Wyoming Legislature

Committee Meeting Summary of Proceedings

Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee

 

August 19 and 20, 2004

Transportation Commission Auditorium

Cheyenne, Wyoming

 

Meeting Attendance (Present)

 

Committee Members

Senator Curt Meier, Cochairman

Representative Tony Ross, Cochairman

Senators Cale Case, Charlie Scott and Kathryn Sessions

Representatives Jim Allen, Pete Illoway, Marty Martin, Del McOmie and Owen Petersen

 

Legislative Service Office

Dave Gruver

Don Richards

 

Others Present

Please refer to Appendices 1a and 1b to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

 

Meeting Attendance (Absent)

 

Committee Members

Senator Mike Massie

Representatives Jene Jansen, Lorna Johnson and Frank Latta.

 

Written Meeting Materials and Handouts

All meeting materials and handouts provided to the Committee by the Legislative Service Office (LSO), public officials, lobbyists, and the public are referenced in the Meeting Materials Index, attached to the minutes. These materials are on file at the LSO and are part of the official record of the meeting. 

 

Call To Order

Cochairman Ross called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.  The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic.  Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

 

Telecommunications

Mark Stacy of QSI, a consultant retained by the Committee provided a preliminary report on the telecommunications universal service fund (USF) study.  QSI is to prepare a report on the state's universal service fund as required by section 324 of last session's budget bill.  Thus far the consultant has determined that all the methods for estimating costs have some type of flaw and the consultant has decided to use all three of the available cost estimation models:  imbedded costs, total service long run incremental cost and total element long run incremental cost.  There will be no confidential data within the report provided to the Committee, so that the report may be made available to the public.  QSI has sent a letter requesting information to the carriers, the PSC and the USF administrator.  The responses from the wire line carriers has varied, from immediately providing data to providing data with a requirement for a confidentiality agreement, to not responding generally.  It appears that data will be available from carriers representing about 95% of the wire lines in Wyoming.  Regarding wireless carriers, a similar letter has been sent by the QSI, but it appears that data will not be made available from wireless companies.

 

Mr. Stacy provided information regarding analysis of the data.  He cautioned the Committee that due to the nature of the data being collected (not completely comparable, some being old), the conclusions would not be absolute.  He stated that a PSC proceeding with witnesses under oath might be in order to ensure that the data is complete, up-to-date and comparable, before any major policy changes.

 

While the scope of the study has expanded, the costs will be the same, and the timelines initially proposed will be adhered to.  The Committee discussed costing models and the need for securing data from the carriers and the reluctance of some carriers to do so.  Mr. Stacy emphasized that there is no obligation on the carriers part to provide data and that most are doing so voluntarily.  Most, though not all, issues are being resolved.

 

Jody Levin, QWEST, acknowledged that QWEST has concerns with providing some of the data requested.  Ms. Levin testified that QSI has intervened in hearings in the past with QWEST, and QWEST is reluctant to provide some of the information requested.  Cochairman Ross asked that the carriers cooperate as much as possible and that if there are issues in providing information, that the LSO or the cochairmen be contacted.

 

Annexation

LSO staff provided background information on annexation.  See Appendix 3.

 

George Parks, Wyoming Association of Municipalities, addressed the Committee.  He noted that the Committee must take a statewide view of the issue which will be different than that provided by any single municipality.

 

Matt Ashby, City of Cheyenne planner and Patrick Collins, Cheyenne Councilman, addressed the Committee and provided written materials on annexation, developed by a working group of cities.  See Appendices 4a and 4b.  The submissions to the Committee include a summary of their presentation and proposed legislation.  They noted how annexation affects a community, including economic development, rural sprawl and production agriculture.  In their view city lot sizes are smaller and thus housing is more efficient within a city than outside of a municipality, in a county setting.  The issues identified in the annexation legislation proposed include definitions and clarifications, notification, appeal process, planned growth areas, business park flexibility and simultaneous processing.  They believe the Supreme Court case has left uncertainty in the area of annexation.  For example, the issue of what is "substantially" contiguous is uncertain, and there is no definition of "adjacent" in statute.  The city would like to see "adjacent" defined as any area within a potential urban area, i.e., within one mile of the existing city borders. 

 

As to notifications, the city suggests that those contiguous to the annexation area need to be notified and those within one-quarter mile should be notified.  Appeals timeframe should be limited to 30 days. (Currently it is 60 days).  There should be planned growth areas.  They also suggested allowing noncontiguous annexations of up to 3 miles for business parks.  The Cheyenne representatives stated that there has previously not been a forced annexation in Cheyenne.

 

The Committee discussed these issues, noting that proposed annexations cause concerns regarding potential costs and changes in lawful uses of lands. 

 

Tom Forslund, city manager of Casper, addressed the Committee.  He is supportive of the changes suggested.  Fred Jones, city administrator of Gillette, also spoke in favor of the suggestions.  He noted that the time frame for annexation causes problems when there is a need for a quick annexation to accommodate incoming business.

 

Mr. Parks noted that, thus far, the annexation proposals have been an internal city effort and the group would like to continue with those items that appear to have support of the Committee and work on changes as they become apparent.

 

Joe Evans, Wyoming County Commissioner Association and Peter Froelicher, Laramie County Attorney, addressed the Committee.  Laramie County is opposed to the proposals to allow annexation to noncontiguous areas.  In Mr. Froelicher's view, the only issues to have arisen are in the context of attempted annexations, which are not contiguous.  As far as the ambiguity in the Supreme Court case, he noted that there is a footnote in the Supreme Court opinion that demonstrates the sort of annexations that would not be substantial.  Specifically, there must be a sharing of the boundary, which is at least one-eighth of the boundary, and the annexation must not be a subterfuge, a strip annexation.  It is Mr. Froelicher's view that those requirements apply.  Representative Illoway asked that the LSO provide copies of the cases cited by the Wyoming Supreme Court and referenced by Mr. Froelicher. 

 

Mr. Evans noted that "strip" or "leapfrogging" annexation cause problems with providing services to isolated pockets, building code enforcement and other problems.  The counties are also interested in economic development and can provide services necessary for economic development.  He also noted that the counties are not generally opposed to annexation.

 

Three Laramie county commissioners Jack Knudson, Diane Humphrey and Jeff Ketcham addressed the Committee.  Mr. Knudson stated that he is not opposed to annexation, but that it should be the result of logical growth and that neighbors affected by annexation should be considered.  Any proposal to change the law should include county and city concerns.  Mr. Knudson stated that he believed the Supreme Court decision did create some uncertainty in the law and that the Legislature could act to clarify the issue of contiguity.  Mr. Ketcham noted that if cities are landlocked, those municipalities previously had a say in that matter since they had to approve subdivisions established within one mile of the city boundaries.  Ms. Humphrey stated with respect to leapfrog annexation, persons within and without the areas annexed are affected and often confused as to which governmental body to turn to when they have problems. 

 

The Committee asked the LSO for earlier reports from the annexation task force created in the 1995 law.  The Committee also inquired about the ability to create a quasi-annexed area in which the newly annexed area would have less services and obligations than the existing residents.

 

Lloyd Peterson, Goshen County Commissioner, addressed the Committee next.  He noted that the problems identified by the Laramie County Commissioners actually occurred when the Goshen County Commissioners and the City of Torrington were discussing a possible leapfrog annexation.  The issue of service provision is difficult when annexation is attempted by "leapfrogging."  He testified that in Goshen County, annexation issues are addressed amicably between the city and county currently.

 

The Committee heard from members of the public, items identified as concerns included:

 

  1. Change of the electrical power supplier with annexation;

  2. The ability to keep large livestock;
  3. The ability to maintain large workshops;
  4. Fire protection and insurance costs;
  5. The proposed statutory change in timing from "calendar days" to "business days";
  6. The proposed statutory reduction in the time for appeal from 60 to 30 days;
  7. The county/city participation of the earlier annexation task force efforts, the results of which produced understandable laws which do not need changed;
  8. The lack of real opportunity for public input before the (Cheyenne) city council;
  9. Drainage, traffic and school problems caused by annexations;
  10. The state annexation law should have provision for the city to pay attorney fees of a person successfully taking a city to court in an annexation;
  11. Land development companies attempting to provide affordable housing through annexations are hindered by a lack of a clear-cut, definitive process and by the requirement of an annexation report that is virtually worthless.  (Written materials provided by Brad Enzi on this general testimony are attached as Appendix 5.);
  12. Due to annexations, septic tanks cannot be replaced and the cost to hook up to city water and sewer is exorbitant (one example cited a cost of $75,000);
  13. Curb and gutter costs caused by annexation;
  14. The costs of annexation generally for persons on fixed incomes;
  15. The unknowns to developers based upon uncertainty in the law and the increased costs of lots caused by legal actions;
  16. The costs of annexations to affected properties, even though not annexed, such as street, curb and gutter costs that must be shared by all property adjacent to the new road;
  17. The lack of county participation in the existing annexation process;
  18. The need for additional notice;
  19. The usefulness of a city/county planning board, if its decisions can be jettisoned without consideration;
  20. The higher relative cost of services for poorly planned annexations as compared to rural areas;
  21. The need for cities to be able to expand;
  22. The ability of a developer as a single landowner to affect persons who do not want the annexation to occur;  (This point was made by Laurie Brand who provided proposed legislation attached as Appendix 6);
  23. The effect of city/state/federal agreements under federal law, which takes on broader application as the result of annexations;  (Senator Meier asked for information from the City of Cheyenne on the cost imposed upon persons due to a 201 agreement and the inability to receive septic permits); and
  24. Annexation opens the door for uncontrolled rapid growth and takes farmland out of production.

 

Generally, but not universally, developers who spoke favored amending the annexation statutes, county residents spoke in favor of keeping the statutes as they exist.

 

Senator Scott moved that a bill be drafted to use the City of Cheyenne/WAM initial draft plus the following (Staff was requested to work with Senator Scott to ensure that the draft reflected the intent of his motion):

 

ü      Shift the period for abandoning non-conforming uses from 1 to 10 years for annexations and zoning and allow that continued non-conforming use for subsequent purchasers.

ü      For areas in which a person dissents to annexation (either affirmatively or by not signing a petition for annexation) or for involuntarily annexation, the city shall not unreasonably withhold consent to barns, shops, outbuildings and the like.

ü      An annexing city may not require residents to use city services unless the failure to do so represents a clear and present danger to public health. 

ü      If the annexing governmental unit will not issue for whatever reason a permit to reconstruct or repair septic systems and appurtenant facilities it is responsible for the additional costs.

ü      In an involuntary annexation, the annexing unit is responsible for the additional costs to the people being annexed into the city.

ü      In any annexation, the annexing unit is required to allow for continued use and maintenance of irrigation ditches, including siphons, plumes, measuring devices and other appurtenances, serving lands with a valid Wyoming water right.

ü      Add to W.S. 15-1-402(b) for allowed exceptions to contiguity, lands covered by conservation agreements and present or abandoned industrial waste disposal facilities.

ü      Add an option to the city's proposal on adjacent lands to be annexed to allow annexation of adjacent and contiguous land by right of ways of state highways. 

ü      Add an option if an adjacent the city annexes an outlying area, the city is required to provide road maintenance.

ü      Allow areas to be annexed with only partial city services by agreement between the city and the landowner which may also be modified at a later time by mutual agreement. 

ü      Provide for public reimbursement of county pockets for "201" related sewer and water expenses.

ü      Add a provision for service by multiple utilities. 

ü      Require notice to all persons within a half-mile radius of the proposed annexation, (outside the current city) regardless of the circumstances.

ü      Provide for full specification of the contents of all notices.

 

Insurance

Ken Vines, Insurance Commissioner, addressed the Committee.  He testified that he did not wish to pursue the interstate compact previously considered this year.  The compact would make approval of policy forms by each state uniform by providing a single filing point in the country.  Commissioner Vines noted that such as change would purportedly allow the insurers to market new products more rapidly.  The Commissioner expressed the concern that some state sovereignty would be ceded to the compact.  Also, the amount of authority and exact operation is unknown. 

 

 

 

School Health Insurance

 Shelly Andrews, Wyoming Community College Commission, and Laramie County Community College President, Doctor Bohlen, addressed the Committee.  Ms. Andrews provided written information regarding the participation by community colleges in the state health insurance plans.  (See Appendix 7.)  The effect of the increased state participation has decreased the single member participation but this has been more than offset by increased family participation.

 

Regarding liability insurance cost increases, Dr. Bohlen noted that the community college premiums have increased significantly.  He offered no suggestions for a legislative resolution other than increased state funding.

 

Mark Higdon, Wyoming School Boards Association, provided written information regarding health insurance cost and funding for school health insurance under the school foundation block grant model.  (See Appendix 8.)  He stated that health insurance costs have increased over the past few years at a significant rate.  He requested the state increase the allocation in the block grant model by $2,455 for all prototypical employees, excluding those reimbursed at 100 percent of cost, or approximately $23 million annually statewide. 

 

Senator Scott asked for the School Boards Association to identify and summarize the districts' views on placing the school districts within the state group health insurance plan.  Mr. Higdon agreed to do so.

 

Senator Scott moved to have two bill drafts.  The first draft should increase the appropriate component(s) within the education block grant model by an amount to equal 85 percent of the actual costs incurred by districts (accounting for family status) for health insurance per employee, based upon Mr. Higdon's research.  The second draft should treat each prototypical employee (with consideration to family status) as a state employee and provide the same hard dollar contribution as state employees.

 

The meeting adjourned for the day at approximately 5:30 p.m.

 

Friday, August 20, 2004.

 

Safety Codes

 

Jim Narva, state fire marshal, addressed the Committee regarding state and local enforcement of state building, electrical and fire codes.  A local entity may request local enforcement authority for some or all three of those codes.  If so, it is granted by the state fire marshal and the local authority then enforces those standards for which enforcement authority is requested.  There is currently confusion in this area since many local entities have adopted standards different from the state, but have not adopted all three enforcement standards and the standards overlap with cross references which may not match unless all three standards are adopted. The State Fire Marshal wants to continue with local entities being able to enforce less than all three codes, but wants to clarify that when it does so, the codes adopted must be at least as stringent as the code adopted at the state level.  The second problem presented is that plans must be approved by the state fire marshal when the local entity has adopted only some of the enforcement authority, but the local entity does not always forward the plans to the state fire marshal.  The proposed legislation (05 LSO 81.W2) (appendix 9) would require the local entity to forward such plans to the state fire marshal if the local entity has not assumed enforcement authority for all three codes.

 

Mr. Narva, in response to committee questions, noted that he inspects only for fire and electrical, thus if a building inspection is to be undertaken it would be on the local level.

 

George Parks, WAM, supported the proposed legislation as helping to keep state standards uniform and making sure inspections do not fall through the cracks. 

 

Randy Adams, President of the Wyoming Conference of Building Officials agreed with the legislation's uniformity requirement. 

 

Mr. Narva reviewed the draft legislation for the Committee.  The Committee questioned whether the local entities are comfortable with the dates proposed.  Mr. Adams stated they were.  The Committee requested that the bill should be continued with the LSO working with Mr. Narva to clarify that no double fees would be charged and that the fees would stay with the local entity when joint enforcement is applicable.  The Committee also requested that the school facilities commission representative be contacted and be requested to attend the next meeting.  The LSO was requested to mail a draft to the Contractors Association.

 

Engineers and surveyors

 

Pete Hutchinson, President of the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, Christine Turk, staff to the Board and Sue Lowry, State Engineer's Office, addressed a draft bill on the issue of land surveyors and professional engineers.  Ms. Lowry, informed the Committee that the Agriculture Committee is working on changes to title 41 to allow electronic permitting.  LSO staff explained that provisions from title 41 were in the bill as noted in the staff comment and that further discussions with the State Engineer's Office and the Agriculture Committee would be necessary to ensure that the changes needed in the Engineers and Surveyor's Act to conform with the changes to title 41 were correct.  It was staff's understanding at this point that the provisions would simply be removed from this Act and addressed in title 41 in the Agriculture Committee's bill, but that needed to be confirmed.  Staff was directed to proceed accordingly.

 

Mr. Hutchinson reviewed the bill draft.  (05 LSO 0030.W2, appendix 10) .  The bill changes the name of the licensing board and modifies provisions which reference "registration" to "licensing".  Representative Illoway moved the bill be sponsored as a Committee bill.  Seconded by Representative McOmie.  The Committee took the following actions:

 

Representative Illoway moved page 4–lines 2 through 4 should be reinserted.  The motion was withdrawn in favor of reviewing the remainder of the bill.

 

Senator Scott moved page 9-lines 19 through 22 delete.  Passed.

Senator Scott moved page 10 lines 1 and 2 delete the new language.  Passed.

Representative McOmie moved page 4 lines 2 through 4 – reinsert stricken language.  Passed.

Senator Case moved page 5-lines 17 and 18 delete "and be actively practicing".  Passed.

Senator Scott moved to delete page 8-lines 9 through 11.  Passed.

Senator Scott moved page 12 –lines 2 through 5 reinsert with direction to LSO to conform to the earlier McOmie amendment on page 4.  Passed.

Representative McOmie moved page 14-line 3 delete new language.  Passed

Representative Illoway moved the bill be sponsored as a Committee bill in the upcoming session; Senator Case seconded.  The motion passed 10-0 with 4 absent.

 

 

Wyoming Cosmetology Act

 

Betty Abernethy, Executive Director of the Wyoming Board of Cosmetology , Donna Charron and Joe Corrigan addressed the Committee.  Ms. Abernethy explained the draft bill 05 LSO 0073.W2. (Appendix 11)  Most of the draft was exactly as proposed last session, with some minor, technical changes.  The bill splits out the various practices of cosmetology which include skin, nail and hair care.  It also provides for licensure for solely hair styling.  Ms. Abernethy explained that the Attorney General's Office suggested that the word "business" should be inserted before "addresses" on page 18, lines 22 and 24 based upon federal privacy laws.  Senator Scott stated that he was going to propose in the Administrative Procedure Act, what information should be disclosed regarding licensees.  The Committee discussed that and other issues.

 

Representative Illoway moved the Committee sponsor the bill in the upcoming session.  The motion was seconded by Cochairman Meier.  The following actions were taken:

 

Senator Scott suggested inserting a provision that in adopting rules providing for what constitutes the practice of cosmetology and other activities licensed under this Act, the Board may only clarify the provisions of the Act.  Ms. Abernathy responded that the board needs flexibility since the activities are constantly changing.  Senator Scott moved to insert language to the effect that in adopting rules defining the professions licensed under this Act the board may clarify but may not expand those acts which constitute the practice of cosmetology.  LSO staff restated the language provided and suggested that it be inserted on page 8 under the board's duties.  The Committee voted to amend the bill using the language provided.  No other motions were made regarding the bill draft.  The main motion passed 10-0 with 4 absent.

 

Certified public accountants

 

Peggy Morgando, Executive Director, and James Hearne Certified Public Accountants Board explained the purpose of the draft bill, 05 LSO 66.W3 (Appendix 12).  Ms. Morgando presented proposed amendments to the draft (appendix 13).  Senator Case moved the proposed amendment on appendix 13 through page 24-line 9 amendments, without the amendments to page 1-line 14 and page 14-line 11.  The motion passed.  Senator Scott moved page 13-line 7 to delete "shall" and insert "may".  The motion failed.

 

The Committee discussed the use of the CPA designation and how that comports with changes in the bill.  The concern expressed by Senator Scott was that the bill would require a person to actually hold himself out as a public accountant in order to hold a CPA designation. 

 

Senator Meier moved page 10-line 16; after "public" insert "or otherwise".  The amendment passed.

 

Tom Jones, Wyoming Public Accountants representative stated that his Association was in agreement with the bill last session, but has not had the time to review the latest draft and if there were changes made, then he reserved the right to request amendments during the session. 

 

The Committee discussed the bill.  The main motion, to sponsor the bill as a Committee bill, moved by Representative Illoway, seconded by Representative McOmie passed 10-0, with 4 absent.

 

 

Contractor licensing

Representative Martin presented last session's HB 136.  The bill would establish a contractor licensing authority within the Department of Fire Prevention and Electrical Safety.  It creates a position of chief building inspector and would employ 8 deputy inspectors and a total of 15 new positions.  The bill would not preclude local entities from establishing their own certification process.

 

Senator Scott questioned the criteria used for licensing under the bill.  Other committee questions addressed the fiscal impact of the bill and the impact on local government inspections.  Cochairman Meier suggested that there be a delayed effective date to allow the rulemaking to be undertaken before the remainder of the act is effective.

 

Representative Martin reviewed the bill.  It would allow inspection of any building by the chief inspector or his deputies.  The new Authority would be able to establish reasonable fees for licensure and inspections.  Persons engaged in building construction would required to be licensed under the bill.  The council would adopt minimum building construction standards, not exceeding the international building code.

 

Cochairman Ross explained that the Committee had not reviewed a new draft bill and would not take final action on the bill at this meeting.  The Committee discussed the particulars of the bill.  Representative McOmie questioned why a subcontractor would have to be licensed.  Cochairman Meier noted that licensing and insurance will add costs to the projects.

 

Public testimony was taken.  Charles Ware, Wyoming Association of General Contractors, urged that the bill provide for using the WAM certification process for contractors.  Senator Scott stated that the bill would cover nearly all construction, including much remodeling; he questioned how much that would add to construction costs and how many handyman types would be put out of business by the bill.  Representative Martin noted the bill contains an exception for handymen.

 

The Committee discussed the broad application of the bill.  It would apply to buildings generally and is not limited to public buildings. 

 

The AARP spoke in favor of contractor licensing and provided written information regarding tips for contracting for home improvements. (Appendix 14)

 

Laurie Urbigkit, Wyoming Manufactured Housing Alliance and Wyoming Realtors, expressed some concerns regarding the bill.  The handyman exemption needs work in her view.  Other concerns were timing for inspections if done at the state level.  She was supportive of adopting the international building code since the uniformity that would bring to the state would be helpful.

 

Senator Scott inquired as to the option of allowing licensing, but not requiring it.  Ms. Urbigkit thought that might be workable, with a certification process. 

 

George Parks, WAM Director, explained the municipalities testing program and certification process.  There is already a system in existence for the local licensing process and Mr. Parks asked that the state not preempt the field of local licensing. 

 

Steve Hackett, building official, town of Jackson testified that the only time a license is required in his town is when a building permit is required.  He favored statewide contractor licensing.  He noted that there is an Attorney General's opinion which takes the position that counties do not have the authority to adopt contractor licensing.  He suggested that a task force be created to review the bill and come back to the Committee. 

 

Senator Meier suggested that industry meet with Representative Martin and work on a revised draft bill.  Cochairman Ross suggested that if anything is to be done, it should be presented to the Committee by the end of the year.  Cochairman Meier suggested that it be done before the next meeting.  Senator Scott suggested that the task force split the bill into an inspection bill and a licensing bill.   On public buildings, there should be in his view a provision that the capital building commission may adopt rules under the act and the same for the school facilities commission.  Senator Meier suggested that Mr. Ware could spearhead an effort to redraft the bill.

 

Special districts

 

Ed Schmidt, Director of the Department of Revenue addressed the Committee.  He noted that special districts are required to file maps with the Department showing the boundaries of the district.  If they fail to do so, the Department is to certify that failure to the boards of county commissioners and the commissioners are not to levy any further property taxes.  Currently about 30% of the special districts have not complied.  He is concerned with the potential problems that might cause.

 

Dave Chapman and Wade Hall, Department of Revenue, testified that there appear to be many more special districts than were thought to exist.  The Department has found 15 districts unknown to it which have the ability to levy mills, but have not done so for some time.  There is an attorney general opinion regarding the effect of the law being discussed.  (Appendix 15)  Mr. Hall also provided a diagram for compliance with the law.  (Appendix 16).  He also provided a list of taxing entities.  (Appendix 17)

 

Senator Scott suggested that the Department work with the LSO on a bill allowing the Department flexibility to accept those types of descriptions which meet the needs of the Department and the goal of the legislation.  The Department agreed to work with the LSO on a specific draft to address the problems uncovered.  Senator Scott suggested that cities, towns and school districts be reinserted in the law, but the boundaries be updated yearly by a date certain in order to meet tax assessment deadlines.  The Committee discussed the dissolution procedures for special districts and filing requirements for idle districts.

 

Senator Scott moved that the Department of Revenue work on legislation which would deal with the practical problems they have found to address them in whatever way they wish to by extending the time or other action.  The school districts and municipalities should be reinserted into the law also.  The cities should be required to file a map and not be required to file a legal description.

 

Bobbie Frank, Conservation districts, addressed the issue of special districts filing of maps and legal descriptions.  She noted that the Secretary of State's Office should be included in the discussions.  Many special districts do not have a spokesperson or organization which helps them comply with statutory requirements.  She suggested some sort of educational program for special districts.  Senator Scott suggested that there be a procedure as to what land is and is not within the district and that there be a procedure for reconciliation.

 

Ms. Frank provided information on conservation districts and the issue that there are two sources of funds under the water development commission and clean water revolving loan funds which are not accessible by the conservation districts.  Since last year the association has conducted a number of meetings on the issue.  She has reviewed other special district laws for those which qualify for the loan programs.  Ms. Frank provided information regarding a proposed bill draft, which is attached as appendix 18.

 

Her proposal would allow conservation districts to form special project areas within districts and would allow conservation districts to borrow funds and incur debt.  The overall mill limit levy on conservation districts would not be affected.  Senator Scott suggested alternative assessments might be developed based on other measures of the benefit to be received, e.g., water rights.  The Committee discussed assessments and appeal rights for assessments.

 

Senator Scott moved that the replication of the special district election law be removed and replaced with specific reference to the applicable provisions in the special district election law.  He moved that LSO put into bill draft form the proposal with that change.  The bill should also include a small appropriation for publishing the conservation district law with those references included.  He further asked that language be included allowing assessments to be based on other criteria of benefits received as determined by the commissioners, that is based upon benefit received, not necessarily acres affected.  The appropriation provision was subsequently deleted from the motion.  The motion was not voted on but that was taken as the consensus of the Committee. 

 

The Committee took up the issue of boards and commissions salaries.  LSO staff had previously provided information on the issue.  LSO was requested to provide the information to Representative Anderson, who initially raised the issue.  The Committee discussed the issue and determined not to take any other action on the issue.  The Committee discussed the issue of charges placed on boards and commissions by the Department of Administration and Information and the Attorney General's office.

 

The committee discussed handling of the health insurance issue for school boards.  Staff is to prepare the two drafts requested on the issue and then the Cochairmen will refer the issue back to management council for referral to a more appropriate committee. 

 

The Committee discussed the next meeting date.  October 14 and 15 in Casper was set as a tentative date and place.  The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

___________________________________

Tony Ross, Cochairman

[Top] [Back] [Home]