![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
August 15, 2005
Room 302, Capitol Building
Cheyenne, 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 Del McOmie
Representative David Miller
Representative Monte Olsen
Senator Jayne Mockler
Senator Charlie Scott
Representative Frank Latta
Representative Marty Martin
Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney
Kristin Siegel, Staff Attorney
Please refer to
Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Co-Chairman Curt Meier called the meeting to order at 8:25 am. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please see the Agenda for details. (Appendix 2).
The committee approved the minutes of the June 16 & 17, 2005 meeting. (Appendix 3)
Bryce Freeman and Denise Parish, Office of Consumer Advocate, discussed 06 LSO 0059.W1 (Appendix 4). The bill was proposed in response to recent Public Service Commission ruling that the OCA does not have authority to file complaints. The bill would give the OCA that authority. Mr. Freeman testified that this was not an attempt to usurp regulatory authority from the PSC. The PSC has the authority to weigh any evidence brought before them and to make final determinations. This bill would allow the OCA to develop that evidence and bring it before the PSC. Mr. Freeman acknowledged that some people are concerned that the OCA will be able to drive the agenda of the PSC if they have the authority to file complaints. Mr. Freeman assured the committee that they have no intention of trying to drive the agenda. Further, the PSC can simply dismiss any claims brought by the OCA if they find that the claims have no merit.
While the OCA can currently petition the PSC to open an investigation, Mr. Freeman argued that the investigation process was different than the complaint process. Under the investigation process the PSC begins with the assumption that a violation has occurred, and the PSC develops its own evidence regarding the veracity of that assumption. In the complaint process the PSC acts only as the decision maker and does not gather its own evidence.
The committee discussed the bill. Chairman Illoway stated that he did not believe the bill was necessary and that it broadened the OCA's authority to the level of a regulator rather than an advocate. Chairman Meier pointed out that the OCA currently has authority to assist individual consumers regarding proceedings. Ms. Parish responded that the authority to assist does not rise to the level of actually representing individual clients, and that assistance is only granted when the issues are of a nature that affects the general public. Mr. Freeman also responded that there are situations where there might be a disparity between the remedy sought by an individual complainant and the remedy OCA believes is in the best interest of the general public. The committee discussed whether the bill would result in an increase in the OCA's budget requests, the current staffing level of the OCA, and whether the current law allowing complaints to be filed by the PSC itself, the Attorney General, or any affected person was quite enough protection for the public. Representative Gingery pointed out that with all the other options for protection of the public currently in statute, the committee should be looking to get rid of the agency rather than expanding its authority. Representative Barnard stated that if the OCA is there to advocate for consumers, then there ought to be a consumer bringing the complaint.
Les Meyer, Kinder Morgan Gas Co., provided written testimony in opposition of the bill. (Appendix 5).
A roll call vote was taken on the bill. The committee voted 8 to 2 in opposition to sponsoring the bill. For sponsoring the bill: Representatives Dierks & McOmie. Opposed to sponsoring the bill: Senators Meier, Hanes, Johnson, Representatives Illoway, Barnard, Gingery, Miller and Olsen.
Jim Narva, State Fire Marshal, testified that he did not believe any of the bills he was presenting were particularly contentious. The purpose of 06 LSO 0059.W1 (Appendix 6) was to fill a void in the enforcement of the electrical safety codes. Currently, the department of fire prevention and electrical safety is responsible for enforcing the codes unless the authority is left to a local community. The department is also responsible for licensing electricians. When unlicensed electricians are caught performing work, the only redress the department has is to demand that they cease and desist. Also, when a licensed electrician performs sub par work, the only redress for the department is to revoke the electrician's license. This bill would allow the department to assess civil penalties for violations of the electrical code and would act as a deterrent.
The committee discussed the bill. LSO staff explained that the bill was drafted based on current civil penalty authority granted to the department of insurance. Committee members were concerned that county and prosecuting attorneys did not see many of these cases, but they also don't have time to bring these types of cases. There was also concern about the language that the department make recommendations to county and prosecuting attorneys regarding prosecution because other agencies have asserted that such language gives the agencies the final decision on whether to prosecute. Mr. Narva asserted that the department does not normally use the criminal penalties portion of the current statute.
The committee voted to table the bill for now and bring it back at the next meeting with amendments. Amendments should remove the criminal penalties provision and make the civil penalties and license revocation the only options.
This bill (Appendix 7) expands the board to five members and limits the members from working for the same entity.
The committee discussed the bill. There was agreement that the restrictions on working for the same entity were needed, but there was discussion on whether the number of members needed to be expanded.
Representative Miller offered the following amendment which failed:
Page 2-line 9 After "immediately." insert "No two (2) members shall be from the same county.".
Representative McOmie offered the following amendment which passed:
Page 2-line 9 Delete "immediately" insert "before any further action is taken by the board".
The committee voted unanimously to sponsor the bill as amended.
This bill (Appendix 8) gives the chief electrical inspector authority to investigate electrocutions. The bill was brought in response to an electrocution of a child last year in Laramie County where the department did not have authority to investigate the cause of the electrocution. The case is currently in litigation and was not discussed in detail. Mr. Narva clarified that the bill does not give the department any more regulatory authority, but rather simply gives them authority to gather information. The bill was drafted based on the current authority of the department to investigate fires.
The committee discussed the bill.
Representative Gingery proposed the following amendment which passed:
Page 3-line 18 After "district attorney" insert "or county or prosecuting attorney".
The committee voted 9 to 1 to sponsor the bill as amended. For sponsoring the bill: Senators Meier, Hanes, Johnson, Representatives Illoway, Barnard, Dierks, Gingery, McOmie and Olsen.
Opposed to sponsoring the bill: Representative Miller.
Mr. Narva stated that the fire suppression system industry has been requesting a bill like this for years. The bill (Appendix 9) requires licensing and regulation of the service and installation of portable fire extinguishers, fire alarm systems, automatic fire extinguishing systems and automatic sprinkler systems. The bill was drafted based on similar Montana statutes. Mr. Narva detailed the provisions of the bill.
The committee discussed the bill. There was concern that the bill would largely benefit only a few out of state companies that install these types of systems and have the ability to become licensed. There was also concern that this bill would require local fire departments that currently check fire extinguishers to become licensed. Mr. Narva stated that they would require a license.
Chairman Illoway proposed the following amendments that passed:
Page 7-line 16 Delete "Every applicant".
Page 7-line 17 through 19 Delete entirely.
Throughout the bill make conforming amendments changing "board" to "council".
The committee voted whether to sponsor the bill. The motion failed on a 5 to 5 vote. For sponsoring the bill: Senators Meier, Johnson, Representatives Illoway, Dierks and McOmie. Opposed to sponsoring the bill: Senator Hanes, Representatives Barnard, Gingery, Miller and Olsen.
Mike Moser, Wyoming State Liquor Association and Tom Montoya, Liquor Division, Department of Revenue, presented the bills. This bill (Appendix 10) prohibits the use of machines which deliver alcohol through vaporization. Mr. Moser provided written testimony (Appendix 11) and a list of all the states that have currently prohibited the AWOL machines (Appendix 12).
The committee discussed the bill. Chairman Illoway stated that he supported the bill and that the legislature needs to be proactive by proceeding with the legislation. Chairman Meier raised several questions about the contention that the machines are dangerous and what medical studies have been done. There was discussion about how the machines measure the delivery of alcohol and how they can be manipulated. The committee took testimony from Jim Schmidt, liquor licensee from Sheridan, that there were machines in use at the Sturgis Rally last week. People he talked to who used it agreed that they became extremely intoxicated quickly because they did not feel the need to regurgitate. Byron Oedekoven, Wyoming Sheriff's Association also testified that his association supports the bill.
The committee voted to sponsor the bill on a 7 to 3 vote. For sponsoring the bill: Senators Hanes, Johnson, Representatives Illoway, Barnard, Gingery, McOmie and Miller. Opposed to sponsoring the bill: Senator Meier, Representatives Dierks and Olsen.
This bill (Appendix 13) provides for discretionary suspension of a minor's driver's license if the minor is convicted of attempting to purchase alcohol. Mr. Moser provided a list of legislation in other states that have similar provisions (Appendix 14).
The committee discussed the bill. The committee was concerned that the suspension was not mandatory. Rep. Gingery expressed concern that leaving the discretion to the Department of Transportation would result in a lack of enforcement. Mr. Moser testified that the original idea was for the suspension to be mandatory, but they brought the bill as discretionary to make it more politically palatable.
The committee voted to have the bill rewritten as a mandatory suspension and to bring it back for consideration at their next meeting.
This bill (Appendix 15) provides for on premise dispensing rooms in restaurants with a restaurant liquor license. The bill retains the requirement that the ratio of food to alcohol sold be at least 60%/40%, continues the hours of operation requirements and continues to prohibit the sale of package liquor with a restaurant liquor license.
The committee discussed the bill. The committee expressed concern about the new moratorium provided in W.S. 12-4-407(e). Mr. Montoya stated that the moratorium was designed to prevent flooding the market with new restaurant liquor licenses. The committee was concerned that the moratorium impeded local control. Rep. McOmie stated that he supported the language allowing 18 year old persons to serve even in the dispensing room because of the difficulty of finding wait staff for restaurants already.
Senator Johnson moved the following amendment which passed:
Page 1-line 13 through Page 2-line 4 Delete entirely.
The committee voted to 9 to 1 to sponsor the bill as amended. For sponsoring the bill: Senators Meier, Hanes, Johnson, Representatives Illoway, Barnard, Dierks, Miller, McOmie and Olsen.
Opposed to sponsoring the bill: Representative Gingery.
This bill (Appendix 16) adjusts the population formula for issuance of retail liquor licenses. The bill increases the number of retail liquor licenses that may be issued by a county within a five mile radius of a city or town from three to six, and decreases the population requirement within towns from 3,000 to 2,500 persons. Mr. Moser provided a matrix of the current liquor licenses available based on population and an estimate of the number of new licenses that will be authorized under this bill (Appendix 17). Mr. Montoya stated that the current population formula has not been adjusted since 1979. He also testified that the bill authorizes increased issuance, but the decision on whether to issue the license will still be left to local governments.
The committee discussed the bill. Concern was raised about the increased number of county licenses that compete with city licenses that have differing hours of operation. Mr. Moser stated that the density of liquor establishments appears to be the largest factor affecting enforcement. Mr. Moser also asserted that the industry supported this bill over 06 LSO 0082.W1 because of concern that there will be an increase in psuedo-restaurants that need only sell some food to support their bar.
Representative Gingery pointed out that a similar bill was considered by the Travel committee recently and failed because it was promoted as a economic development bill. The committee heard testimony from Jim Schmidt, retail liquor license holder who stated that any increase in the number of authorized liquor licenses will dilute the investment he and others have made in their current licenses. Mr. Schmidt provided a table of anticipated new licenses under the bill (Appendix 18). Tom Forslund, Casper City Manager, testified that law enforcement problems are with retail license holders, not restaurants. George Parks, Wyoming Association of Municipalities, testified that legislation which increases the number of bar and grill type restaurants is good for local economies. He suggested that language could be included to limit the transferability of any new licenses issued under this bill. He also stated that municipalities still have the final decision of whether to issue the newly authorized licenses and that he does not see them in a mad rush to issue them without forethought.
The committee noted a typographical error in the bill. The committee voted 7 to 3 to sponsor the bill with correction of the typographical error. For sponsoring the bill: Senators Hanes, Johnson, Representatives Illoway, Dierks, Gingery, McOmie and Olsen. Opposed to sponsoring the bill: Senator Meier, Representatives Barnard and Miller.
This bill (Appendix 19) conforms state law with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Granholm v. Heald. The bill allows direct shipment of wine from in-state wineries to persons in the state. Current law already allows direct shipment out of state and direct shipment into state from out of state wineries. The only difference is that the bill does not specify collection of sales and use taxes on in state shipments because the in state wineries already collect those taxes.
The committee discussed the bill. Patrick Zimmer, Table Mountain Wineries, testified that as an in state winery owner he supports the bill. He had proposed this bill prior to the Supreme Court opinion and had met opposition, but the opinion clarifies the need for the legislation.
The committee voted unanimously to sponsor the bill.
The Committee recessed at 12:35 and returned at 1:20pm.
Stephanie Bryant and Jim Mitchell, Department of Insurance, presented the bill (Appendix 20) entering the state into the interstate insurance product regulation compact. Ms. Bryant provided the committee with a summary of the principal provisions of the compact (Appendix 21), the NAIC Compendium of state actions on the compact (Appendix 22) and a section by section summary of the compact (Appendix 23).
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. 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. Ms. Bryant went through the provisions of the compact and 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 discussed the bill. It was agreed that the real benefit of the compact is to speed products to the market and consumers, and to provide for an increased number of products that might not have been available in a small state like Wyoming.
The committee voted unanimously to sponsor the bill.
Representative Gingery presented the bill (Appendix 24) which would authorize counties to hire an administrator to handle the ministerial duties of a county commission. Rep. Gingery advised against sponsoring this bill because it does not spell out the specifics of what an administrator can and cannot do, and therefore held the potential of causing confusion of duties with other county officers.
The committee voted to table the bill indefinitely.
This bill (Appendix 25) gives counties an alternative to the current commissioner form of government by allowing voters to elect to have a county administrator who is elected, or a manager who is appointed. The committee noted that the current bill has the potential for overlapping authorities that would need to be removed. The committee also decided that the elected administrator form was not advisable. The committee would like the bill to be reviewed and considered by the Wyoming Association of County Officers before any action is taken. The committee tabled the bill for now, but asked the Legislative Service Office to bring the bill back at the next meeting, deleting the county executive option, and including an option for unification of county/city governments, with staff notes about the decisions that still need to be addressed. The bill will also need to clearly state that a county manager does not have any authorities that are clearly given to other county officers in statute.
Jack Knudsen, Diane Humphrey and Jeff Ketcham, Laramie County Commissioners offered testimony that they are concerned whether commissions can hire personnel directly and would like to see this clarified in statute. They stated that the county officers in Laramie County work very well together and share certain personnel such as the human resources manager. Brenda Arnold, Laramie County Assessor testified that WACO is currently reviewing this issue and will report back to the committee after their meeting in September. She stated that an overhaul of the statutes and unification/consolidation issues are too large to deal with in this one interim period. Additionally, she testified that there are already many ways for cities and counties to work together through joint powers boards.
Jody Levin, Qwest Communications, presented the bill. This bill (Appendix 26) changes the definition of resident to reflect the larger businesses in Wyoming that are otherwise owned by out of state entities, changes the definition of principal office, and changes the percentage of non resident subcontractors that may be used by a resident preference bid awardee.
The committee discussed the bill. The committee agreed that the inability to find resident subcontractors on these public works contracts is becoming serious.
The committee voted unanimously to sponsor the bill.
The committee voted to table this bill (Appendix 27) in favor of sponsoring 06 LSO 0088.W1.
This bill (Appendix 28) was drafted at the direction of the committee to provide for medical examiners to be called in to assist coroners on forensic cases. The bill was drafted based on a similar Montana law. Bill Ryan, Laramie County Coroner, testified regarding the necessity of the bill. Mr. Ryan provided suggested language for the qualifications of medical examiners (Appendix 29).
The committee discussed the bill. Representative Gingery questioned whether coroner's inquests were still necessary if the medical examiner would be making the cause of death determinations. Bill Ryan suggested that the inquests were still necessary to determine manner of death. A medical examiner will handle the autopsies and determine cause of death, but there are still times when the manner of death is questioned. Chairman Meier also noted that the coroner would still need to make the initial determination of whether the death was a coroner's case. Having a medical examiners office will save coroners from spending $2500 each time they have to send a case down to Colorado for a forensic autopsy. Bill Ryan testified that Laramie county sends 40 to 50 cases to Colorado each year. Mark Harris, Fremont County deputy coroner also testified that his county sends approximately 40 cases out of state each year.
Senator Hanes was concerned that it may be difficult and expensive to recruit a board certified pathologist to Wyoming to fill these positions. The committee asked LSO to find out what salary would be required for these positions, and whether there were any interested pathologists in the surrounding states.
Senator Johnson moved to table the bill indefinitely. The motion failed.
The committee voted to bring the bill back at their next meeting with changes clarifying that the coroner will make the manner of death determinations, and the medical examiner will make the cause of death determinations. The committee also asked LSO to work with the coroner's association to bring a bill to the next meeting that would mandate training requirements for coroners.
This bill (Appendix 30) prohibits coroners from releasing autopsy photos under the Public Records Act with certain exceptions, including releasing the photos under a court order. The committee was concerned that there was nothing in the bill prohibiting the release of the photos by a court. The committee voted to table the bill until the next meeting.
There being no further business, Co-Chairman Pete Illoway adjourned the meeting at 4:45pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Representative Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman Senator Curt Meier, Co-Chairman