![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
October 20 and 21, 2005
Oil & Gas Commission
Casper, Wyoming
Senator Cut Meier, Co-Chairman
Representative Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman
Senator John Hanes
Senator Jayne Mockler
Representative Bruce Barnard
Representative Ross Diercks
Representative Marty Martin
Representative Del McOmie
Representative Monte Olsen
Senator Wayne Johnson
Senator Charlie Scott
Representative David Miller
Representative Keith Gingery
Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney
Representative Ann Robinson
Representative Tom Lubnau
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. Chairman Illoway introduced Erin Mercer who has been appointed to the seat vacated by Frank Latta. Chairman Illoway explained that she has not been sworn in so she would participate in the discussion but not vote. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic.
The committee approved the minutes of the August 15, 2005 meeting.
Jim Narva, State Fire Marshall proposed an amendment on advice of the AG's office. The amendment would change language from forcing board members to resign to simply making them ineligible to take any action. Motion passed.
The bill passed unanimously as amended. (Appendix 3).
An amendment was proposed by the public service commission to resolve a conflict over jurisdiction between agencies. The PSC deals with electrocutions of people working on power lines. The amendment clarifies that all agencies should work together on investigation.
Representative McOmie expressed concern that the bill does not have penalties or reports so he doesn't see what PSC's argument is. Jim Narva stated that in any electrocution the chief electrical inspector will be involved. With utility work the PSC has the authority to regulate, so they would be the one to head the investigation.
Chairman Meier asked about authority to take full control and custody – does the sheriff also have that authority and if they do aren't we creating a conflict. Mr. Narva stated that he cannot speak for other agencies but when they do an investigation they defer to local law enforcement, just like with fire investigations. No conflict because they are all looking at the same thing. The amendment passed.
Representative Martin moved to delete Page 4-lines 12 – 16. All electrocutions should be subject to emergency response and therefore would already be covered under W.S. 35-9-131(a). The motion passed.
The bill passed 7 to 2 as amended. (Senators Mockler and Meier opposed). (Appendix 4).
Mike Moser and Tom Montoya testified in support of the bill. They feel it’s a very important bill and it is very dangerous to inhale alcohol.
Senator Meier proposed an amendment to allow the use of the machine if it is prescribed by a physician. He is not convinced that the inhalation is any more damaging than drinking alcohol. It may be better for those with cirrhosis or diabetes. In another part of the bill we allow use for research, and he presumes that is for determining the safety of these machines. He thinks the liquor industry is bringing the bill because these machines cause people to use less alcohol and therefore there are less sales.
Moser spoke with medical society and doctors – they haven't found any case where alcohol was prescribed. However, they will support the bill with or without the amendment. The motion passed.
The bill passed 6 to 3 as amended. (Senator Mockler and Representatives Dierks and Olsen opposed). (Appendix 5).
The bill increases liquor licenses by reducing population ratio.
Illoway brought the amendment to limit transferability of the new liquor licenses. He argued that this will help control the outrageous prices being charged, making the value only $1500.
Mike Moser testified in support the non-transferability of licenses. He handed out Appendix 6_. This bill is a good way to fix a problem. It’s the first time the association he represents has supported a change in population formula. The amendment passed.
Chairman Meier expressed concern that while this amendment will control the value of the new licenses, it will increase the value of the current licenses. Mr. Moser argued that it will lower the value of those license in the long run because more will be available. When one business goes out of business that license will go back to the city for re-issuance.
Chairman Meier asked if the First Lady's initiative is in support of this bill. Mr. Moser could not say however she is opposed to uncontrolled increases in liquor licenses. Chairman Meier spoke against the bill because full retail licenses are the ones that are being complained about by law enforcement. He thinks they are missing the mark.
Chairman Meier moved the following amendment:
Page 2-lines 6 and 7 – delete new language and reinsert "3000". This would still allow the increase in numbers outside the county.
Representative Olsen stated that new liquor licenses will be controlled by the local communities. If the community does not want to issue more, than the local licensing authorities will not issue them. He wants to give the authority to the locals. He is opposed. The amendment failed.
Rep. Olsen expressed concern about underage drinking and asked what the Liquor association is doing to control this. Mr. Moser testified that awareness in carding people is exponentially higher than it was even 5 years ago. Record for underage sales is going down. They are a lot better than they used to be. Negligence and complacency is the issue and that is on the wane. The real problem is with restaurants rather than package liquor stores. Olsen is concerned about the 12 year olds at home rather than the 20 year olds at a restaurant. We need to do outreach to families that says it's not okay. Wyoming leads the nation in established drinking patterns for 13 year olds.
The bill passed as amended 7 to 2 (Senator Meier and Representative McOmie opposed). (Appendix 7).
Mr. Moser testified that the association appreciates the desire to have this bill, but if you look at the statistics, youth who are killed drunk driving do so after leaving bars. This bill will increase the number of "bars" in Wyoming. Restaurants that currently have full retail licenses will sell their retail licenses and thereby increase the number of bars. Additionally, it is very easy to make the 60/40 food split necessary to have a restaurant liquor license. Mr. Moser pointed out that the Supreme Court case on dram shop liability involved a restaurant with a bar area just as described here. Places like Olive Garden don't want to reconfigure their floor plans, but they do so in Utah and in south eastern dry counties.
Rep. McOmie pointed out that full retail licenses are better because the business owners don't have to open up their books for audit of the 60/40 split, so he doesn't see the sell off occurring.
Chairman Illoway received an e-mail from a constituent who represents restaurants in support of the bill. Restrictive laws are the reason for lack of national restaurant chains in Wyoming.
Representative Barnard spoke on behalf of the small towns in this state. The liquor license bill only increased licenses for communities over 9500. But in smaller cities, they may have the market due to tourists, but they are not getting new retail licenses. The only chance they will ever have of getting these big chains is to create a new type of license – therefore he supports this concept.
Tom Forslund, Casper City Manager testified that Casper's law enforcement issues are from retail license establishments, not restaurants. Younger adults prefer to go out to a nice restaurant, not a bar. We should be doing whatever we can to attract younger adults to stay in Wyoming. The model in the business world has changed and we need to keep pace.
Chairman Illoway would like to restrict the ability of current retail license holders to sell their license and switch over to a restaurant license. Staff pointed out that there may be constitutional problems with making restrictions on the transfer of currently owned licenses. Senator Mockler stated that although it is not a property right, there is an investment-backed opportunity that would be restricted.
Representative McOmie agreed with giving the authority to local licensing authority.
Chairman Meier was curious about whether they need to keep the restriction on dispensing rooms. There was much discussion about whether the language was necessary anymore.
There was discussion about whether dispensing area could be an area indoors. Tom Montoya stated that the Department of Revenue, Liquor division has always interpreted area to be an outside area and that the Applebee's type bar has been treated as a dispensing room.
The following amendments were proposed:
Page 2 – line 24 After "under" insert "accompanied by his parent or guardian who is at least eighteen (18) years of age". FAILED
Page 2-line 21 and Page 3-line 1 After "dining" insert "or waiting". PASSED
Page 2-line 23 Delete "in," insert ".".
Page 2–line 24 Delete entirely.
Page 3-line 1 Delete "enter".
Page 3–line 4 After "license" insert ", but the provisions of W.S. 12-5-203 shall apply to the separate dining or waiting area." PASSED
Van Galloway, bowling lane owner testified that allowing these licenses will allow a lot more than the Applebees and Outbacks. These will include not so reputable establishments. We should be working to control the number of bars. He doesn't believe that it has really happened that a big reputable company has chosen not to come in based on the cost of the license.
Rep. Martin was concerned that the bill doesn't do what the big chains really want but was willing to move it forward to work on it more.
The bill passed unanimously as amended. (Appendix 8).
The following bills were previously passed by the committee and did not receive any amendments, so they were not further discussed: 06 LSO 0086.W2 – Direct shipment winery; 06 LSO 0060.W1-Interstate insurance product regulation compact; and 06 LSO 0088.W1-Public works contracts-vendor preference 2.
06 LSO 0059.W2 – Electrical code–civil penalties.
Jim Narva brought an amendment. AG representative reviewed the bill and raised issues concerning the board's ability to investigate and issue civil penalties. The amendment allows the department to issue the civil penalties and the board to review the decision. The amendment passed.
The bill passed as amended 7-2 (Senators Meier and Mockler opposed). (Appendix 9).
The bill was brought back to the committee after LSO amended it to require mandatory suspension. Mike Moser testified it’s a step in the right to direction to ensure that children do not buy alcohol.
Meier asked staff to address the constitutionality of the bill. Staff attorney Kristin Siegel provided the committee with the problems with making suspension mandatory. In Johnson v. State the court held it unconstitutional to suspend a drivers license when there is no moving violation. There is also a double jeopardy problem with having mandatory suspension. Chairman Illoway reqested that staff draft 06 LSO 0182.W1 to handle those problems.
The committee moved to substitute 06 LSO 0182.W1 for 06 LSO 0067.W3
Senator Mockler expressed concern that the court should have the discretion, but once they do it the department of transportation should make it mandatory. The motion passed and the committee directed staff to bring in W.S. 31-7-128 instead of W.S. 31-7-129. Staff expressed concern that taking away the discretionary nature from the department might affect the constitutionality of the bill under a double jeopardy analysis, but the question would require more research.
Representative Olsen stated that it was sad that government has to step in when the parents don't do their job.
The bill passed as amended 8 to 1 (Representative Dierks opposed). (Appendix 10).
Chairman Meier introduced this bill for consideration by the committee. The committee discussed the problem of drive-aways given the increased price of gasoline. The bill was brought last session but did not pass. Chairman Meier is concerned that it is not within the purview of the committee. It was pointed out that 22 states have passed a similar law and the incidence of drive offs has still increased. Whether this committee takes it or not, he applauds the effort to raise the issue. Senator Meier suggested that someone else take it on and removed it from the agenda.
The committee took testimony from Dr. Thorpin, Mark Harris, Ed McCausland and Tom Eckhoff.
Dr. Thorpin thanked staff for putting together such a difficult bill. He has talked to doctors about becoming state medical examiners. He believes the bill still needs more work to distinguish between the responsibilities of coroners and medical examiners. There are some cross responsibilities that still need to be worked out, but this is a huge step toward that goal. Mr. McCausland was not opposed to medical examiners but would like to work with the committee to resolve some issues. Mr. Eckoff pointed out that things like who signs the death certificate need to be worked out. Further, the bill does not address salaries and how the examiners would be paid.
Chairman Meier thought that coroners were concerned about the availability of qualified medical professionals to handle the coroner's cases. He thought this bill was to give the coroners a tool. Dr. Thorpin believed the bill was to take these decisions out of the political arena. Dr. Thorpin has found someone who is willing to be the medical examiner, and he sees this bill as something that will be good for the state, but it needs a little more work.
Chairman Illoway tasked the coroners to come to consensus, much like the telecom issue, and come back to the committee. Rep. McOmie believes the bill is a good idea, but since it would create a new branch of government, he thinks it should be bounced off management council. Rep. Robinson supports the medical examiner program but doesn't know about the mechanics.
Drew Perkins – chairman Natrona County Commissioners testified in support of the bill. They have been lucky to have Dr. Thorpin because he is board certified. Unfortunately he is getting older and may retire someday soon. This will leave his county in a position of not having the expertise. Board certified coroners have begun to have an investigative function because of their unique abilities. Coroners are not adequately capable of doing this and this bill would give everyone in the state the advantage that Natrona County has had with Dr. Thorpin – equal access to the expertise.
The committee decided to table the bill.
Ed McCausland said he is in full agreement that the statutes need to be updated. He was concerned that the number of training hours should not be reduced. He handed out a list of the education program available to coroners (Appendix 11).
Mark Harris walked the committee through the bill. It allows counties to contract for services through joint powers agreements – they already could but this states it up front in the coroner statutes. Questions have arisen about standards and they were not addressed in the bill. The bill set minimum number of meetings. It requires the academy to provide training. It allows the AG to pursue enforcement of the training requirements since it has been difficult for one elected county official (the County Attorney) to enforce against another elected county official.
Representative Robinson testified that she believes the number of hours should be at least 40 if not more. Dr. Thorpin mentioned that although the statute says 40 their current program is 43.
The following amendments passed:
Page 3-line 2 After "meet" insert "at least".
Page 3-lines 20 & 21 Delete new language, reinsert stricken language, before reinserted language insert "at least".
Page 4-line 2 Delete "x ($x)" insert "Ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)".
The bill passed unanimously as amended. (Appendix 12).
Ed McCausland testified in support of the bill. Autopsy reports give a person's entire medical history. HIPPA considers that information to be private records and they should not be put out to the public. If a family wants to share the records, then that is their prerogative.
Tom Eckhoff, Gillette coroner – pointed out that long ago these items were protected.
Senator Mockler proposed an amendment to Page 3, after line 6 insert "(E) For use by the immediate family, guardian or personal representative of the deceased person." The amendment passed.
Jim Angel, executive director of Wyoming Press Association testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that the committee is being asked to make dramatic changes to open records. These records have been available for over 30 years. The judiciary committee rejected this last year as "a solution in search of a problem". Autopsy reports are available in over 40 states. Death is a private matter until the state gets involved. The public needs this information to keep track on when autopsies need to be done. Coroners are elected and without this information the public does not know how well the coroner is doing his job. You don't allow family members to decide when an autopsy is done. The interest of society has to take precedence. In this case there has to be some control over the actions of the state. Colorado has the same language in their statutes and during the Columbine investigation the families initially didn't want the information released, but then they wanted it because they felt they weren't getting enough information. Without the ability to release information there would be no way to put rumors to rest. As for photos, no newspaper in this state would publish an autopsy picture, but they need the ability to see them in order to make reference to things that may not be known to the public. He brought up the Dale Earnhart case where a look at the photos by the press resulted in better restraints for other drivers.
The bill failed 5-4 (Senators Mockler and Meier and Representatives McOmie and Illoway supported).
Drew Perkins, county commissioner Natrona County testified regarding this bill. The Wyoming Association of County Officers discussed this bill in detail at their meeting. They think the idea is good, but given the condition of the bill, the need for further study, and the fact that this is a budget session, they think the committee should wait on this bill.
Rep. Olsen stated that if we open the door and fundamentally change government we need to do it right. It's a door we don't need to open right now as long as we keep the discussion open.
The committee laid the bill back.
The bill was laid back for lack of a second to discuss it. Chairman Illoway said this will definitely be an interim study for next year. Rep. McOmie argued that this is a one county problem. Rep. Olsen pointed out that this is a money issue, but 99% of what the legislature looks at is a fiscal issue. This is not a single interim topic, it is something that will take many years to truly get it right.
Drew Perkins described the bill. The county commissioners association asked for this bill because of an Attorney General opinion that indicated that county commissioners cannot have staff because it is not specified in statute. There has been much debate as to what kind of employees they can have at all. When polled, the WACO agreed 2:1 that they should have statutory authority to hire staff. This bill is better than other proposed options because it clearly states that staff hired shall not perform any duties statutorily delegated to any other county elected official.
Chairman Meier asked about human resource directors, whom would they be able to hire and fire. Mr. Perkins says they could help the county commissioners stay within the law on employment practices but could not hire and fire. Chairman Meier was concerned that human resource directors would tell other elected officials that they could not hire or fire someone based on policies adopted by the county commissioners. Mr. Perkins assured the committee that they only help comply with laws that apply to everyone.
Brenda Arnold, Laramie County Assessor, president of WACO testified that members agreed with the concept of hiring staff by 2 to 1. As a state we are very diverse. In the situation of human resource director, some counties may not feel the need for that. But some counties really need someone. This ability to consolidate these staff functions like information technology and human resources makes the county more fiscally responsible.
Meier asked if there was a particular subset of elected officials that have heartburn with this. Ms. Arnold noted that the sheriff's association voted against it. Probably because sheriffs have such a large employee base they already have the staff positions they need. Clerks didn't see the need for human resource persons, but agreed with general staffing needs.
Chairman Illoway asked whether elected officials could hire a human resources person for their own department. Ms. Arnold stated that they can hire as many deputies as they feel necessary, but they are not big enough to keep someone busy by themselves. On the other hand, commissioners don't have the authority to hire deputies or staff.
Rep. McOmie stated that he was not going to support the bill because he doesn't agree with the AG's opinion. But the statement in the last sentence clarifying that whoever is hired cannot step on the duties of other officials has swayed him to support.
Representative Lubnau spoke in favor of this bill on behalf of Campbell County. He likened the staff to the LSO, they help the elected officials do their job.
The bill passed unanimously. (Appendix 13).
Jody Levin, Qwest testified in opposition to this bill. This bill was requested by Bresnan Communications, who brought it before the telecom subcommittee. The bill allows cable companies to avoid using licensed low voltage installers. Qwest opposes the bill because it treats other communications providers differently – Qwest still would need to use licensed low voltage installers.
Chairman Meier noted that it is the exact same equipment they are already exempted from as long as they are installing them for cable TV.
Chairman Meier asked the chief electrical inspector, Keith Reynolds, if there is any fire danger in this type of inspection. He does not believe there is anything they do of more value than ensuring that the installers who go into the public's homes are licensed and capable. If you lose licensing, you lose the ability to require that the installation is done to code. They also see the problem of requiring licenses of one communication provider and not another. Mr. Reynolds was asked if there is a difference in the wiring and potential for fire between a phone line and a cable TV line. He stated that communications can run up to 90 volts, that's probably the biggest difference. All these companies are exempted as utilities to the box outside the house. It’s the wiring from the box into the house that requires the licensed installer.
Clint Roadman, regional manager for Bresnan testified that it is the same cable that brings television into the home, and that is very different from the wire that brings telephones. He stated that there was no voltage on the cable TV wire, but the phone modem needs voltage for a ring. Mr. Roadman stated that even if the installer put it in wrong no one could get hurt..
Senator Mockler argued that the cable is the same as it was before. The question in these statutes is one of public safety. If nothing is changed with respect to the wire coming in the house, they should not be treated differently. If the only problem here is a matter of competitive advantage, that should be dealt with elsewhere. If the phone line is the same low low voltage that in no way could someone get hurt, then they should have the exemption too. Keith Reynolds says the average phone needs 90 volts to ring, but only when it rings. If you put your finger in the phone socket you wouldn't feel it unless someone called when you had your finger there. The danger is minimal but the public deserves some attention paid to the quality of people who come into their home to service their lines. Extending this exemption to only one of these companies will be an enforcement problem for the agency.
The following amendment passed:
Page 2-line 5 After "providers" insert " and other non voltage communications systems providers".
Mr. Reynolds pointed out that cable TV isn't completely non-voltage – there has to be some very low voltage to have resistance.
The bill passed unanimously as amended. (Appendix 14).
Representative Lubnau presented the bill. Gillette city administrator Brett Jones joined him. The genesis is the non-controversial portion of the previous annexation bill. Allows concurrent platting and annexation which allows the streamlining of the process. Representative Lubnau provided prepared testimony in support of the bill. (Appendix 15).
Chairman Meier was concerned that they require higher percentage payment for utilities from the people who enter into the agreements providing power outside the city. This would make them pay more, then when the city wants to annex, they are going to require them to put in curbs and gutter too. Rep. Barnard pointed out that this is a contractual agreement and the landowner doesn’t have to enter into an agreement if he doesn’t want the baggage.
George Parks, WAM, testified in support of the bill. These provisions were in last year's annexation bill and they were non-controversial. Cities faced with requests to extend water have decided not to enter the agreements without the legislature saying it is acceptable to require annexation as part of them.
Meier expressed some concern that the landowner is somehow being blackmailed into allowing annexation. This is true in areas where the landowners are no longer able to put in a well or septic.
Lynn Whalen, city of Casper testified in support of the bill. Many people have come to them when their well runs dry. They do put these requirements in their contracts and would like to be confident that they would hold up.
Lori Urbigkit, Wyo. Association of Realtors stated that her association supports the bill but wants to be sure that the agreement is recorded so realtors would be able to track them. That language is in the bill on page 2.
Senator Mockler moved to adopt this as a committee bill. Rep. McOmie opposed taking on the bill because he is afraid the bill will generate so much heat like last time. Senator Mockler suggested that the committee should handle the easy issues like this first. If a city won't extend water to landowners because they are terrified their agreements wouldn't be held up, then it leaves landowners without any options in some instances.
Rep. Martin suggested that there are other remedies when these situations come up. A city can require the landowners to join a water and sewer district.
The following amendment passed:
Page 2-line 8 Delete "Any approval regarding".
The following amendment was proposed by Chairman Meier:
Page 2–line 15 After "limits" insert "at rates equal to current municipal rates". People are giving up their right to avoid annexation therefore they should be treated the same as people inside the city limits. Senator Mockler pointed out that part of the reason you charge more is because people in the city are paying all sorts of other taxes and fees that help offset the costs of the water and sewer system. Additionally, with places 5 miles out there is no guarantee that annexation will ever come their way. George Parks stated that if you don't have some kind of additional cost for these folks when they hook up, you have long time city folks who have paid for the upkeep of the system subsidizing the new people.
Rep. Barnard appreciated Chairman Meier taking the position of the person outside the city limits, but that 25% extra works as a great carrot to get people to agree to annex. The amendment failed.
The bill passed unanimously as amended. (Appendix 16).
The Committee recessed at 5:00pm and reconvened at 8:00am October 21, 2005.
The committee received a report from the telecommunications council regarding the broadband initiative.
Dr. Nena Cornell, Chairman of the Wyoming Telecommunications Council introduced the presentation. They commissioned a study in furtherance of their broadband initiative. The WTC determined that it would be important for the future of Wyoming that universal broadband access occur across the state. Access would be voluntary, but universally accessible. Broadband would be what railroads were in the 20th century. The first step is to find out where broadband is not available and how much it would cost to make it available.
Jim Stegman, Costquest, made the presentation. (Appendix 17). Broadband is defined as at least 1 Mb/Sec downstream and 256 Kb/Sec upstream using technology currently available to providers in Wyoming. In the study they excluded census blocks in the national parks. They looked at technologies of hybrid fiber/coaxial cable, fiber/copper DSLAM, fixed wireless and satellite.
There are 66,000 census blocks in Wyoming. There are no living structures in 46,000 of those blocks. Based on their study, nearly 80% of the housing units in the state currently have access to broadband service through Telco, cable or wireless providers. Satellite broadband services are available to nearly 100% of the housing units in Wyoming.
They mapped the whole state and overlaid housing units, schools, etc with availability. This information can be used to show where needs are, where potential customers are, what schools have available and where the business needs are.
Senator Mockler suggested that there is not a huge need for this because most of the businesses in Wyoming are already served. Dr. Cornell believes this is needed because even ranchers are using the internet to sell cattle. They are not asking for subsidization of extension of these lines, but rather encouragement of private industry to serve these people. The next Bill Gates could be living out in those beautiful inaccessible places.
Chairman Illoway asked what they would like to do now. This should be an aid in the business ready community project funding. They would like funding to keep the database created by this project up to date. They would like to go forward and start looking at whether there are barriers to private enterprise bringing in these lines. They want to address those barriers such as legal barriers that make it too expensive. If they find them they may come back to the legislature to ask for changes in the laws.
Notably, this information is not only important to government, but to private industry too, and it is a tool to encourage private business expansion.
When asked about the collection of information, Mr. Stegman responded that there were some difficulties in getting the proprietary information from some carriers who were concerned about how the information would be used. Now they will use the current product to encourage recalcitrant providers to come forth with additional information.
The database will be posted on the CIO's website.
Jody Levin, Qwest, testified that from an industry standpoint they are very impressed with the results. Without any government involvement the industry has covered 80% of the state. The goal of getting to the last mile is a good one, but the method of doing so is the difficult question. They are also very proud of their work in getting broadband into schools.
This bill amends the longstanding law that sets minimum benefits standards for annuities. It has two main features: it adjusts the expense levels allowed by companies and sets a minimum payout. Chris Chandler, Prudential, explained how annuity contracts work. This bill is a model law passed by the national association of insurance commissioners. It was drafted in response to the lowering interest rates where companies could only earn one percent but were required to pay out up to three percent. However, the companies are required to match their liabilities with their assets to remain solvent. The NAIC came up with this model to reflect current market conditions.
They provided a handout that described what the bill does. (Appendix 18).
Chairman Meier wants to ensure that there is not a loophole for the scam artists who cheat citizens. Mr. Chandler stated that is exactly why this law is in existence at all.
Ron Long, American Council of Life Insurance, offered to put together a flowchart poster board showing what would happen to an investment of $100,000 under this bill for presentation during session. The presentation can compare how this bill is different that the old law.
Rep. McOmie asked whether this applies to businesses who buy annuities for their employees. No, this applies to individual policies.
The following amendments passed:
Page 5–line 19 Delete "(iv)" insert "(iii)"
Page 8-line 6 Before "after" insert "on or".
Page 8-line 13 Before "after" insert "on or".
The bill passed unanimously as amended. (Appendix 19).
Jim Narva, State Fire Marshall, and his staff made a presentation of the fire service training study required under 2005 SF 01. (Appendix 20). The concern that brought about the study was whether the needs of the local communities for fire prevention and training were being met. Also, the department of fire prevention and electrical safety had no set plan for firefighter training and needed to determine what the plan should include. They also were aware that 40% of the fire fighters in urban areas and 45% in rural areas had no experience in structure fires.
They contracted with Firescope MidAmerica to do the study. They met with fire departments throughout the state.
The findings of the study were that communications form the department to local fire departments was lagging behind expectations, more regional instructors were needed, there was a perception that the state department did not support individual fire schools, but that quality training centers were located throughout the state. They also found that local training was regarded as effective but not well-supported, basic fire training was unattainable, and there was a difference of opinion regarding the need for mandatory firefighter certification and the need for central training facilities. Finally, there is a need for training in hazardous materials and technical rescues.
The report provided the following recommendations:
1. The department should develop and implement a plan to enhance communications with and among local fire departments. The department is working on this recommendation already through weekly newsletters.
2. The department should develop a standard curriculum and make it available to qualified instructors throughout the state.
3. The department should undertake a program to expand its full time instructional staff and to employ on a contract basis a number of qualified field instructors.
4. The department should provide an easily accessible central records keeping system for training records.
5. The department to continue to pursue the development and accreditation of its firefighter certifications system.
6. The department should further develop, support and utilize a network of regional fire service training which makes maximum use of the existing training sites. They should develop a grant program to assist development of the training facilities.
7. The department should facilitate the reactivation of the Wyoming Fire Instructors Association.
8. The department staff should regularly host meetings with the field people and maintain a visible role at the various schools.
The total cost for implementation of the study's recommendations is $1.5 million in capital costs and $222,000 in annual recurring costs.
Senator Mockler asked about the various options for funding, including federal grants for homeland security, which could be utilized. They are looking into those options. She also noted that every department needed classroom space and that they are all near community colleges. They should partner with those colleges to utilize classroom space. Mr. Narva noted that the classrooms need to be reasonably close to the practice facility so the students can go to class, go out and practice, then come back in and discuss it.
Senator Mockler also asked about coordinating a fire science degree with firefighter training. Mr. Narva said that ultimately that would be great to do. But he was not sure each firefighter needs the degree or whether each school could support it, but it is a logical step.
The department is now ready to send the study out to the local fire districts to get their feedback and support. They do not ask for anything this year because they want to work closely with the local fire departments to ensure that they are doing the right thing. Other than the appropriation they do not foresee asking for other legislative authority.
Rep. McOmie noted that he has heard of a difficulty in recruiting volunteer fire fighters. Mr. Narva said that is true, retention and recruitment is an issue. That was not dealt with in this study because it dealt with training issues. He does think that quality training will make the fire fighters feel that they are appreciated and increase job happiness.
Chairman Illoway asked about a state fire academy. Currently the Riverton Fire Academy is viewed as a statewide facility because of its central location. But, Mr. Narva was not convinced that a statewide academy would work due to the budgets of the local fire departments.
George Parks, WAM, echoed the request for someone to take a more comprehensive look at consistency and staffing among the various local volunteer departments. It would be good to look at the liability issues too. Meier pointed out that the training will help to provide consistency throughout the state.
Wade Stallins, Wyoming Fire Chiefs testified that he hasn't seen the study, but supported the idea. They are already scheduling a round table to discuss the results as soon as the committee releases the study. The committee released the study for public dispersal.
Bryce Freeman and Denise Parish, OCA, addressed the committee. Mr. Freeman gave a history of the past three months of the progress of the subcommittee and the working group. It really started last year when independent legislation did not get far, but it got people thinking that they needed to look at the act. That is when they decided to hold a telecom conference in April, 2005 to help people understand the concepts involved. After the conference, the subcommittee met and asked the stakeholders to create a working group to come to consensus on the issues.
There are a number of thorny issues. The bill is aimed at restructuring the entire regulatory scheme on telecommunications. Many in the industry believe that changes in the telecommunications technology in the last ten years warrant a deregulatory approach. The OCA acknowledges that some changes need to be made, but they have had some difference of opinion with the industry on what should be changed. The result of the working group is good news/bad news. They have made incredible progress toward coming to consensus, but there are still a number of issues that they, and even members of the industry have not been able to agree upon.
Mr. Freeman discussed several provisions that have been addressed in the consensus document. The subcommittee provided guidance at the last meeting limiting support for essential services to one line per house. The working group is asking the committee to reconsider that decision because it would be very difficult to handle given the lack of change in the universal service fund.
Section 202 has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks. The question is at what point are we comfortable relaxing the commission's authority to regulate prices because competition has occurred, thereby creating market pricing. They don't think the consensus language is good enough to protect consumers. However, they do like the specific definition of wireless comparable service that the subcommittee directed the working group to include in the draft in Section 202(a).
Jody Levin described the changes that the working group built into the draft.
The amendments incorporate the changes agreed upon by the working group as well as those voted on by the telecom subcommittee. The working group proposed returning to the definition of essential service that includes more than one line rather than staying with the subcommittee's request to limit essential services to a single line.
Section 202 is the area in which the working group has the biggest debate. The draft is based on the guidance provided by the subcommittee at the October 4 meeting.
With respect to TSLRIC, the working group and subcommittee agreed that if we eliminate TSLRIC we need to build in a price cap set at current levels, that may be adjusted upward only upon a hearing before the PSC.
The working group proposed additional changes to Section 204 to better provide price schedules to the PSC. In Section 401 the working group agreed that the commission should have authority to require reports pursuant to Section 202 and 203.
There is still disagreement between stakeholders about the language in Section 402 but the draft includes the language brought by the subcommittee.
The working group could not reach agreement on how a USF would work under a price cap system, what the level of support should be. So they decided to recommend that no changes be proposed for this year but that the working group would come back next year with those changes necessary. The working group did agree on changes to 502 that would be technologically neutral and portable.
There was discussion among the committee about how the committee will work this bill. The chairmen were undecided on whether the whole committee should have another meeting to work the bill rather than just doing a subcommittee meeting and vote on the bill with a post card vote. A straw poll showed that the committee members would prefer to have a full committee meeting on the bill. Therefore they will ask Management Council for money to have a full committee one day meeting in December or January.
The committee took testimony from various members of the working group and received various handouts (Appendix 22). The members were encouraged to bring their proposed amendments to the final committee meeting and the committee would vote on each proposed amendment separately.
George Parks, WAM, requested the committee consider legislation that would allow for alternative construction methods in public works contracts. Given the late day, he understood that the bill would not be a committee bill, but he wanted to apprise the committee of the bill now because they would see it during session. He provided a handout (Appendix 23).
There being no further business, Co-Chairman Curt Meier adjourned the meeting at 5:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman