![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
October 14 and 15, 2004
UW Health Outreach
Casper, Wyoming
Senator Curt Meier, Cochairman
Representative Tony Ross, Cochairman
Senators Cale Case, Mike Massie, Charlie Scott and Kathryn Sessions
Representatives, Pete Illoway, Frank Latta, Tom Lubnau, Marty Martin, Del McOmie and Owen Petersen
Dave Gruver
Don Richards
Please refer to Appendices 1a and 1b to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Representatives Jim Allen and Lorna Johnson
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.
Cochairman Ross called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The minutes from the August meeting were approved. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.
Engineers and land surveyors bill (05 LSO 0030)
Cochairman Ross explained the Committee's action on the engineers and land surveyors bill draft (05 LSO 0030) at the last meeting. The board of engineers and land surveyors provided a letter asking the Committee to reconsider its action regarding the bill approved for sponsorship at the last meeting. (Appendix 3) Cochairman Ross moved that the Committee reconsider its action. The motion failed on a 5-6 vote, with Senator Meier and Representatives Ross, Illoway, Lubnau and Petersen voting "aye"; Senators Case, Massie, Scott and Representatives Latta, Martin and McOmie voting "no".
Elections issues
Secretary of State Meyer addressed elections issues. He provided a written materials to the Committee regarding a number of elections issues. (Appendix 4) Those issues were receipt and expenditure reports, Help America Vote Act (HAVA), voter registration, voting systems, draft statutory changes, election trust fund, lawsuits concerning the Secretary of State's Office, and a League of Women Voter's article on HAVA.
He noted that regarding campaign receipt and expenditures reports there was a serious issue as to whether the statute disqualifying a candidate from office for late reporting was constitutional. He suggested the Committee consider a bill removing those disqualification provisions and instead inserting a civil penalty for failing to file. Senator Scott agreed that disqualification is contrary to the Wyoming Constitution, pointing out Article 1, Section 3.
Senator Case moved that a bill be drafted removing the disqualifications for a candidate failing to file the report of expenditures and receipts. The bill should not address the issues of political action committees (PACs) not reporting, nor the minimum amount needed to report. Senator Massie seconded. Senator Scott suggested that there should be a mild civil penalty with an escalation for failing to file after a longer period, with final movement to court. Senator Case asked that the motion include a civil penalty. The Committee discussed the issue of whether there should be a minimum amount for filing. The final motion included, a civil penalty only. The current misdemeanor is to remain, with a staff comment noting that. There is no minimum amount for required reporting to be inserted, nor was the civil penalty specified. Cochairman Meier suggested that the bill be drafted only with the items noted and that if any member wanted additional items included, they could have amendments to the bill drafted. The motion for a bill to be drafted for consideration at the next meeting passed.
Deputy Secretary of State Arp addressed the Committee regarding Help America Vote Act (HAVA) expenditures. See appendix 4. Secretary Meyer noted that the federal government still is to pay the state over three million dollars, but that has not been included in the latest federal budget. Secretary Meyer testified that there will be a number of start up and ongoing expenses to meet the requirements of HAVA.
The Committee discussed voter registration requirements. Committee members expressed concerns regarding establishing residency and ensuring that voters are resident of the districts in which they vote. Deputy Secretary Arp suggested that at the next redistricting registration requirements could be interfaced with the redistricting. The Committee discussed the thirty day window in which registration at the clerks office is closed. Lynne Fox, Uinta County Clerk, testified that once the counties are on the electronic voter registration system that time can be cut down; it has been thirty days due to time needed to print poll books. Absentee voters can register and vote within the thirty day time frame.
Secretary Meyer addressed voting systems. The Secretary will not spend funds unless the system meets HAVA standards (but not all HAVA standards have been set). He discussed the problems with the implementation of HAVA and working with federal officials. He suggested that the Legislature designate a Senator and a Representative to act as liaisons on the implementation of the voter systems.
Senator Scott suggested the chairmen approach Management Council for three liaisons to work with the Secretary and clerks on implementation of the HAVA requirements. Secretary Meyer suggested that Title 22 needs recodified, especially in view of HAVA's new role.
Secretary Meyer suggested that the state begin a trust fund for ongoing costs associated with HAVA. The proposed legislation is included in appendix 4. Ten million dollars has been placed in the proposed legislation as a placeholder. In his view an absolute minimum amount would be the three plus million dollars the state has been thus far been shorted by the federal government. Secretary Meyer suggested there could be contingent appropriation with funds received and remaining from the federal government to supplant the state appropriation as they are received. Representative Illoway moved that legislation be drafted establishing a fund with a ten million dollar corpus. Secretary Meyer suggested that the interest flow to the fund, the state appropriation should be contingent with the general fund appropriation being reduced by the amount of HAVA funds remaining. Representative Illoway accepted that suggestion for his motion.
Senator Massie suggested that current county spending should not be supplanted by state funds. He also questioned whether the expenses are ongoing costs. Secretary Meyer noted that the bill is drafted so that the only costs incurred due to HAVA are paid. He stated that the costs will be ongoing. The Committee discussed the issue of the appropriate entity to fund HAVA requirements. Representative Illoway's motion passed.
Deputy Secretary Arp and Lynne Fox, Uinta County Clerk, addressed the Committee and the proposed legislation 05 LSO 0188.W4. (Appendix 5) Ms. Arp addressed the changes to the voter oath form and other changes to the registration system being suggested. The Committee discussed the draft legislation. Representative Illoway moved the bill be sponsored as a Committee bill. The Committee discussed the issue of whether the bill should be taken up at this meeting or the next. Senator Massie moved to table the bill until the next meeting. The motion passed.
Senator Sessions attended the meeting from that point. She had not participated in the earlier votes.
Secretary Meyer addressed the lawsuit in federal court asking for the right to register voters. He noted that he had been dismissed from the lawsuit. He suggested the Legislature should address the issue of voter registration drives. He took no position on the issue but noted that the statutes should explicitly state whether all persons acting as registry agents should be authorized to determine if the person is a qualified elector. The statutes should also addressed the circumstances under which a person is authorized to take an absentee ballot to an elector. He noted that county clerks have historically performed the gate keeping requirements needed to ensure the purity of elections.
Julie Freese, Fremont County Clerk, addressed how her office handles voter registration for persons unable to make it to the courthouse. Lynne Fox, Uinta County Clerk, stated that she did not believe the clerks were opposed to voter registration drives, but there are concerns of fraud. Other county clerks in attendance noted that they are attempting to maintain the purity of elections, that persons sign oaths under penalty of perjury under current laws and that voter registration is made fairly easy in Wyoming. Clerks also spoke in favor of establishing a trust fund for payment of costs associated with HAVA.
Coroner's issues
Representative Robinson addressed the Committee regarding coroner's issues. She provided four written items concerning the issue. (Appendices 6a through 6d). She had previously surveyed all county coroners and provided the results of that survey. (Appendix 6a). Approximately one-half of the coroners responded to the survey. From those results she noted that not one coroner case was the result of assisted suicide. Overall she suggested the statutes are not clear in defining what is and is not a coroner's case. Her proposed legislation would restrict the definition of a coroners case by removing those cases in which the death was anticipated. (Appendix 18, 05 LSO 0168.W3). She believed that coroners are taking fluid samples in attempting to ferret out possible assisted suicides. She questioned whether those activities are necessary. Other materials provided by Representative Robinson were comparisons of state laws on the issues and proposed amendments to the suggested legislation.
The Committee discussed the ramifications of the proposed bill and whether it would affect cases in which a coroner engaged in a "fishing expedition" since there is still a provision for coroner cases in which there is an apparent drug overdose. Representative Robinson explained the draft legislation. She also explained her proposed amendments. (Appendix 6d).
The Committee took public testimony. Marilyn Conner, executive director of Central Wyoming Hospice in Casper explained that hospice provides terminal care for persons within six months of death. Pain and symptoms are managed, but death is neither hastened or lengthened as a goal of hospice care. She noted that there is no maximum level of appropriate opiate use as each case is dependent upon the amount of drug needed to control pain. Doctor Douglas Morton, works in hospice care and general family practice. He testified that if the medicine is being given to target a symptom then it is appropriately given, regardless of the previous dosages. There is no way to determine if the amount of a pain killing drug was the appropriate amount after death has occurred in his view. He believed there are already safeguards and laws in place that address the issue without coroner involvement. He believed there are issue to be addressed in regard to the coroner statutes.
Dale Eckhardt, testified regarding her husband's death after years of battling cancer. She provided three written items regarding her testimony. (Appendices 7a through 7c) She testified to her husband's strong will to live and that it was an emotional impact to find that fluids had been drawn from her husband when he obviously had died of the terminal illness. She argued against allowing coroners to draw bodily fluids in all such cases as is being done by many coroners.
Patricia Grace, testified regarding her husband's death. His medical condition resulted in numerous system failures that could have resulted in his death. When he died numerous medical and law enforcement personnel attended the body and even though the treating physician stated that Mr. Grace had a terminal condition and that the death was not unexpected, the coroner's office took numerous pictures of the body, drew body fluids and confiscated medicines and his driver's license. She questioned why all the "disrespectful" actions were needed and strongly urged that person should not be presumed guilty of some type of crime simply because a loved one dies.
Mike Krampner, Casper attorney, suggested that the question posed is whether deceased individuals and their families should be treated as criminal suspects when there is no good reason to do so. He provided a copy of the coroner's check-off list used by the coroner's office in the case of Mr. Grace's death. He stated that coroners offices are simply conducting fishing expeditions for crimes when no evidence of a crime exists. He supported the proposed legislation as at least a step in the right direction.
The Wyoming Hospice Organization provided written comments regarding the proposed bill and the propose coroner standards. The comments urged the Committee to restrict coroner's cases and provide that patients in hospice care are not unattended at the time of death. (Appendices 8a through 8c). Other members of the public, including a number of hospice providers testified that the problem is not isolated to Casper.
Ed McCauslin, Fremont County Coroner and President of the Coroners' Association, addressed the proposed legislation. He had concerns with the bill. He questioned the definition of "terminal condition" and also suggested that the definition of "unattended" needs to be changed. Mr. McCauslin testified that the board of coroner standards is developing rules for death investigations.
Representative Illoway moved the bill be sponsored by the Committee. Representative McOmie seconded. After discussion, it was agreed to take the issue up the next day.
Fire, building and electrical standards jurisdictional issues
Terry Phillips, deputy state fire marshal, addressed the proposed legislation on 05 LSO 0081.W4. (Appendix 9) George Parks, WAM addressed the Committee. He urged that the bill be carried as a Committee bill, but that certain provisions regarding the collection of fees be deleted. He provided recommended amendments. (Appendix 10). The Committee discussed the proposed changes. Senator Massie moved the bill be sponsored as a Committee bill, Representative Lubnau seconded. Senator Massie moved the amendments proposed by Mr. Parks. The amendment passed. The main motion, as amended, passed with Senator Scott voting "no".
Telecommunications
Mark Stacy, QSI Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding the telecommunications universal service fund (USF). He provided a preliminary report from QSI. (Appendix11). His testimony summarized that preliminary report. Senator Meier questioned the amounts shown on page 11 of the draft report and whether those were monthly or annual figures. Mr. Stacy agreed to clarify that issue in the final report and assure that the comparisons are "apples to apples". Mr. Stacy noted that QSI is still missing some data from some carriers and if it is received the final report will be updated to reflect the additional data.
Mr. Stacy addressed the number of lines supported beyond the first line in a residence or business. About 17% of the lines receiving state USF support are second or latter lines. To drop to supporting only a single line would reduce the fund by about $400,000 annually. Denise Parrish noted that in the current TSLRIC studies, the cost of the second line could have been raised by averaging it with the cost of the first line. Thus limiting the state USF support to a single line could result in revised TSLRIC studies and the raising of the cost attributable to the first line.
Mike Korber, USF manager, testified that the number of access lines qualifying for support has decreased this past year, even with a decreased benchmark. There has been an estimated decrease in second line funding over the past years due to increase cellular competition. Senator Case noted that might be true for residential but business second line use might be trending upwards.
The Committee discussed the possibility of technological advancements obviating the need for the USF.
Steve Ellenbecker, the Governor's energy and telecommunications adviser, noted that most of the telecommunications industry is not regulated currently. The TSLRIC model made sense when implemented in his view because there were monopolistic industries that needed to be required to price at cost. Now there should be a movement away from focus on the companies and a new focus on customers who need financial help. He recommended not to turn the policy decisions to the PSC.
Jody Levin, QWEST, addressed the Committee. She testified that carriers are treated differently by government regulation, which precludes a pure competitive market. She gave specific examples of portions of the report that QWEST took issue with. One of those items was the lack of participation by wireless companies. She acknowledged that industry was working on proposed legislation. She also echoed Mr. Ellenbecker's concern that the policy not be turned over to the PSC.
Denise Parrish, also urged against turning the issue over to the PSC. The Consumer Advocate Office is also concerned with the suggestion to use the USF funds to fund additional technologies. She also noted that the report acknowledges lack of complete data and warned of basing decisions on incomplete data.
Mr. Stacy asked the Committee if it wanted recommendations in the report. The Committee requested that they be included. Cochairman Meier asked that the pros and cons be set out by recommendations. Mr. Korber explained that there was some information available regarding imbedded costs, but it was only in aggregate form. That would be difficult to assign the cost to any particular service provided.
The Committee adjourned for the day at 6:30 p.m.
Annexation
Cochairman Ross called the meeting to order again at 8:00 a.m. LSO staff explained 05 LSO 103.W2 (appendix 12) .
George Parks, Wyoming Association of Municipalities, addressed the Committee. He provided a listing of items within the bill. (Appendix 13) He identified those the draft which his Association is comfortable with and those items in the draft legislation with which they are not. Those items which he identified as needing addressed further included notification requirements, the requirement that cities and towns pay for certain extended services and the language on page 51-lines 1 through 7, addressing general powers of cities and towns. He noted the expanded definition of "adjacent" requires in certain circumstances the adoption of the growth management agreement.
Mike Abel and Matt Ashby, City of Cheyenne, addressed the Committee. They provided written materials consisting of explanations of the proposed expansion of area eligible for annexation, notification requirements and proposed changes to the bill draft. (Appendices 14a, 14b and 14c). One change is to differentiate between the notice required for landowners within the area to be annexed and neighboring landowners. They also proposed that the definition of potential urban area should remain as suggested by the task force, or if the Committee definition is used, it should be modified to expand and clarify the definition of state highway. A major issue for the city was the changing for grandfathering rights to all annexations and the change to the continuous use from one to ten years.
Representative Illoway asked that persons with issues with the bill draft provide comments in writing to the Committee.
Dave Hough and William Luben, City of Casper representatives, addressed the bill draft. They urged the Committee to retain the language of page 14-lines 1 through 7 allowing zoning and platting activities to occur on a parallel track with the annexation process. Mr. Luben proposed changes to the provisions regarding growth management plans. Appendix 15.
City of Gillette Mayor Duane Evenson, public utility director John Young and Brett Jones, city administrator, addressed the Committee. Their main concerns were with utility requirements placed in the draft. Regarding septic systems in the county, there are sewer systems being constructed to subdivisions by the city under SLIB grants. Another issue to the city is the expansion of multiple utilities being authorized to serve the annexed areas. Mr. Jones addressed items of concern relating to the provision of water and sewer lines. He explained current incentives being provided by the City of Gillette to landowners to encourage annexation and suggested that those activities could be used as models for other cities to use and for the Committee to look to in order to address annexation issues in a voluntary manner. The bill draft as currently stated can impinge on the City's ability to use those voluntary agreements, which are dependent upon the ability to require all landowners to participate in the agreement. The City also objected to the provision requiring cities to pay for water and sewer hook-up. Representative Latta requested that the comments be provided in writing.
Joe Evans, Wyoming County Commissioners Association, and Peter Froelicher, Laramie County Attorney, addressed the Committee. Mr. Froelicher provided written comments concerning the objections to the draft legislation. (Appendix 16) He suggested reviewing North Carolina and Kansas as states which have addressed satellite annexations for appropriate language. He also provided a map of the city of Cheyenne and stated that the city is not "landlocked". He suggested that the Committee could simply define "contiguity" if the issue is perceived ambiguity of the Supreme Court decision. That can be and has been done in terms of a percentage of boundaries touching or an amount of land touching. He urged the Committee not to allow annexations of lands which are not substantially contiguous. Mr. Froelicher also urged the Committee not to exclude government property from those boundaries which do not affect contiguity. A complete statement of his position is found in appendix 16.
Mr. Evans, testified that the counties oppose the bill. They would like no changes to the annexation statutes other than perhaps the definition of substantially contiguous. Counties are generally opposed to "leapfrog" annexation.
Scott Zimmerman, Rocky Mountain Bureau, suggested limiting the area that can be reached under the conservation easement exception to a 640 acre limitation. He also suggested adding to the provision prohibiting the restriction on water uses to domestic and other wells.
Gay Woodhouse, attorney in Cheyenne representing landowners who have been annexed to the City or attempted to be annexed, addressed the Committee. She urged that the Committee limit its scope of review to those items initially presented, which was the definition of contiguity and notice provisions. She stated that by allowing leapfrog annexation, later city officials will be facing the issue of property which had been skipped over and will be required to be involuntarily annexed to the city. She noted that many people will have their property values affected in a negative fashion even though they are not within the "annexed areas" or if they oppose annexation but are in the minority. Ms. Woodhouse also argued that if leapfrog annexation is allowed, it would be going against the trend in other states which mandate cities to grow from the inside-out. She also suggested the definition of landowner should be extended to apply to the appeals process. Another issue she urged was the consideration of extending voting rights to those within three miles of the boundaries in the business park proposal within the draft bill is accepted. She agreed to provide her comments in writing. Representative Illoway urged her to provide constructive comments to make the bill a positive piece of work. Senator Scott questioned where specifically the bill being considered failed to alleviate the concerns of Ms. Woodhouse and asked how the bill could be amended to address those concerns.
Chairman Meier directed that the bill be split into two pieces. The issue identified in staff comments, creating a new program to pay for certain sewer hook-ups, should be a separate bill. No amendments were made and it was suggested by the Cochairman that amendments should be proposed in writing for the next meeting.
Senator Massie moved that the bill be amended to consist solely of the definition of contiguous on page 3-lines 23 and 24. The motion failed.
Contractor licensing
Jonathan Downing, Wyoming Contractor's Association, addressed 05 LSO 0171.W4. (Appendix 17) He explained the bill provides for licensing contractors and subcontractors. The inspection components had been removed from the last draft presented to the Committee. The bill would apply only to buildings for which a plan review is called for by W.S. 35-9-108, which is limited to only specified public buildings.
George Parks, WAM, addressed the bill. His Association has members both in support and opposition to the bill. He noted that in his view the city licensing function would continue and that the bill does not affect residential buildings and is very narrow in scope.
Randy Adams, County Building Officials Association, noted the bill is a good start but should cover additional areas such as residences. He also noted that the State does not issue building permits.
LSO staff provided a brief explanation of the bill. The Committee discussed the need for the bill.
Ted Bigby, building inspector in Gillette, noted that 33 states of the 48 contiguous states, license contractors. He gave examples of why a licensing bill is needed.
Kirk Faught, executive director of Wyoming Associated Builders, noted that there should not be redundant licensing. There should be state coverage in his view. His Association also support subcontractor licensing, but the bill has large gaps within it in their view.
Cochairman Meier suggested that the bill should be referred back to the working group. Cochairman Ross stated that the bill had already gone through that process. After a straw poll, Cochairman Meier announced that the working group should rework the bill for presentation to the Committee again. The group should attempt to address the issue of contractor licensing for residences and the bill still should not be an inspection bill.
Coroners issues
The Committee considered 05 LSO 0168.W3. (Appendix 18) Senator Scott proposed a number of amendments. (Appendix 19).
Illoway moved the bill be sponsored as a Committee bill. The motion was seconded. Senator Scott moved the amendment he provided. Representative Illoway moved to divide the amendment by voting first on the amendment to page 2-line 2. That amendment failed.
Senator Massie asked to divide item number 2 – the amendment to page 2-after line 3. The motion was seconded by Representative McOmie. Who also moved to insert a "." after "prescribed" and delete the balance of the remaining new language. Representative McOmie's amendment failed. Senator Scott then withdrew item 2.
Senator Scott withdrew the amendment to page 2-line 5 through "ANTICIPATED AND". The remainder of the amendment to that line passed, with a conforming amendment to add health care provider to page 2-line 25.
The amendment to page 2 to insert a new "(H)" passed.
On the amendment to add (J), Senator Scott moved to insert "whether or not the death was anticipated" after "PRESENTED". That amendment failed. Representative Ross moved to delete "may be" and insert "is". That motion passed. The motion on inserting a new (J), as amended, passed.
The new language adding "(K)" passed without change.
The amendment to page 2-line 11 passed with conforming amendments, to delete other references to terminal condition, including the definition in the bill.
Representative Robinson suggested adding the new "(G)" from her proposed amendments. (Appendix 6d) Senator Scott moved the amendment. The amendment passed. The main motion passed 12-0.
Special districts
Wade Hall and Dave Chapman, Department of Revenue, addressed the issue of special district reporting of boundaries. Mr. Hall explained the bill draft 05 LSO 102.W2 (Appendix 20). LSO staff also explained the draft. Senator Scott moved the bill be sponsored as a Committee bill. Representative Illoway seconded the motion. The motion passed without amendment to the bill, with Senator Massie voting "no".
Conservation districts
Bobbie Frank, Wyoming Conservation districts, addressed 05 LSO 104.W3. (Appendix 21) She explained that the bill allows special project areas to be formed within the conservation district. She further explained that the bill allows for different powers for the boards of conservation districts. LSO staff also provided a brief explanation of the bill's changes to the conservation district's powers. Ms. Frank provided a list of amendments for the Committee to consider. (Appendix 22).
Doug Cooper, ranch owner, opposed the bill. He believed that the bill provided too much authority for the new special project areas, with little in the way of checks or balances. The notice provision, the opt out provisions, and voting provisions were all identified as issues that need to be addressed. The expansion of the conservation districts authority was objected to, including among other items. He suggested striking the power of eminent domain. In W.S. 11-16-208, owners should be able to elect to withdraw land at any time before formation. He also advocated a recall provision. His testimony was provided in writing. (Appendix 23)
Marion Loomis, Wyoming Mining Association, urged the Committee to restrict the provisions of the bill draft not to apply to entities permitted under state or federal regulation. He also questioned whether the mines would be able to vote under the provisions of the bill since they do not reside in the special project area.
Bruce Hinchey, Wyoming Petroleum Association, suggested that the bill draft be amended to include that the conservation district act may not regulate facilities subject to other state or federal regulatory authority.
Robert Brood, Conservation District Board Supervisor, Campbell County, stated that the conservation districts are not intending to bring people into projects involuntarily. The intent of the bill is to allow persons to get together without forming a new special district to pool resources and be eligible for grant and loan programs.
After discussion the bill draft was moved to the next meeting. No amendments were made.
LSO staff asked for and received clarification on the engineers and surveyors bill draft voted to be sponsored as a Committee bill at the last meeting. The Committee's intent was to reinsert provisions of law allowing for experience as an alternative to educational requirements for surveyors, including the reinstitution of the language repealed in 1991. The Committee did not intend to make the same changes to the engineers education/experience provisions.
The next meeting was set for November 22 and 23 in Cheyenne. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
Tony Ross, Cochairman