SENATE BILL NO. 376 An Act relating to fees charged by state agencies for certain services and to reimbursement for expenses incurred by the state in providing certain services; and providing for an effective date. Upon reconvening the meeting, Co-chair Frank directed that SB 376 be brought on for discussion. CHERYL FRASCA, Office of the Governor, came before committee. She explained that SB 376 would implement "several fee changes to existing law." She then commenced a sectional review: Sec. 1. Allows the Dept. of Revenue to charge a fee for alcohol- server awareness courses. Last year the legislature passed legislation requiring alcohol servers to complete an awareness course. Sec. 2. Provides the Dept. of Public Safety authority to promulgate regulations and charge fees for permits to those servicing portable fire extinguishers and those who design, install and service fire alarm systems. KENNETH LEA, Deputy Fire Marshal, Dept. of Public Safety, came before committee in response to questions from Co-chair Frank. He explained that permitting was established at the request of industry. An ad hoc committee suggested collection of an associated fee. Mr. Lea voiced need to maintain quality control over both those who design and service fire systems. During the transition period of June 10, 1993, through June 10, 1996, anyone who is presently doing this type of work in Alaska may obtain a permit based on past experience. New people in the trade will be required to demonstrate proficiency by documenting past experience and passing a nationally recognized engineering technician certification test. Further discussion followed regarding fees associated with various permits as well as the length of time for which the permit would be good. Additional discussion ensued regarding the public process associated with issue of regulations establishing the proposed fees. Mr. Lea estimated that fees would generate $29.2 for fire extinguishers and $38.5 from fire alarm systems. Cheryl Frasca directed attention to information set forth on accompanying fiscal notes. Co-chair Frank asked that Mr. Lea provide written information on the interrelationship between the permit for fire sprinkler systems and the mechanical administrator permit. Sec. 3. Allows the Dept. of Public Safety to charge a fee for for permits issued to those who use dangerous fireworks displays. Approximately $3.0 is expected to be generated in FY 96 as a result of this fee. End: SFC-94, #62, Side 1 Begin: SFC-94, #62, Side 2 Co-chair Frank stressed need for language within the bill to ensure that fees bear a strict relationship to costs of administration of permit programs. Ms. Frasca noted a similar provision relating to program receipts. Departments are not to make a profit from program receipts that support a program. Sec. 4. Allows the Dept. of Public Safety to set in regulations the fee charged for retail fireworks permits. The current statutory fee for those who sell fireworks is $10. Sec. 5. Allows the Dept. of Public Safety to set in regulations the fee charged for wholesale fireworks permits. The statutory fee is presently $50. Co-chair Frank noted information indicating that the proposal is for a wholesale permit at $500 and a retail permit at $100. He again stressed need to ensure a strict relationship between the cost of the permit program and the fee paid. Taxing of an activity represents separate policy. Sec. 6. Allows the Dept. of Public Safety to increase fees for driver training school and instructor licenses. The present fee is $25 for training schools. That would increase to $100. Instructor licenses are now $5. They would increase to $25. Sec. 7. Allows the Dept. of Corrections to seek payment for medical care from third parties such as insurance companies, the veterans administration, Indian health services, or other federal agencies. Sec. 8. Allows the Dept. of Environmental Conservation to charge for direct costs associated with pesticide registration, subdivision plan review, bank loan audits, analysis of water systems, and regulation of motor vehicle fuels. Senator Sharp raised concern regarding indirect costs. Ms. Frasca explained that questioned language was contained within a House version of the bill. KIT BALLENTINE, Acting Director, Division of Environmental Health, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, concurred. She further advised of discussion in House hearings regarding removal of the indirect charge. Cheryl Frasca attested to removal of such language from Senate versions of the bill as well. Senator Kelly directed attention to page 5, lines 8 and 9, subsection (14), and asked how the department intends to regulate motor vehicle fuels to control emissions. LEN VERRELLI, Chief, Air Quality Management Section, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, explained that activity relates to compilation of information to exempt Alaska from low sulfur fuel requirements. Senator Kelly voiced his understanding that the proposed bill would allow the department to establish a fee structure to capture sufficient funds to conduct the project. Mr. Verrelli concurred and noted the many interests in Alaska that would be impacted by such a waiver. Application for the waiver may only be made by the state. Co-chair Frank requested additional written information on the project. Discussion followed regarding analyses conducted by DEC versus private labs. Senator Sharp voiced his understanding that language within the bill prohibits DEC from conducting analyses if certified private labs are able to do so. Mr. Verrelli concurred. In response to further questions from the Senator, Mr. Verrelli attested to problems resulting from lack of certified labs within the state. Necessary equipment involves great expense. That is how the state lab got started. DEENA HENKINS, Chief, Drinking Water and Water Treatment Section, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, explained that certified laboratories must be available for public water system analyses in order to maintain primacy for state water programs. Private labs have thus been certified to conduct that analysis. The state must continue to do needed analyses in situations where the tests are too expensive for private labs to undertake, and the holding time on the sample is too short to allow for shipment to an out-of-state lab. Sec. 9. Is similar to an effective date clause. It allows departments to commence work on regulations prior to the actual effective date of the proposed bill. Sec. 10. Provides an immediate effective date for Sec. 9. Sec. 11. Provides a July 1, 1994, effective date.