exempt from taxation under
this chapter [SECTION]. An insurer may not include the
tax imposed under this section in a premium charged on an
insurance policy or contract purchased by the state under
the provisions of AS 39.30. An insurer may claim the
exemption on forms provided by the division of insurance.
Number 0758
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Mr. Reinwand mentioned there was a
problem with the information Blue Cross had given the committee.
The chairman said he was not quite sure what Mr. Reinwand had been
referring to.
Number 0766
MR. REINWAND said he would let the director of the Division of
Insurance speak to it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Blue Cross supported the legislation.
MR. REINWAND answered in the affirmative.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Reinwand to elaborate on his
comments about the university.
Number 0798
MR. REINWAND indicated Wendy Redman, Vice President for Government
Relations, University of Alaska, was present and should speak to
that. Mr. Reinwand stated, as he understood it, Blue Cross has had
discussions with the division but the tax has never been imposed,
nor has the tax ever been collected on the University of Alaska.
He indicated HB 490 would clearly say that in no event would it
ever happen, noting insurance directors change and it could be
something that might be done differently in the future. He said it
was clear that there was that possibility for other public entities
and the real question was, "In effect, should you tax public
entities?" He noted Blue Cross did not think they should.
Number 0838
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "So your testimony, Mr. Reinwand, is the
university's been skating on this one."
MR. REINWAND said that was not his testimony.
Number 0868
ED LINDQUIST, Director, Contract Administration/Benefits, Anchorage
School District, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
stated the district's primary interest in this was that it was
funded in large part by the state so the district was, in effect,
just sending money back to the state that the state had sent it.
He said, "We are under a minimum contract where ... insurance
companies that would administer our plan, but it's the funds of the
district which are provided by the state that really manage the
plan. What essentially happens, then, that we are supported by
funding and then the premiums, which either the district pays or
the employee, ... the premium is then raised by that amount until
the money simply comes back. Our concern is, and particularly in
recent years, and I could probably have seven or eight employee
groups here to testify, but I don't think you would want to spend
that amount of time, is, in recent year, the employee contributions
have gone up significantly because the district has not had enough
money to fund any portion of the premium to a greater extent then
it did about six years ago. Consequently this is a directly a tax
on the employee when the premium is paid, the employee and the
premium increases. That 2 percent comes directly out of the
employee's pocketbook and it's kind of negative direction,
particularly in - in terms of the way wages and salaries have been
virtually frozen for the last several years. So consequently it
really is a negative thing."
Number 0987
MR. LINDQUIST continued, "Our belief is that if this applies to
state employees and other agencies in the state who are funded by
the state, that the same principles and policies ought to apply to
employees of the school district. (Indisc.) that's our position,
it really doesn't matter which insurance company it may happen to
be at any given time. Our concern is that we think we're spending
time (indisc.) around money coming to us and sending it back in a
manner that's not particularly efficient and secondly, it is a wage
tax in a sense on employees who are paying a higher premium than
they would otherwise have to pay when their salaries and wages are
funded primarily by the state." He indicated that summed up his
comments.
Number 1043
LINDA HULBERT testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks.
She stated she had lived in Fairbanks for 30 years and was an
insurance agent. Ms. Hulbert testified in favor of the amendment
to HB 490. She stated the proposal was that state premiums had to
be paid at the usual 2.7 percent for individual life insurance
policies, up to $100,000 per year, which she said would yield the
state about $2,700; she indicated the state premium tax would then
be decreased on amounts above $100,000 per year. Ms. Hulbert
stated there were not very many premiums in the state of Alaska for
individual life insurance exceeding $100,000 per year and
continued, "With the advent of the Alaska Trust Act, we have had a
significant increase in the amount of trust and the interest in
doing trust business in the state of Alaska. I've had the
privilege of traveling all around the United States working with
attorneys, working with accountants, and working with insurance
agents to publicize and let people know about the Alaska Trust
Act." She said the state premiums had been an been an issue, not
just with other states, but also in placing trusts in foreign
jurisdictions. In foreign jurisdictions there were, she said, of
course, no premium tax at all. She asked the committee's
consideration of this amendment, she thought it was very favorable,
a revenue enhancer to the state of Alaska, and would certainly
encourage large insurance policies to be placed in Alaska trusts.
She said it would make the state much more competitive in the
marketplace.
Number 1136
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Ms. Hulbert had said there were very
few policies of that amount in Alaska. He asked if there were any
such policies.
Number 1143
MS. HULBERT stated she did not know and deferred that question to
the director of the Division of Insurance. She said she couldn't
say she personally did not know of any, but would say that the
revenue from them was probably not that significant. She thinks
Alaska could see significant revenue with large policies if this
amendment was enacted. She said she thought it would be very
revenue positive for the state of Alaska and it would certainly
encourage people to do their trust planning in Alaska. She
commented, "More trusts mean more trust officers, more attorneys,
more jobs in the state."
Number 1177
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN asked if she had anything encouraging to
say about it.
MS. HULBERT replied she had done a small amount of research with
the life insurance marketing and research area. She said their
research statistics indicated approximately 12,000 individual life
insurance policies were sold per year with insurance premiums of
over $100,000 per year. She commented, "So, I think that it's a
good thing for the state of Alaska and I think it will enhance the
trust industry and the financial planning services industry that
we're all so eager to build."
Number 1216
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. Hulbert who she envisioned would
ultimately have to pay this tax, wondering whether it would be the
employee.
Number 1220
MS. HULBERT said this was not an employee-employer situation, it
was an individual. She commented there were very few people
employed in the state of Alaska who could afford to put $100,000 a
year into a life insurance policy. She said, "We think that
primarily this is going to attract policies from outside the state
of Alaska. We would normally not see any of these premiums and ...
they would go to a foreign jurisdiction or into another state. But
when we add them to the Alaska Trust Act, a lot of people are very
eager, in my estimation, to place business and new work with the
Alaska trust, but when you do work with the Alaska Trust Act, that
policy is sold in Alaska and owned in Alaska by an Alaska trust
company. That means the premium revenues come to the state of
Alaska. So, instead of the premium revenues going to another state
or instead of the policy going offshore, it comes here and we get
the revenue. (Indisc.) most of the revenue that would come in
under this amendment is revenue that would come in under this
amendment is revenue that would come in from individuals living
outside the state of Alaska."
Number 1288
PATTI BLATTMACHR, Alaska Trust Company, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. She stated she spoke in favor of
the amendment because she believed it would increase revenue for
Alaska, indicating Ms. Hulbert's comments had been fairly complete.
Number 1303
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no more witnesses on
teleconference for HB 490.
Number 1350
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON apologized for not being present
promptly when the meeting began. He asked if the proposed
committee substitute had been adopted properly before the
committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered it had not.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted he had heard two witnesses indicate
support for the amendments and he said he was assuming, then, that
the witnesses were in favor of the revised bill in this draft.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed and he noted he believed there was an
additional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 490, Version E, labeled 0-LS1775\E, Ford, dated
4/29/98. There being no objections, Version E was adopted.
Number 1415
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Legislative Affairs and Government
Affairs, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959, came
forward to testify. She stated she was there to speak in favor of
the proposed committee substitute for HB 490. Referring to Mr.
Lindquist's testimony, she noted in her "other job" she negotiated
collective bargaining agreements and had actually been hit with
this particular issue across the table. She noted, "Mr. Lindquist
is exactly right, our members ended up paying. We represent three
of the seven bargaining units there that he referred to earlier in
his testimony. What I found interesting -- I also negotiate
contracts with the city of Anchorage and unless possibly the
Division of Insurance has different information, I have never faced
that particular issue with the Municipality of Anchorage. So, even
within the city of Anchorage, there's a difference in how that tax
has historically been applied with (indisc.) Municipality of
Anchorage versus the Anchorage School District. Anyway, we are
very much in favor and encourage the members of the committee to
support it as well."
Number 1429
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations, University
of Alaska, came forward to testify. She noted she had not seen the
proposed committee substitute [Version E] and indicated she was
therefore speaking to original version of HB 490 and the section on
the exemption for the PERS and TRS employees. She noted, as Mr.
Reinwand had stated, the university was currently exempt from
paying this type of retaliatory tax and had never paid it, however,
she said, "In my long experience in this state, I always feel a lot
more comfortable if things are really clear in law. So, I think
making a very clear statement that PERS and TRS are clearly exempt
would be ... very helpful, certainly from our perspective."
Number 1476
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted for the committee's information that was
Section 2 of the proposed committee substitute. He noted Ms. Burke
would be the last witness on HB 490, and if anyone else wished to
testify he or she should inform the chair.
Number 1502
MARIANNE BURKE, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify next.
In the interest of clarity, Ms. Burke said she would like to first
address the portion of the legislation specific to life insurance
policies and then the larger issue. She stated the Division of
Insurance supported the amendment which would impose a premium tax
of 2.7 percent for the first $100,000 of premium on a single life
insurance policy. For a premium over $100,000, the premium tax
would be at 0.1 percent. Ms. Burke said this was very positive for
the state in the opinion of the Division of Insurance's opinion for
the reasons Ms. Hulbert stated. Ms. Burke indicated it would
potentially create additional premium tax revenue because these
policies currently went to the state with the lowest tax. She
noted they would like to have these policies in Alaska for the very
obvious reason of collecting the premium tax, but she noted the
larger reason was that it would generate additional industry in
Alaska for the entities formed under the Alaska Trust Act. She
commented she would be happy to address questions to that extent
and then address the remainder of the bill.
Number 1589
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Sections 1 and 3 of the bill related to the
"jumbo insurance premium tax exemption revenue gainer." He asked,
"I know it's very difficult to try to estimate, but ... in terms of
what kind of revenues you think we would generate because ... of
these provisions?"
Number 1614
MS. BURKE said the chairman was correct, it was very difficult.
She said she foresaw and intended to work toward encouraging life
insurance companies to form subsidiaries in Alaska which would
market these very large policies to the ultra rich. Ms. Burke
indicated the potential revenue was from zero to infinity.
Number 1644
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he had received a call from an estate
planning attorney in New York City the other day, urging him to
submit this amendment. He noted the attorney said he had a client
who paid a yearly premium of $200 million and that policy could be
in Alaska if the state was competitive with offshore jurisdictions.
Representative Ryan commented it was difficult for him to imagine
someone with $200 million dollars a year to pay for a life
insurance policy, but he assumed there were those kind of folks in
the world and he'd be more than happy to encourage them to bring
their business to Alaska.
Number 1670
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed $200 million was the premium,
indicating he wondered what the face value of the policy was. He
said to Ms. Burke it was clear there would be positive results from
that but it was just difficult to predict them, asking her if that
was correct.
Number 1683
MS. BURKE replied that was correct, saying she would like to add
one thing. She said she would prefer to see people who were paying
that kind of money place their business with regulated companies as
opposed to going offshore or going to the Cayman Islands or the
Terks (ph) and Cacos (ph), et cetera.
Number 1699
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if she suspected the primary reason these
people had gone offshore was that all 50 states, acting
independently, had some type of premium tax.
MS. BURKE replied she thought that was one of the reasons.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the ranges of premiums taxes for other
states.
Number 1714
MS. BURKE said it was very difficult to compare premium taxes
because other states attached other types of taxes. She said with
this amendment, Alaska would be highly competitive if not the
lowest.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any further questions in this
area.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER, possibly Representative Ryan stated he had
an amendment.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Well no, it's in her testimony ...." He
indicated he wished Ms. Burke to proceed to her testimony on
Section 2 of the proposed committee substitute.
Number 1747
MS. BURKE noted this area was far more complex and she would do her
best to be as clear as possible. She said that this was not ideal
language, and so she would like to address the concept. In AS
39.30, the legislature decided many years ago that it didn't really
make sense to have circular money, and she explained, "Why would
the state tax the state, collect the money and then give it back to
the state to form a circular situation. And in AS 39.30, they said
political subdivisions, I mean it's not good language. Over the
years, various insurance companies, various directors, various
attorney generals, attorneys general, have interpreted this in
different ways. The division needs the guidance of this body to
clarify what you want. That is, in my opinion, the crux of this
matter. There is a lot of extraneous information that's being
introduced and I would like to address that, but the bottom line
is, if the state of Alaska is providing monies to governmental
entities, everything from a small little city, a fourth-class city
some place in the state to the state itself. If it is the intent
of the legislature not to have this circular money, then all of
those entities should be treated the same. There's been testimony
the University of Alaska has never been taxed on, and that's true.
There are a number of other entities that have never been taxed on
the premium tax. I am asking that we have clear indication from
this body that either you want them taxed or you don't. The
language that we have put together would make sure that the
decision, if reached not to tax them, would be applied fairly to
every governmental entity."
Number 1868
MS. BURKE stated, "By using PERS and TRS, and the reason I object
to that, is there are some small governmental entities that can't
afford to participate in PERS. If we adopted this into law as it
reads, we would penalize the ones who are too poor for PERS." Ms.
Burke indicated she would like to make sure everyone was treated
fairly and noted she thought this was an attempt to try to capture
those entities, but she indicated it was very clear some of the
smaller cities did not participate and there were also entities in
there that would not be considered governmental entities. Ms.
Burke said she did not think it was the original intent, nor would
she suspect the current intent be to extend that to non-
governmental entities. She stated, "So to that extent, I support
this concept ... and as the director of the Division of Insurance,
I'm asking that it be clarified." Ms. Burke indicated there was
another issue, one she felt it was absolutely critical that it be
addressed, which had been raised by the Anchorage School District.
She said Mr. Reinwand indicated she was unhappy and said that was
a very fair statement."
Number 1940
MS. BURKE commented, "We're mixing apples and oranges here ... and
I think it's important that we clarify this. The premium tax of
the state of Alaska is 2.7 percent. It is imposed on entities that
aren't exempted. However, if those entities purchase their
insurance from a hospital medical corporation that is domiciled in
another state, they can be subject to a retaliatory tax. Now the
purpose of the retaliatory tax goes back a long time and I'm not
sure that I understand the rationale of why it came about, but it
did. And basically it says that if the domiciliary state imposes
a tax that's greater than the state of Alaska, the company must pay
to the state of Alaska tax at the same rate as the other state.
So, in 1994, the state of Washington changed their taxing scheme.
As a result their domiciled companies pay more in premium tax than
they would pay if they were in the state of Alaska, and they have
to pay the state of Alaska the difference. Since this didn't exist
before 1994 it was not issue."
Number 2013
MS. BURKE continued, "In 1994 when this happened, this retaliatory
tax kicked in. A business decision was made that tax on to the
purchasers of insurance and since we only have one writer of health
insurance in the state of Alaska that is subject to this
retaliatory tax, they are the only ones who got hit by it. They
passed it on and I am not questioning for a second the
appropriateness of passing it on, it is a cost of doing business.
But it was characterized as an additional tax that the state of
Alaska was imposing on health care costs when in fact it was not
premium tax, it was an additional cost of business that was imposed
because that company is domiciled in a different state. It does
put an unfair disadvantage on that company. As you know, one of my
charges is to maintain an even playing field; not to discriminate
in favor or against any one company but to try to keep it fair for
competition. The clarification of who is and is not subject to the
premium tax will clarify this entire problem and it'll go away.
However, it is very important to me to make sure that the people
who were hit by this tax realize that this is a result of the state
of Washington's change in their tax system, not the result of
Alaska's change in tax system. And I realize it's complicated and
I apologize for that, I try to bring it down to, hopefully,
something we can all understand ...." She said she would be happy
to answer the committee's questions.
Number 2116
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said Ms. Burke had indicated Blue Cross was the
only company paying this retaliatory tax. He asked if that was
because there was no other large group insurer which happened to
insure these groups of workers.
Number 2127
MS. BURKE replied that was correct. She stated, "No other large
health care provider that's domiciled in the state of Washington.
Other states have retaliatory tax, but it does not kick in for
Alaska. (Indisc.) just happen."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked why that was
MS. BURKE replied, "It's the way the Washington tax structure is
set up. Let's take AETNA [AETNA US Health Care] for example, since
that's another big one. Happens to be domiciled in Connecticut.
When you compute their tax according to their schedule and compare
it to ours, there's no problem."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if it was because it was similar.
MS. BURKE said, "And the bottom line ... does come out the same
(indisc.)."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Similar or lower, (indisc.) not higher,
higher is the Washington problem?"
MS. BURKE said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "So it's unique to Blue Cross only because
... where they're domiciled."
MS. BURKE replied, "Exactly ... and thank you for making that
clear, it is only because they happen to be domiciled in the state
of Washington and Washington's taxing structure is the way it is."
Number 2175
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "So their socialist policies (indisc.)
affected us, 'cause I been asking 'em for years what happened, why
Blue's rates went up so much. Maybe that explains the explains the
25 percent increase in Blue Cross's premiums in the state of Alaska
this year."
MS. BURKE stated, "Mr. Chairman, if I may, one ... of my biggest
task[s] I see is to make sure that none of the Washington cost are
pushed onto the people of the state of Alaska."
Number 2194
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Also ... is the fact that if - if language
is changed to make it more universally applicable to other
political subdivisions, is that the division's opinion or the
administration's opinion on this bill?
Number 2203
MS. BURKE replied she was very comfortable that this was in line
with the Administration, she did not think it was the
Administration's position that taxing should be unequal.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG additionally asked about the fiscal note,
stating, "Whereas in FY [fiscal year] there'd be a $2.651 million
loss of revenue, is that correct?"
Number 2220
MS. BURKE confirmed that was correct and said she would
specifically like to address that. She said that was their best
estimate and they have explained how it would be extrapolated. If
the revenue did not come in, they must make sure the revenue did
not go out. However that was accomplished, she noted that if they
were going to have a circular flow of money they had to make sure
the whole circle was addressed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if she had any suggested language or if the
department had had a chance to look at it.
Number 2249
MS. BURKE responded it was her understanding it was not ready to be
presented in the form of an amendment and if this committee moved
the legislation, it would be introduced in the next committee at
the first hearing.
Number 2260
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he did not see a sponsor's
representative present and said perhaps Representative Ryan could
speak to the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated he had not been aware of this and
would have to know the sponsor's wishes before he spoke.
Number 2292
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the will of the committee, noting he was
somewhat concerned if the Administration was going to have
additional input on the bill. He indicated the bill had no further
committees of referral besides the House Finance Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated he would like to offer an amendment and
move the bill.
Number 2311
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Ryan if he had an amendment
and if there was any further testimony on HB 490. Hearing none, he
stated the public hearing on HB 490 had been closed.
Number 2314
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said the director of the Division of Insurance
wanted to be sure there wasn't any ambiguous language. He
commented on the wording of Section 3 in Version E, which read, "AS
21.09.21 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (n) The
tax imposed under this section shall be computed at the rate of
one-tenth of a percent for a policy of life insurance with a policy
year premium that equals or exceeds $100,000." Representative Ryan
stated, "To give the director comfort, I would like to add this
conceptual amendment which says, an new sentence, add after the
$100,000, where it says: 'Policy year premiums below the value of
$100,000 shall be taxed at a rate of 2.7 percent of the amount of
the policy year premium' and that clarifies the fact that we're not
removing the 2.7 percent tax for those policies below that - that
value." [It appeared Representative Ryan may have given the
chairman a written copy of the language.]
Number 2355
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it was a clarification amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN answered in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if he had made a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to adopt the conceptual
amendment, designated as Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG read Conceptual Amendment 1 for the record.
Conceptual Amendment 1, on page 2, beginning on line 23, after
$100,000, add an additional sentence to read: "Policy year
premiums below the value of $100,000 shall be taxed at a rate of
2.7 percent of the amount of the policy year premium." He asked if
there were any objections. There being none, Conceptual Amendment
1 was adopted.
Number 2384
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he would offer a conceptual amendment on
page 2, line 14, after "Teacher's Retirement System of Alaska,"
insert "all other political subdivisions in the state". He noted
it was a conceptual amendment, not a specific word amendment, to
provide that the testimony of the department would be met. He said
he did not see anyone present from the bill sponsor's office and
confirmed it only affected "governmentals." He indicated the
committee would have the sponsor contact Ms. Burke's office to make
sure the language was appropriate.
MS. BURKE replied that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Conceptual
Amendment 2. There being no objections, Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
Number 2450
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move the proposed committee
substitute, Version E, for HB 490 as amended with the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objections, CSHB 490(L&C) was moved
out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CSSB 305(L&C) - IMPLEMENTATION OF WORK COMP EDITION
Number 2464
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was CSSB 305(L&C), "An Act establishing a standard for determining
when an injured worker is eligible for reemployment benefits and
establishing a procedure for adopting a new, revised, or
replacement standard for determining when an injured worker is
eligible for reemployment benefits." He noted the sponsor's
representative was present.
TAPE 98-56, SIDE B
Number 0001
[THE BEGINNING OF MS. BURD'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT RECORDED DUE TO TAPE
CHANGE]
SANDY BURD, Researcher for Senator Jim Duncan, came forward to
testify as the sponsor's representative. Ms. Burd stated, "...
for workers' rehabilitation to update their selected
characteristics of occupations defined and the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles." The sponsor statement read:
When an injured worker suffers diminished physical
capacities, vocational rehabilitation services step in.
They identify occupations and retrain the worker for a
job that will fit within the worker's physical abilities.
There is a medical evaluation of whether the worker can
perform the job at the level described. The Selected
Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles (SCODDOT) gives the physical
demands and environmental conditions for the occupations.
The 1993 edition gives frequency standards for physical
demands - like the number of times a worker will lift or
bend. This information is necessary for proper
evaluation.
The Workers' Compensation Division in the Department of
Labor was recently informed that it has based decisions
on a 1993 edition of SCODDOT which is not in accordance
with the law. Under current law, they are required to
use a 1981 edition which lacks frequency standards. SB
305 will allow the Department of Labor to adopt revised
editions of SCODDOT through regulation. The bill
provides for a public meeting to set a date for the
adoption of the new standards.
Number 0011
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee had previous heard this
bill in the form of HB 475 [HB 475 - Rehabilitation of Injured
Workers].
Number 0020
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 305(L&C) with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There
being no objections, CSSB 305(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he become a cosponsor of SB 305 that
day.
HB 388 - RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SERVE LIQUOR
Number 0025
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was HB 388, "An Act relating to the right to refuse to sell, give,
or serve an alcoholic beverage."
Number 0051
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON came forward as sponsor of HB 388. He
stated he has spent most of the last two years working on child
protection issues. Last summer he, Representative Reggie Joule and
Commissioner Perdue [Department of Health and Social Services
(H&SS)] put together a statewide symposium on fetal alcohol
syndrome (FAS) and fetal alcohol effects (FAE). He noted FAE is
now called "alcohol-related neurological disorders," and has to do
with prenatal poisoning of children. He indicated this made him
realize how pervasive this problem was in Alaska, particularly in
some areas, noting there are some communities where the teachers
estimate half the entering children are permanently mentally
retarded as a result of alcohol poisoning. He said the corrections
community believes half of Alaska inmates have alcohol-related
mental defects. Representative Dyson said FAE is, by definition,
not visible, but the kids almost always have problems reasoning
from general principles to specific action, an inability to
empathize with others, and short attention spans.
Number 0108
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted this was almost the classic definition
of sociopath. He indicated all of this had made him interested in
finding out what the legislature could do toward prevention,
indicating he thought some of the committee members had been there
when legislation was passed requiring signs be posted in bars. He
mentioned there were labels "and so on." Representative Dyson
stated he went "hat in hand" to ARBA CHAR (ph), the bar owners'
association and the bar workers' professional union. He said after
these groups "got over thinking that I was the bald avenger who was
gonna go out and destroy them," they came to at least three things
they thought they could work together on. He said first they are
getting more material for these groups to use in their training,
noting these groups said the question always came up in their
training of bar workers, "Can we refuse to serve someone who is
obviously pregnant?"
Number 0145
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated this was because the literature now
says there is no known safe amount of alcohol for a pregnant woman
to consume that is known to be safe for the unborn child, and the
bar owners and workers are concerned. He said some of them were
concerned because they were afraid of liability, some of them
because they really cared about kids. Representative Dyson
commented, "So we agreed on three things, ... we've gotten material
and [the] Administration's working with them getting our material
for their training; secondly, they're probably going to put quite
a bit of money into helping kids with FAS and diagnostic equipment;
and thirdly, they said that they're caught in a legal no man's
land. Most of them say that they refuse to serve, as a matter of -
of company policy, someone who is obviously pregnant, but they
believe that they're open to civil action, not having a clear
mandate that they can refuse to serve someone. The law says that
you can refuse to serve if you can believe they're going to be a
danger to themself or others. Our law since '73 doesn't clearly
recognize unborn child as an other ... to be protected, and they
believe they're on shaky ground." He noted in Oregon bar owners
had been sued for both refusing to serve a pregnant woman and not
refusing to serve. He said to the best of his knowledge neither
lawsuit had been successfully prosecuted so far, but he indicated
the people in the industry were afraid they were going to be sued
on behalf of an advocate for a permanently retarded child, "in
light of our suit-happy world and 'dram' shop ... type laws and
being held accountable for the actions of people who are served,"
and so, he said, they ask for this.
Number 0219
Representative Dyson stated, "I met with them when they had their
board of directors meetings here in February, and we talked about
it, and it was absolutely universal acclaim at the table and - and
so on. When I got back to them a month ago, to Miss Whitehead (ph)
... their director there in Anchorage, I said, 'Can you guys get me
a letter,' and she said, 'Oh my goodness, we didn't realize you
were gonna do what you said,' and she said, 'Until we get a board
meeting, I can't give you a letter,' but she said, 'Far as I know,
there's no trouble.' So I can't tell that there's an official word
from ARBA CHAR (ph) on this .... That's the long and the short of
it, I have not lined up people to testify ...." He indicated he
had been attending Senate committee meetings.
Number 0254
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he assumed this provision only referred
to those licensed to serve alcoholic beverages, not necessarily a
liquor store, and asked Representative Dyson if that was correct.
Number 0260
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would have to look in the code there,
quoting, "Licensee, an agent or employee." He indicated he thought
it referred to a bar, not a package store.
Number 0280
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he thought it was going to be any
license, commenting it was in the general provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "Including a package store?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "Everybody."
Number 0288
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated someone selling alcoholic
beverages at a package store would not know who was consuming those
beverages. He noted he believed someone could not consume in a
package store.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated Representative Cowdery was correct
in that consumption in a package store was not permitted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "You could carry it out."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY agreed, "But you could carry it out and give
it to .... I don't know, for whatever that's worth."
Number 0303
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Chapter 20 ..."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Dyson if bars were the
main intention of the legislation.
Number 0306
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated it was his intention to protect the bar
owners from a civil suit because they choose to refuse to serve,
under whatever circumstances they made that decision as a policy.
He said that is what they have asked for.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented he wanted to have that on the
record.
Number 0319
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG informed the committee this was in the general
provisions section of Title 4, Chapter 21, which was followed by
[AS] 04.21.065, "posting of warning signs, two separate warning
signs and beverage dispensary license, restaurant or eating place
license, pub license, brewery license, package store license,
common carrier dispensary license, ...." He continued listing the
licenses and quoted the warning sign requirements. Chairman
Rokeberg commented that with the current statute and the way the
bill was drafted, it applied to everybody, as the signs currently
did.
Number 0379
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he thought it was pretty good legislation
and would be happy to move it along.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "I think it's kind of redundant
(indisc.) what the law says. They already have signs saying they
can do it, plus I think it'll give rise to law suits not otherwise.
Because if you say that ... they have the right to refuse 'em --
right now, ... 'cause it speaks to it, now it doesn't speak to it."
Number 0395
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN reminded the chairman, "Mark Twain said,
'Difference of opinion is what makes horse races.'"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that was very true.
Number 0405
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON quoted the required sign wording, "Warning,
drinking alcoholic beverages such a beer or wine, wine coolers and
distilled spirits or smoking cigarettes during pregnancy can cause
birth defects." He quoted the (indisc.) one, "Surgeon's warning:
smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature
birth, low birth weight."
Number 0424
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he would prefer to something in the file
from CHAR (ph) and "some other folks." He indicated going on
hearsay made him a little uncomfortable, noting it was not that he
did not believe the bill sponsor. Chairman Rokeberg said he would
prefer to hold the legislation until the committee received
something, mentioning Ms. Whitehead (ph). He said the committee
had been trying to get a hold of those people to verify that.
Number 0446
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted time was short and he guessed the
legislation would not make it all the way through the process,
although he said he would like to see it continue, noting there was
a small chance. He indicated he did not think waiting for the
documentation the chairman requested would make a material
difference.
Number 0462
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated it was his understanding all HB 388
did was give some latitude to someone serving [alcoholic beverages]
to make certain that the server is within the law. He indicated he
thought that was all the sponsor was trying to achieve.
Number 0476
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed. He related, "Interestingly enough ...
I went over and visited with my good friends at the ACLU [American
Civil Liberties Union] and ... they spent 2 1/2 months trying to
decide whether they were upset by this or not, and finally decided
they couldn't figure that out, and think it's fine, which is [the]
first time they've agreed with me in a long time."
Number 0493
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented it was good legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the will of the committee.
Number 0498
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he would like to make motion to move
the legislation along, commenting that hopefully the sponsor would
follow and get answers to the committee's concerns.
Number 0507
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 388 with individual
recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no
objections, HB 388 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee.
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he would withdraw the legislation if
ARBA CHAR (ph) was not in favor of it.
CSSB 336(L&C) - WORKERS' COMP: EXEMPT HOCKEY PLAYERS
Number 0528
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was CSSB 336(L&C), "An Act relating to excluding professional
hockey team members from workers' compensation coverage."
Number 0545
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,
presented SB 336. She stated Senator Leman, the chair of the
Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, was approached by the
Anchorage Aces about taking the Florida approach to providing
coverage for hockey players. The Anchorage Aces' concern was the
cost of the workers' compensation program. Ms. Kreitzer said the
team was advised to go to the Division of Insurance [Department of
Commerce and Economic Development] and the Division of Workers'
Compensation [Department of Labor] to see if this problem could be
resolved that way. She noted the Anchorage Aces had gone through
that process and she said Paul Grossi, the director of the Division
of Workers' Compensation, was present to speak about the division's
position. Ms. Kreitzer reviewed the sponsor statement, explaining
that the coaches would be covered because they were player coaches
and she indicated the Anchorage Aces were aware of the liability
concerns raised by the Division of Insurance. She indicated the
Division of Workers' Compensation had also advised the Anchorage
Aces' ownership of the risks, and the ownership still wished to go
forward with the idea, believing that it put them in a better
financial position. Ms. Kreitzer said the player representative
who had testified said the players went along with the idea and
were willing to move forward. She noted other committees had been
concerned about how the players felt. The sponsor statement read:
This bill amends Worker's Compensation provisions by
adding professional hockey teams to the list of persons
not covered under AS 23.30.230. In exchange for this
exemption, a team owner would have to provide a medical
and disability program to cover the players (and anyone
else associated with the team who is in the same Worker's
Comp risk category, e.g., coaches, assistant coaches, but
not office personnel) 100% of the time - whether on duty,
travel or their own time. The owner is responsible for
the cost of the premiums on this coverage. The idea is
taken from Florida's approach to this problem.
The committee was asked to introduce this legislation by
the sole professional hockey team in the state, the
Anchorage Aces.
The Department of Labor, Division of Worker's
Compensation has reviewed the legislation and is neutral
on the bill.
Number 0623
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he had heard the testimony on the bill in a
Senate committee and indicated he wondered why there wasn't a
supporting letter in the bill packet from Mr. Cusack (ph).
MS. KREITZER confirmed that a letter from Mr. Cusack (ph) had not
been omitted from the bill packet.
Number 0653
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if other professional hockey
associations had similar coverage for their players.
Number 0659
MS. KREITZER replied there had been testimony that there was a
western hockey association with, apparently, many similarities in
coverage. She said this particular idea was taken from Florida,
which used this approach. Ms. Kreitzer said she could not say
specifically how many of the teams in the western region took the
same approach.
Number 0675
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if this was common with other sporting
events such as football or basketball.
Number 0681
MS. KREITZER said she did not know the answer to that question.
She noted there had been discussion about it but she did not feel
competent to answer.
Number 0689
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented he had been a paid licensed football
official 25 or 30 years ago. He said he practiced that profession
for some time and was never covered by any insurance or had any
problem with it.
Number 0706
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the bill packet spoke of soccer players
in the Eastern Indoor Soccer League in the state of Florida. He
asked Mr. Grossi if he had any comments.
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor, replied he was available for questions.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Grossi if he could find out if other
states had exemptions from workers' compensation for professional
athletes, indicating the chairman wished the information before the
legislation reached the House floor.
Mr. GROSSI replied he would try.
Number 0729
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 336(L&C) with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objections, CSSB 336(L&C) was moved out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CSSB 330(RES) - LOCATING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
Number 0744
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was CSSB 330(RES), "An Act relating to locations of underground
facilities and excavations in the area of underground facilities."
Number 0755
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,
came forward to present SB 330. She stated SB 330 was requested by
the Alaska Telephone Association (ATA) and had been through
approximately 20 iterations attempting to make sure it was very
fair and balanced. Ms. Kreitzer noted they spent a lot of time
trying to make sure the expectations for excavators and utility
owners were very balanced in the bill. She stated SB 330 provided
an understanding of the standards and responsibilities for locating
and excavating underground facilities for utilities and
contractors, amending AS 42.30 to set out responsibilities for
excavators, construction project owners and underground facility
owners when a "locate" was requested. She said the bill provided
for a penalty if an excavator intentionally damaged a located
underground facility. Ms. Kreitzer noted there was no current
statewide locate standard. She said there were some national
standards related to issues of locating (indisc.) encumbering
underground utilities, but nothing as comprehensive on the
statewide level as SB 330. She stated there were others present to
testify from Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative (ARECA) and another
organization she could not recall.
Number 0830
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if there was any definition of
"excavator" in the bill.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred Representative Cowdery to page 5. The
definition on page 5, line 31, read, "(4) "excavator" means a
person conducts excavation in the state;".
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY confirmed it could be a private person doing
this.
MS. KREITZER answered in the affirmative.
Number 0859
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted the question might not be relevant, but
said years ago he had been on an assembly and the railroad told
them they had to maintain the railroad's crossing in the assembly's
municipality. He asked, "Is there anything here where an entity
can put off on another person?"
Number 0872
MS. KREITZER replied in the negative, indicating that if an
excavator requested a locate SB 330 laid out that the utility had
a certain number of days to respond, spoke about emergency locates
and talked about what happened if an excavator intentionally did
damage. She noted there was already a definition in law for
"intentionally". Ms. Kreitzer said SB 330 laid out things like
that, it was to simplify the current process, and in all the
iterations she noted there had been a conscious effort not to
create a burden for one party or the other in terms of maintaining
lines or anything else.
Number 0905
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the cap in terms of the penalty
clause on page 4, (line 25) "nor more than $1,000 for each offense
...". He questioned, "(Indisc.) civil penalty from whom?" Section
42.30.440 of CSSB 330(RES)read:
Sec. 42.30.440. Penalties; injunctive relief. (a) A
person who violates a provision of AS 42.30.400 -
42.30.490 is subject to a civil penalty of not less than
$50 nor more than $1,000 for each offense if the
violation results in or significantly contributes to
damage to an underground facility.
(b) If the court finds that an excavator is
violating or threatening to violate a provision of AS
42.30.400 - 42.30.490 and the violation may result in
damage to an underground facility, the court may grant
injunctive relief to the underground facility operator.
MS. KREITZER indicated she believed the chairman was referring to
a violation of a provision of Sections 42.30.400 to 490 by an
excavator. She indicated that if the excavator did not do what the
excavator was supposed to do then a court could assess a penalty of
not less than $50 nor more than $1,000 for each offense if it
resulted in or significantly contributed to damage to that
underground facility.
Number 0949
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the amount was only $1,000 and asked if the
actual damages were provided for.
MS. KREITZER responded she believed actual damages were provided
for, but did not think it was in that section.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Mr. Youle [Executive Director, ARECA]
might know the answers to those technical questions.
ERIC YOULE, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, indicated he did not know the answer that question.
Number 0979
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he was wondering about that as well,
noting language on page 4, lines 20 and 22, from subsection (b),
".... The operator of an underground facility that was damaged
during excavation shall arrange for repair or relocation of the
facility as soon as practical." He asked where the liability was
for the person who did the damage, questioning if the requirement
that the person "make it whole" was in there.
Number 0995
MS. KREITZER indicated she believed it was in the language above
that, reading from the beginning of subsection (b) "(b) An
excavator who, in the course of excavation, contacts or damages an
underground facility shall notify the operator. If the damage
causes an emergency, the excavator shall also alert local public
safety agencies and take reasonable steps to ensure public safety."
Section 42.30.430, subsection (b), of CSSB 330(RES) read:
(b) An excavator who, in the course of excavation,
contacts or damages an underground facility shall notify
the operator. If the damaged causes an emergency, the
excavator shall also alert appropriate local public
safety agencies and take reasonable steps to ensure
public safety. A damaged underground facility may not be
reburied until it is repaired or relocated to the
satisfaction of the operator. The operator of an
underground facility that was damaged during excavation
shall arrange for repair or relocation of the facility as
soon as practical.
Number 1009
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said his question had been, "Are they
financially responsible for the repair?"
MS. KREITZER answered in the affirmative.
Number 1015
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked where it said that.
MS. KREITZER stated her understanding was that injunctive relief
also spoke to the damages.
Number 1030
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that injunctive relief was in the court
of equity and did not necessarily provide damages.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented, "Liability ..."
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Chairman Rokeberg,
commented that Mr. Rowe might still be on teleconference in
Anchorage to answer technical questions.
Number 1069
JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Rowe stated the
ATA was a trade association comprised of 22 local exchange carriers
in Alaska. He said he thought the question asked of Ms. Kreitzer
was under civil liability; a person, an entity, is responsible for
damages. Mr. Rowe stated it was not particularly written out in
this legislation and he noted he was not just speaking of
underground or locate damages.
Number 1113
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked why it was not in the legislation.
MR. ROWE replied it was law elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if he could tell the committee where that
would be. Chairman Rokeberg confirmed the legislation did not have
a referral to the House Judiciary Standing Committee and had not
had a referral to the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 1134
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said there were more than just the physical
repair damages and he commented, for example, on the damage to a
business from loss of telephone service. He said he assumed a
business would have a cause of action against the person or persons
responsible for the discontinuation of service and said he would be
comfortable if that was addressed somewhere otherwise in law,
commenting, "But I would think that you might want to give that
consideration."
Number 1160
MS. KREITZER stated they had given that consideration. She noted
a previous bill version had spoken of treble damages and that
section had been deleted in the House Resources Standing Committee.
She indicated the bill sections dealing with liability had also
been deleted because the treble damages deletion left the bill
lopsided in terms of what the liability was for the excavator,
leaving it to current law and other statutes that deal with civil
liability. She commented that if people got into this situation
they needed to go to court anyway, and she stated, "A statute is
not going to address every situation where a contractor has a
problem with a - a telephone company or with a cable company. We
would rather they resolve that in court. We just want to lay out
some standards so that people understand that when you call for a
locate, this is what you can expect to happen. When something
occurs, where you hit a gas line or whatever, you're gonna go to
court anyway and figure out who owes what and somebody's gonna
assert that they didn't do it intentionally and someone's gonna
assert that you should of known better, and so we didn't try to
address all the liability questions, we left ... those types of
things to current law."
Number 1232
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he wasn't an expert but this looked like
tort reform for excavators, noting it looked like a civil penalty
cap of $1,000 per incident with injunctive relief for a "cease and
desist."
Number 1252
MR. ROWE indicated the penalty in Section 42.30.440(a) being
discussed was only a fine to someone for not having done something
correctly in the process which caused significant damage. He
stated the liability was very much there. He noted, "The Alaska
Telephone Association initiated or - or exhibited concerns of this
over two years ago, and went through many iterations, and we
appreciate very the help we've had in Senator Leman's office and
the legislature overall in working through some of this." Mr. Rowe
said the association has recognized that three quarters of the time
the utility, who he commented he seemed to represent, was actually
the excavator. He said the telephone company would be excavating
by the electric company's or the gas company's underground facility
and he indicated the impression this bill was adversarial in nature
was incorrect. Mr. Rowe stated, "We're putting out standards for
ourself, and quite honestly, by putting out the standards, the time
frames, the distances from facilities, and being specific about it,
we're expecting we're going to be more efficient in complying with
good business practice. People being able to estimate how long it
will take to get a job done, what kind of response time they can
look at, and probably avoiding litigation." He noted the treble
damages Ms. Kreitzer had referred to which were removed from the
bill would have only applied to intentional damages, commenting,
"Where there have been practices, a contractor, be it utility,
private contractor, whatever, recognizing with the expense of
equipment, it's easier just to go down along a right-of-way and
tear up what's there and pay for the damage, than it is to go
around it." Mr. Rowe said, however, from a utility's view point
they were very concerned their customers were not sustaining an
outage. He stated, "We want to encourage that and we think we have
in this bill, to protect not only the dollars returned of
electricity being on and the meters spinning, but very importantly
that our customers don't experience an outage." He said they have
addressed the emergency response, they want to respond in any
emergency condition, and even more importantly, avoid those
emergency conditions, keeping the utility to the public. He noted
that is what they have tried to address in the legislation and
emphasized the fine in Section 42.30.440 was for wrong-doing; it
was not compensation for the damage done. Mr. Rowe indicated the
compensation for damage was in liability.
Number 1400
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said Alaska was unique because a lot of
utilities were owned by public and quasi-public corporations "as
such." He asked if this applied to government as well as the
private sector.
MS. KREITZER answered in the affirmative.
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if he was correct in saying there was
some regulation of utilities being in the proper place and proper
depth, indicating he was referring to the bill. He indicated in
his excavating experience he has gone to a vacant lot to put
something like a foundation in and unexpectedly hit a gas line,
noticing out of the corner of his eye a house on a separate lot
next door had a meter. Representative Cowdery noted a lot of this
had happened in the early days and he indicated he was wondering if
there were any depth requirements in the legislation and about the
location of underground facilities with respect to easements. He
directed his questions to Mr. Rowe.
Number 1485
MS. KREITZER commented Mr. Rowe would speak to this in more detail,
but she believed Representative Cowdery was referring to Section
42.30.410, page 2, beginning on line 24, which went into the field
marks for an underground facility. She asked if this was what
Representative Cowdery was speaking to. Section 42.30.410,
subsection (c), beginning on line 24, read:
(c) The field marks for an underground facility buried 10
feet deep or less must be located within 24 horizontal
inches of the outside dimensions of the facility. For a
facility buried deeper than 10 feet, the operator shall
locate the field marks within 30 horizontal inches of the
outside dimensions of the facility. The operator shall
use stakes, paint, or other clearly identifiable material
to show the field location of the underground facility.
The marker used to designate the approximate location of
an underground facility must follow the current color
code standard used by the American Public Works
Association.
Number 1513
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY answered in the affirmative, indicating he
also wanted to know where it was located.
MS. KREITZER commented she would let Mr. Rowe speak more to that
section of the bill.
Number 1525
MR. ROWE said they have talked about horizontal requirements for
the locate and have intentionally not spoken about depth. He
stated if the locate was done incorrectly and damage occurred at no
fault of the excavator because of this, then the responsibility
certainly was on the locate service. He noted the depth had been
intentionally left out because different underground facilities
have been buried at different depths in Alaska. He added, "Plus,
we seem to at least (indisc.) the law road right-of-ways, that -
that depth certainly changes as graders go along and - and snow
plows go along and change the depth, and especially in rural areas
I know that's quite a concern. Sometimes things are higher than
anticipated. Hopefully if you're going down with a backhoe they're
deeper than you anticipated so that's not going to cause any
problem." He reiterated that only the horizontal measurements were
addressed in the bill.
Number 1595
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated his question, however, had to do
with excavating on virgin ground, giving the example of someone
owning a vacant lot for years that had never been built on, putting
a foundation on it and hitting something that's (indisc.).
Representative Cowdery noted there had been no need for a locate
because it was virgin ground and the work was not going off the
property; he said that happened frequently to some excavators,
especially in Anchorage in the earlier days.
Number 1623
MR. ROWE replied, "Mr. Chairman, I think we need to look for a
locate and I think that's why we ask for locates and this does ..."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY interjected, "You mean every excavating job
regardless of where it's at should have a locate?"
MR. ROWE replied he did not think every job needed to, but if they
hit any underground utility it was probably not virgin ground. He
stated, "And (indisc.) around Anchorage, if we see power lines or
... have reason to suspect there's a gas line there, if you call a
locate service and say, 'We're going to be digging,' and they say,
'There's nothing there,' you're covered."
Number 1656
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented Mr. Youle had to catch a flight.
Number 1665
ERIC YOULE, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, came forward to testify. He stated he was there
basically in favor of SB 330. He commented he would have to say
ATA had done a very good job of coordinating the bill with all
interested parties, and in particular with the electric utility
industry. Mr. Youle said ATA came to ARECA over 1 1/2 years ago
with draft legislation and let ARECA distribute it among its
members. He said they examined it and proposed a number of changes
which were considered and adopted where appropriate. Mr. Youle
noted he thought ATA took that attitude as a general rule with most
entities which would be affected by the bill, and he stated ARECA's
members were satisfied with the bill at that time.
Number 1716
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Colter (ph) if she wanted to testify.
MS. COLTER (ph) replied, "Concur. My staff looked at it too, and
..." [NOTE: WITNESS DID NOT SIGN WITNESS REGISTER AND WAS NOT
OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected that there was one other thing,
addressing his comments to Ms. Kreitzer. The chairman said it
seemed to him there were a number of utilities and "other folks"
conspicuous by their absence from the bill file, particularly even
from the Anchorage area. He gave the example of ENSTAR Natural Gas
Company (ENSTAR) and indicated the bill file contained letters to
these entities from Mr. Rowe requesting support, but not
corresponding letters of support from the entities.
Number 1765
MS. KREITZER indicated she felt this was not a high priority for
those entities. She stated, "Within the Municipality of Anchorage,
for instance, they have (indisc.) call locate center. We did speak
with [the] municipality of Unalaska, which doesn't have a one-call
locate and they were satisfied with the bill after ... the
amendments in the Resources Committee." Ms. Kreitzer said they did
make the attempts, indicating the entities knew about the bill and
had had opportunity to comment.
Number 1816
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he could see the wisdom of not going to
depth, noting in a great area of the state things sink and rise in
the ground, and it would be difficult in those places to determine
the actual depth.
Number 1836
MR. ROWE said he spoke with Ms. Crisafulli of ENSTAR in November of
1997. Mr. Rowe's November 24, 1997, letter to Kimberly Crisafulli
of ENSTAR, taken from the bill packet, read:
Thank you for your help with the number of locates
earlier today. I look forward to receiving your year end
compilation when it is available.
Enclosed is a draft of the proposed locate legislation we
expect to have introduced in January. It has been shared
with utilities and contractors and I encourage widespread
distribution. Over the past year I have made a number of
changes in response to suggestions. I welcome your
input.
Number 1875
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Rowe, "If you could provide the Labor
and Commerce Committee and the Rules chairman for submission to the
floor package, a letter confirming the ability of a damaged owner
or other -- (indisc.) to have a -- they'd have a standing for a
cause of action in the court that (indisc.) excluded bill, that
there's other remedies at law to be able to do that, we'd
appreciate that so we could move this bill along ...."
MR. ROWE said he would do that.
Number 1940
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 5:01 p.m. The
committee came back to order at approximately 5:02 p.m.
Number 1952
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 330(RES) with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objections, CSSB 330(RES) moved out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1976
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|