![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
June 16 & 17, 2005
Watt Ag Room
Sheridan, Wyoming
Senator Cut Meier, Co-Chairman
Representative Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman
Senator John Hanes
Senator Wayne Johnson
Representative Bruce Barnard
Representative Ross Diercks
Representative Keith Gingery
Representative Frank Latta
Representative Marty Martin
Representative Del McOmie
Representative Monte Olsen
Senator Jayne Mockler
Senator Charlie Scott
Representative David Miller
Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney
Kristin Siegel, Staff Attorney
Senator Bruce Burns
Representative Jack Landon
Representative Ann Robinson
Representative Pete Jorgensen
Please refer to
Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Co-Chairman Pete Illoway called the meeting to order at 8:00 am. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the meeting agenda.
The committee approved the minutes of the December 16 and 17, 2004 and April 27, 2005 meetings.
The Subcommittee took testimony from Mike Moser, Wyoming State Liquor Association and Bill Pomeroy and Tom Montoya, Dept. of Revenue, Liquor Division. Mr. Moser provided a summary of the issues (Appendix 3) and the panel discussed the following topics:
1. The Association would like to see legislation prohibiting the use of AWOL (Alcohol Without Liquid) machines. (See Appendix 4) These machines are an alcohol delivery system that vaporizes alcohol beverages for inhalation. While there is no direct evidence that the machines are currently in use in Wyoming, there is a fear that they may become popular, especially in college towns. They are concerned that use of the machines could lead to alcohol poisoning because the machine bypasses the body's digestive system. There are no signs of intoxication such as headache, vomiting and hangover until the participant has inhaled too much. Mr. Moser was asked to provide a copy of legislation from other states like Colorado that have prohibited this type of machine. The committee asked the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation for consideration.
2. Approximately six years ago the Liquor Division brought legislation that would give a judge the authority to revoke a person's license if they are underage and attempt to buy alcohol. (See Appendix 5). The objections raised at that time were that the penalty was too harsh and that there were no other reasons set forth in statute for revoking a license for a non-moving violation. However, the panel testified that times have changed and would like to see the bill brought forth again. The committee indicated it would rather see legislation that gave a judge discretion to revoke the license rather than making it mandatory, and that they would like to see provisions that ensure that the parent's insurance would not rise based on such a revocation. The committee directed the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation for consideration.
3. Tom Montoya discussed the Supreme Court decision in Granholm v. Heald. (See Appendix 6) In that case the states of Michigan and New York allowed in state wineries to sell wine directly to consumers in their state but prohibited out of state wineries from doing so. Statutes in Wyoming are not affected because out of state wineries are allowed to ship directly to consumers in the same manner as in state wineries. The decision may have some affect on Wyoming because in state wineries have certain tax breaks that may put them at some advantage over out of state wineries. The Liquor division is discussing the ramifications of the decision with the attorney general at this time.
4. Many control states like Wyoming allow retail sales between retailers provided the alcohol is still originally purchased through the existing state controlled system. The panel would like to see legislation that allows retailers to purchase some liquors outside the system, from other retailers, to increase the availability of less common products.
5. The history of population formulas for allocation of full service liquor licenses in Wyoming was discussed. (See Appendix 7). The panel discussed how it would be difficult to fashion new formulas and methods of allocating licenses after other states because each state is so different in the types of licenses allowed. The committee expressed concern that it was very difficult to revoke a liquor license because it is a means of livelihood. There was also concern that the state only receives $1500 per year for a license, but they sell on the open market after issuance for up to $500,000. The present system appears to promote arbitrary overvaluation of full service licenses because restaurants that wish to also have a bar must obtain a full service license rather than a restaurant liquor license.
Tom Forswell, Casper City Manager, testified that the city does not have problems with licensed establishments that also sell food. The law enforcement problems are with bars and package selling establishments. The committee suggested that issuing licenses based on bids would increase the fees collected by the city. Mr. Forswell was more concerned about the law enforcement issues and would like to see more availability of licenses to restaurant establishments.
George Parks, Wyoming Association of Municipalities asked the committee to ensure that the liquor licensing statutes are in sync with the new corporation laws. He also expressed that he wants suspension authority at the local level, or in the alternative, to see beefed up enforcement by the Liquor Division. Finally, he testified that there should be requirements for server training and compliance checks by the Liquor Division. Senator Bruce Burns testified that he is concerned about the overvaluation of licenses and hopes the committee will consider legislation that taxes the transfer of a license. He would like to see some parity between city licenses and county licenses because there is an inherent unfairness in the availability of county licenses even when the county property is very close to or entirely surrounded by city property.
The Committee asked the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation that would permit restaurant liquor license holders to operate a bar/waiting area in the facility without having to obtain a full service liquor license. Representative Latta will work with stakeholders and LSO on draft language. The legislation should not allow package liquor sales on a restaurant liquor license though.
Jim Narva, Dept of Fire Prevention, Terry Phillips, Asst. State Fire Marshall, and Keith Reynolds, Chief Electrical Inspector addressed the committee. Jim Narva provided a summary of the testimony (See Appendix 8) and the panel discussed the following issues:
1. The use of non-licensed electrical workers has become a problem in the state. Currently, if an electrician is not licensed, the only authority the state has is to demand that the electrician leave a job site. Even if an electrician is licensed, there is no remedy short of revoking the electrician's license if the electrician does inadequate or inferior work. The Department of Fire Prevention would like to see legislation allowing for civil penalties for violations of the electrical code. The Department brought draft legislation that they would like the committee to consider. (See Appendix 9). The committee asked the Legislative Service Office to put the bill in draft format for consideration at the next meeting.
2. The Department used to license fire protection service installers, including installers of hoods, alarms, extinguishers, etc. They did this through rulemaking until the Attorney General issued an opinion that the department did not have specific authority to regulate these entities. The Department would like to have the authority to regulate these entities for public safety. The committee directed Jim Narva to facilitate communication with the various industry stakeholders and to bring back proposed legislation for committee consideration at their next meeting.
3. Recently a child was electrocuted by a faulty well in Wyoming. The department would only have authority to investigate the electrocution if it was asked by another governmental entity. When the parents asked the department to investigate they were unable to do so. The department would like to see legislation that would give them authority to investigate all electrocutions in the state. They do not wish to have power to issue citations or penalties, but rather would like to have authority like they have for investigation of fires. The committee asked Jim Narva to bring proposed legislation for committee consideration at their next meeting.
4. A fire training study was authorized by a 2005 statute. The study is ongoing by a consultant who will report to the department in July. The department will then report to the committee on the findings and recommendations by November as required by statute.
5. The electrical board currently consists of three members. Recently it was discovered that two members of the board worked for the same company and therefore one of the members resigned to avoid any appearance of impropriety. The board now has only two members and cannot have any meetings until a third member is appointed. Senator Stan Cooper has asked the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation to expand the number of electrical board members to remedy the problem. (See Appendix 10). The committee reviewed the bill and asked the Legislative Service Office to work with Jim Narva and bring it back to the committee for consideration at the next meeting.
George Parks, Wyoming Association of Municipalities testified that he supports the certification of fire prevention service installers. Chairman Meier asked the panel questions about when emergency permits are required. Mr. Phillips clarified that as long as power is not shut off at the source then a permit is not required for remodeling and repairs. The department is currently meeting with utility companies to clarify when the department is required to issue a permit.
Ken Vines, Director of the Department of Insurance addressed the committee. The department would like to enter into the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact. (See Appendix 11). The compact allows insurance companies to submit potential insurance contracts for life, long term care, annuity and disability policies to a centralized office for filing, review and approval. Statutes now allow for "regional" compacts but this is a "national" compact. The department brought this compact to the committee last year but the committee decided to wait and see how many other states would enter into it. Currently seventeen states have entered the compact, including Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Nebraska. The compact would not take effect until it is entered by 26 states, or until the states entered cover 40% of the premium volume in the country. Mr. Vines went through the provisions of the compact and agreed to provide the committee with a written summary of the provisions. (See Appendix 12). Mr. Vines assured the committee that the compact does not delegate any regulatory authority away from the state, only the authority to pre-approve policy forms. There is also an opt-out provision if the state is not happy with its participation in the compact. The committee directed the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation allowing the state to enter into the compact for consideration at the next meeting.
Representative Gingery initiated the discussion of Title 18 with three goals:
1. The county government statutes are antiquated and have not been significantly updated since the 1800s. There are questions of whether the county assessors should be elected or appointed since they appear to have no discretion in carrying out their duties. There is also an issue of whether clerks of district court should be appointed, but they are constitutionally considered an elected position. Rep. Gingery would like the Wyoming Association of County Officers to review the statutes and bring a bill for consideration by the committee that would address the antiquated provisions of the statute.
2. There are two Attorney General opinions that state that county commissioners may only hire staff to assist in clearly articulated commission duties. Those include financial officers and assistants. County commissioners are mostly part time officials and many would like to hire staff, including county managers or executives, to run the day-to-day office functions. A few counties have hired positions like this on the assumption that the manager has no authority to make decisions, just authority to administer the decisions of the commissioners. The committee directed the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation that would clearly allow county commissioners to hire staff to implement commissioner's directives and run the day-to-day office.
3. Representative Gingery discussed the possibility of legislation that would offer cafeteria style choices for county governance, including the possibilities of appointing a county manager, electing a county executive, looking at charter governments and allowing for consolidation of city and county offices.
Representative Gingery was concerned that the question of hiring staff could go to the courts and it would be preferable to have the issue addressed by the legislature instead.
Joe Evans, Wyoming County Commissioners Association suggested that the commission bring two bills, one to address the antiquated provisions of Title 18, and another to offer cafeteria plan options. He introduced Jane Jelinski, Director of the Local Government Center at Montana State University, Bozeman. Ms. Jelinski described Montana's statutes allowing for cafeteria-style choices (See Appendix 13) and described the different options under Montana law. (See Appendix 14). She stated that the opportunity for unification and consolidation of two Montana county/city governments did not necessarily save the state a lot of money, but it did save a lot of intergovernmental squabbles that might have occurred. There was discussion among the committee and panel about how counties are struggling to provide municipal type services in areas just outlying cities that have not joined the city yet. There was also discussion of how although county commissioners do not directly control other county officers, there is some control through the budget process.
Marilyn Mackey, Campbell County Commissioner, described to the committee how Campbell County has hired a Director of Administrative Services who acts as a county manager. The Director has no management authority and only implements decisions of the commission. They are very careful not to assume duties that statutorily reside with other elected county officials.
Mark Barron, Mayor of Jackson, supported the concept of unification of city and county governments as an option. He believes it would reduce duplication, minimize special districts and minimize competition for limited tax dollars.
Debbie Lathrop, Laramie County Clerk testified that any legislation beyond the clean up of archaic language could get very contentious because many county officers think the statutes work well right now. Also, she testified that city and county functions do not overlap so the committee must consider carefully where functions would be placed in any consolidation/unification proposal. If the committee elects to provide authority for county managers they will need to ensure that the lines of authority between a county manager and county officers is clearly delineated.
George Parks, Wyoming Association of Municipalities provided written testimony about their concerns regarding local government. (See Appendix 15). WAM considers administrative staffing important and supports local choice. However, any unification/consolidation legislation must carefully consider revenue streams and how to properly attribute those revenues.
John Pallesen, Sweetwater County Commissioner, testified that counties need flexibility because they are largely part-time officials. They do not desire to take on any authority from other elected officials. Deb Wolfley, Lincoln County Commissioner, expressed concerns that counties need more municipal type authority, including the ability to regulate septic systems. Drew Perkins, Natrona County Commissioner, asked for more regulatory authority for counties because they need more tools in their toolkit. He also pointed out that some inefficiencies and overlap in government is necessary to provide more time for governments to adequately work things out.
Jackie Payne, Bighorn County Assessor provided a magazine article about the need for elected, as opposed to appointed, assessors. (See Appendix 16).
The committee directed Wyoming Association of County Officers to bring a bill to them in August or November that would clean up the archaic language in Title 18. The committee directed the Legislative Service Office to draft two bills for consideration at the August meeting: one giving commissioners broader authority to hire staff and one providing cafeteria style choices for county forms of government. Because consolidation/unification issues are much broader, the committee directed the Legislative Service Office to prepare a list of the issues that must be addressed if legislation allowing consolidation/unification were considered. The committee also asked the Legislative Service Office to prepare a research memo about Dillon's Law, describing what it is and how it affects their ability to change local government structures.
Mac Landon, State Purchasing Administrator, Department of Administration and Information, addressed the committee regarding vendor preferences. He stated that less than 5% of the bids he handles are affected by the vendor preferences, and that vendor preferences are not considered at all in contracts where federal money is involved, with the exception of Abandoned Mine Land contracts. He stated that determining if someone is a resident, especially with corporate bidders, is difficult.
Rich Cathcart, Capital Construction Manager, Dept. of A&I, stated that he tried to prepare a fiscal note for a bill last session that would have lowered the vendor preference percentages. He stated that it was impossible to tell what the fiscal impact would be to the state because there is no way to know the lost tax revenues and the number of employees who live in or out of the state who might be affected when a local bid is not accepted. He reminded the committee that contractors who receive the vendor preference use more local subcontractors because they are familiar with them. Out of state contractors often use familiar out of state subcontractors and bring people into the state for the duration of the project. Those nonresidents may spend money in Wyoming while they are here, but they send most of their paychecks home to their families elsewhere. He also discussed the "multiplier effect" theory that states that every dollar spent on a project gets recycled through the economy seven times. When the employees live in Wyoming that multiplier affects the Wyoming economy directly. Mr. Cathcart described how he only used the vendor preference once in his time as a private contractor, but it was a big project and it kept many Wyoming subcontractors employed.
There was some discussion among the committee, Rich Cathcart and Mac Landon about the requirement that a contractor who receives a vendor preference hire 80% of the subcontractors from Wyoming. The problem is that it is not really enforceable because the contract is signed based on subcontractor bids. Once the contract is signed circumstances may occur where nonresident subcontractors come in with lower prices and the contractor will chose the lowest cost subs.
Dave LaPlant, School Facilities Commission, discussed how vendor preferences work in school facilities construction contracts. The contracts are let by the local school district so the contract is not directly between the state and the contractor. However, there is a contract between the state and the local school district that includes the statutory requirements. Therefore, if the state were to better enforce the 80% subcontractor rule, it could be built into the contract with the school district. The committee suggested that the state needs to put penalties in the contracts for failure to meet the statutory requirement and those penalties should be enforced through an audit before the final payment is made. Mr. Cathcart pointed out that the preference is enforceable because the Wyoming Supreme Court upheld it in a case in the 1980s.
Jody Levin, Qwest communications testified that there is a problem with the definition of resident corporation. Even though Qwest is the largest telecommunications employer in the state, with offices throughout the state, they do not qualify because their main corporate office is in Denver. Also, W.S. § 16-6-106 allows locally owned companies to get the vendor preference, but then allows them to purchase all of the supplies and materials out of state. Qwest would like to see a change in the definition of resident corporation in order to level the playing field. The committee directed the Legislative Service office to work with Ms. Levin and other stakeholders to draft legislation to be brought to the August meeting that would redefine resident corporation to include companies like Qwest with a large Wyoming presence.
Tim Wells, Wyoming Business Trades, suggested that the residency requirement for office managers in corporations was too restrictive. The restriction is limiting the states ability to attract larger contractors that would otherwise bid on the project, but who would use resident subcontractors that have more familiarity with the state. Mr. Wells brought some suggested changes. (See Appendix 17). The committee directed the Legislative Service Office to work with Mr. Wells to bring draft legislation to the August meeting that would address the problem. The draft should include a sunset provision.
The committee suggested that they consider lowering the percentage requirement for subcontractors but then find a way to enforce that percentage. The committee also suggested looking in to allowing local governments to negotiate lower performance bonds. However, the committee did not direct the Legislative Service Office to draft any legislation on these issues at this time.
The Committee recessed at 4:45 pm.
The Committee was called back to order at 8:00 am, June 17, 2005.
Representative Ann Robinson discussed the following issues that need to be addressed:
1. Coroner's operations vary throughout the state. The definition of what is a coroner's case varies also.
2. It is unclear whether coroners have authority to go to a body before being called by the local law enforcement agency.
3. There are conflicts of interest when the coroner also owns a funeral home.
4. It is unclear what, if any, training is required of coroners.
5. There need to be limitations on the type of information that is disseminated to the public from an autopsy report.
6. There are no specific requirements on when the Coroner's Board is supposed to meet. They are currently not giving notice of their meetings.
7. The state should consider changing to a medical examiner system for forensic autopsies rather than leaving those cases in the hands of coroners who have no requirement for advanced forensic skills or even a medical degree.
The committee was provided with a package from the Legislative Service Office containing information concerning coroners' office statutes. (See Appendix 18).
Representative Gingery discussed a 60 Minutes report about a case in Wyoming where a murder conviction was overturned because a coroner did not have advanced forensic skills. He suggested that the state should have a medical examiner system that handles forensic cases, and that the coroner's should handle the non-forensic cases.
Dr. James Thorpen, Board of Coroners, and Bill Ryan, Laramie County Coroner, testified that Wyoming needs a medical examiner system. Dr. Thorpen stated that as a board certified pathologist and coroner he has been called to seven other counties to do autopsies. He testified that 2 or 3 board certified pathologists, working in a state medical examiners office, could handle the workload for the state. He further addressed the issues raised by Representative Robinson. He testified that the Board has just finished drafting rules for minimum standards for handling coroner's cases. He stated that counties do differ in how they handle cases because they have to rely on the nearest pathologist. He addressed the training requirements by stating that coroners are required to take a minimum amount of training at the Police Officer Training School in Douglas, but it is difficult to enforce those requirements because the coroner is an elected official. He agreed that conflicts of interest can be a problem when the coroner is a funeral home owner. Some counties have dealt with this by referring the families in coroner's cases to funeral homes in the county on a rotating schedule. Finally, he stated that the problem with the information that is disseminated to the public from an autopsy report is a problem with the media because autopsy reports are considered a public record under current state law, yet the coroners have to be thorough in their findings in the autopsy report.
Don Pearson, Wyoming Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission Director, testified that the Board of Coroners is an unfunded board and that P.O.S.T administers the board. P.O.S.T annually sets a date for a coroners training course, but if less than ten people sign up for the class it gets cancelled. To change the policy would require guidance from the Attorney General because it is an Academy policy. He also clarified that coroners are never the first person to the scene of a crime, they only arrive after law enforcement personnel call them.
Dr. Thorpen stated that there is an autopsy room at the Department of Criminal Investigations in Cheyenne. Up until three years ago DCI allowed the coroner to use the autopsy room but that policy has changed and the room is not being fully utilized. The committee hopes to discuss this issue with the Attorney General.
The committee discussed how a medical examiner system would work: Coroners would remain with the same primary duties but would be required to call in the medical examiners office if there was a forensic case such as a homicide or an accident where insurance claims will be involved. The committee also agreed that standards for handling coroner's cases need to be implemented. The committee directed the Legislative Service Office to draft a bill for consideration that would create a statewide medical examiners office. The bill should be patterned after Utah or New Mexico's laws. The committee asked Dr. Thorpen to assist the LSO in any other changes that need to be addressed in the coroner statutes.
The committee also directed the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation for consideration which would make autopsy reports not subject to public records act requests.
Pete Hutchison, President of the Board presented the committee with a draft bill from last session (See Appendix 19). He suggested changes to the draft that the Board proposes. (See Appendix 20).
The committee discussed the history of the bill. The bill was initially brought by the board to clean up the statutes but the committee decided to look at whether land surveyors should be allowed to substitute experience for educational requirements. Until 1991 land surveyors could qualify through experience and did not have mandatory educational requirements. After 1991, there are three ways to qualify to take the initial test to become a land surveyor: 1. Bachelor's degree in land surveying; 2. Bachelor's degree in engineering plus 30 hours of coursework in land surveying; and 3. Associate's degree in land surveying plus two years experience. After the initial test is passed, all applicants must then have four years experience and take a final test to obtain a Professional Land Surveyors license. (See Appendix 21). The concern of the committee last year was that the educational barriers to becoming a land surveyor were causing a shortage of surveyors in the state. Mr. Hutchison provided a graph showing the number of Professional Land Surveyor licenses approved by the Board over the last 20 years and whether those licenses were earned through exam or reciprocity. (See Appendix 22). The Board was told to work with the stakeholders that wanted to allow experience to substitute for education and come back with a compromise bill. Mr. Hutchison stated that the other stakeholders did not approach him so this is not a compromise bill.
The committee took testimony from Martin Patterson, National Council of Engineering Examiners, Stan Able Jr., P.L.S., Ralph Goodson, P.L.S., Roger Jacobson, P.E., Jeff Fuller, P.E., and Representative Pete Jorgensen, P.L.S. All the witnesses testified that there is a need for educational requirements for land surveyors. Although anyone can learn to use a global positioning system, it takes years of education in the laws of the state to understand how to properly place the stakes. The educational requirements are there to protect the public. State Engineer Pat Tyrrell sent written testimony about the need for education requirements as well. (See Appendix 23). The witnesses also expressed concern about reciprocity with other states. If Wyoming's requirements are not as strict as others states then the licenses will not be recognized in other states. Mr. Hutchison provided a table showing the requirements of others states. (See Appendix 24). It was noted that although California does not have an educational requirement, the exam that must be passed in that state is strenuous and has a 5% pass rate. Mr. Patterson provided the model requirements for licensure that the National Council of Examiners promotes. (See Appendix 25).
Tom Crump, W.W.C. Engineering, provided written testimony about the potential shortage of land surveyors in Wyoming. (See Appendix 26).
The committee directed the Board to take the bill out to the stakeholders and get consensus. Donald Schramm provided a questionnaire that is being circulated among land surveyors about the need for change. (See Appendix 27). They decided they will not sponsor any bill until a consensus is reached and the Board returns requesting changes.
Chairman Meier updated the committee on the telecommunications subcommittee meeting on June 6, 2005. (See Appendix 28). At the subcommittee meeting the subcommittee directed the stakeholders to get together and decide what issues can be addressed through a consensus bill. The stakeholders created a task force that will present the issues they can agree upon, along with proposed language, at a meeting to be held July 6, 2005. Jody Levin of Qwest provided a written summary of the progress of the task force. (See Appendix 29).
Denise Parrish, Office of Consumer Advocate, Public Service Commission, addressed the committee on a new issue of concern in telecommunications. The Public Service Commission has recently ruled that the Office of Consumer Advocate has no standing to bring a suit to protect the rights of consumers. The PSC held that the OCA is not a person within the meaning of the statute and that they did not have specific authority to bring a lawsuit on behalf of a consumer. The committee thought that the bill creating the OCA was purposefully ambiguous about this issue as a compromise. The committee asked the Legislative Service Office to provide the committee with a history of the bill creating the OCA and to work with the OCA on a bill that would address the issues for consideration at the next meeting.
There being no further business, Co-Chairman Meier adjourned the meeting at 1:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Representative Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman