![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
July 13 & 14, 2006
Ramkota Hotel
Senator Cut Meier, Co-Chairman
Representative Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman
Senator Jayne Mockler
Senator Charlie Scott
Representative Ross Diercks
Representative Keith Gingery
Representative Marty Martin
Representative Del McOmie
Representative Erin Mercer
Representative David Miller
Representative Monte Olsen
Senator John Hanes
Senator Wayne Johnson
Representative Bruce Barnard
Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney
Senator John Schiffer
Senator Cale Case
Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the
Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Co-Chairman Curt
Meier called the meeting to order at 8:05 am.
The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by
topic. Please see the Agenda for
details. (Appendix 2).
The committee
approved the minutes of the May, 2006 meeting.
Steve Ellenbecker,
Governor’s Telecom Policy Advisor, provided written testimony regarding the
Governor's perspective. (Appendix 3) The
Governor wants the committee to consider the economic development proposals
described in the testimony. The recent
telecom forum was supposed to be a resource for the committee. His suggestions are consistent with the ideas
expressed at the forum.
Mr. Ellenbecker
stated that the scope of services currently regulated is very narrow. The PSC does not have authority over data
services, wireless or cable. They only
regulate essential, non-competitive wireline services and switched access. He believes that companies should still be
required to provide essential services.
The Governor would
like the committee to simplify and broaden the PSC's authority to deregulate
where they determine competitiveness. He
would like to see a strengthened set of fines and penalties for failure to
provide essential service. He believes
that regulation of switched access should remain and the universal service fund
(USF) should remain available in rural areas.
Mr. Ellenbecker
suggested that the public policy should look to the future and should encourage
new technology. Focus should be on supporting
the extension of broadband throughout the state. One choice is for the state to make the
initial investment, but this does not ensure provision of service based on
demand. He suggested that two models
could be used. The Wyoming Equality
Network connects the schools in the state.
This should be available to all businesses in the state. Industry and the state could work together to
determine where the needs are. The
critical move is to open it to competitive networks. Another model would be to use the Wyoming
Technology Business Incubator at the
Chairman Meier asked
about stiffer penalties for ILEC’s that fail to provide essential
services. He asked why that was
necessary. Mr. Ellenbecker stated that
one of the concerns is that if companies put their emphasis on the future they
will forget the basics. They need to
make it serious to the companies.
Chairman Meier asked
about the Wyoming Equality Network. It
is currently an anchor tenant concept and he wants to know how to open it up to
upstream capacity. The key is making
available to all network providers. The
contract is currently a closed system.
Mr. Ellenbecker said the new concept could not be implemented until
after the currently contracted time period.
Senator Scott stated that the current exclusive contract kills
competition and it was the current administration did that. Mr. Ellenbecker stated that the Governor
wants to see a different system in the future.
Senator Scott
mentioned a situation where a tower was needed but couldn’t be put in because
of a conservation easement. He suggested
that legislation could address those barriers.
Chairman Illoway
asked if Mr. Ellenbecker feels that there is competition in
Rep. McOmie stated
that urban rates are supporting rural rates through USF. The USF does not have a place in long-term
deregulation, but he cautioned against repealing right now. Rep. McOmie also mentioned the use of
switching charges. Mr. Ellenbecker
encouraged the committee to not revisit TSLRIC to reset those charges. The hearings alone would be very
expensive. He suggested looking to
simpler solutions like a cap on those rates.
Chairman Meier
mentioned that legislation has to have parameters on rates because they didn’t
get the promised rates in 1995.
Rep. Gingery stated
that he was under the impression that the rural area ILECs still had a federal
rural exemption and therefore they wouldn’t have any effect there. Mr. Ellenbecker said there is a continued
reliance on federal USF. It of course
depends on what the FCC decides to do with federal USF.
Senator Scott said
he wants current rates as a ceiling and prices can move downward. He questioned whether that would lead to
problems and whether it really encourages a lowering of rates. Mr. Ellenbecker said last year's bill did
that. He supported it as a viable
option, but he lost confidence because the legislation had too many loopholes
and allowed for some raises in prices.
He suggested that the ceilings should be hard ceilings.
Senator Scott asked
if wholesale services are so federally regulated the committee cannot do much
in that arena. Mr. Ellenbecker suggested
that the committee could give the PSC more authority to arbitrate those contracts.
Chairman Meier asked
for more information about how the federal USF works. Mr. Ellenbecker said that Mike Korber and
Denise Parish would be better to answer that question.
Steve Furtney and
Mike Korber, PSC, testified. Mr. Korber
provided information requested at the last meeting (Appendix 4). The tables showed the level of federal high
cost universal service funding. They
also show the level of support from the state USF program. There were questions about specific
companies.
Rep. McOmie asked
what role TSLRIC plays in the distribution of USF. Mr. Korber explained that TSLRIC is the basis
for rates. Distribution is based on
price. If there is a cap on prices then
the USF distribution would stay the same and there would be no ability to raise
the prices to receive more USF. However,
if there is no cap, there may be an incentive to raise basic rates to receive
more from the state USF.
Mr. Korber’s charts
showed that basic rates have jumped dramatically since 1995, but switched
access rates have fallen dramatically.
On a federal level, interstate switched access has moved from a per
minute charge to a fixed monthly fee.
Chairman Illoway
asked whether regulation of switched access rates should just be
eliminated. Mr. Korber stated that there
are costs associated with switched access.
Chairman Illoway asked whether those costs should have been depreciated
out by now, or at least recovered by basic charges.
Senator Mockler
noted that in 1995 these rural carriers were able to charge low basic service
rates. Now they are charging much higher
rates. Mr. Korber stated that in 1995
they were subsidizing those fees through federal USF, very high long distance
access fees and high business fees.
Senator Mockler then asked if it just more transparent now. Mr. Korber agreed. Senator Scott says that’s not quite
right. What they have is large initial
costs with small incremental maintenance costs. What was going on 1995 was that allocation
of fixed costs was arbitrary.
Chairman Meier asked
about the federal subsidized rate. The
federal rates are allocated on a modeled cost basis rather than a price
basis. The companies start receiving it
when costs are 115% of the nationwide average.
Senator Scott asked
what the total revenue is for these carriers.
He is trying to know what the real impact of the federal universal
service fund is. He sees that if the
federal fund went away there would be a huge increase in state rates to the
customer. Mr. Korber provided the total
revenues, by company, without USF, in this state. Senator Scott said that information is
helpful to show constituents how much the state is dependant on the federal
USF.
Senator Mockler
asked whether the system is broken in the first place. Mr. Furtney says that is a policy call based
on what the policy objectives are. His
perspective is that the 1995 act provides a lot of flexibility but it is
expensive to litigate when there is that flexibility. Chairman Illoway asked if there is effective
competition in the state. Mr. Furtney
thinks that there probably is in many areas of the state. Chairman Illoway asked if they could
deregulate in cities over 10,000. Mr.
Furtney said it is dependant on the details.
Rep. McOmie noted
that each time they look at deregulating the companies are arguing that they
can’t survive. But they did in
1995. The goal for the committee is to
decide if deregulation is what is best to move the state forward.
Bryce Freeman,
Office of Consumer Advocate, testified regarding the bill 07 LSO 0064.W1. (Appendix 5). He thought last year's bill made sense, gave
industry flexibility and gave the consumer protections. He sees only three concepts that need to be
considered: price caps are important to
protect consumers; universal service fund needs to be there (elimination would
have serious financial ramifications on rural customers); and companies should
still have the burden to show that a market is competitive.
Senator Mockler
asked if elimination of the state universal service fund would jeopardize the
federal fund. Mr. Freeman doesn’t know
what would happen. Senator Mockler's
concern is that elimination of the state program would effect the discussions
in
Mr. Freeman
suggested the committee use last year's bill and address wholesale
services. Chairman Illoway said that
this bill was not intended to put anyone out of business. It was just intended to shock people back to
the table.
Mr. Freeman said
there are numerous federal protections for interconnection agreements for
wholesale rates. The problem last year
was that the bill was silent on wholesale services. Competitors believed that incumbent carriers
would be able to price wholesale elements in a way that would be more expensive
to competitors than what they provide themselves. Chairman Meier noted that it is regulated
under federal law and there is nothing the legislature could do. Mr. Freeman says he thinks the PSC does have
authority to regulate prices.
Deregulating retail prices leaves the PSC without a standard for
reasonableness of wholesale prices.
Chairman Illoway has
asked for three years for someone to come to them saying exactly what needs to
be done. He is tired of just hearing
what they can’t do. Mr. Freeman says he
shares this frustration because he thought the bill last year was the
brainchild of his office and he thought it was good until people started taking
pot shots at it.
Senator Mockler
wants a matrix that shows goals and how to get there. Something that shows where the problems
are. Mr. Freeman says there are areas
that could be addressed but the current statute is a good act. Ms. Parish said they can’t do that matrix
until they know what the committee’s objectives are. Chairman Illoway says the committee just
wants to move ahead. They believe there
is effective competition in most of the state.
Broadband is not essential.
TSLRIC is not effective anymore.
Chairman Meier is concerned that the 1995 act has caused too many
outliers where basic rates are too high or access rates are too high. He wants to see guaranteed competition at
lower prices. Rep. McOmie stated that it
has been said that the committee wants to do this, but it has been industry
that is pushing them to do it.
Rep. Gingery says it
seems that current regulation is in place just to control Qwest. He wants to know what the worst-case scenario
would be if the bill proposed passed.
Mr. Freeman noted that the competition between Qwest and Bresnan is for
bundled services, not basic local exchange service. This bill would eliminate access to basic
local exchange service for people who don’t want to pay for the more expensive
bundle.
Ms. Parish stated
that the USF should be phased out over time rather than immediately
repealed. Chairman Meier thinks they can
cap prices and cap USF until a time when it is repealed.
Senator Case testified
that a lot has happened since 1995. He
noted that Bresnan didn’t even exist in the local telephone market last
year. What we have is a regulatory
structure that doesn’t deal with it. The
PSC doesn’t accept that there is competition unless the packages are exactly
the same. He is concerned that the state
USF is the tail wagging the dog. It has
distorted competition. The way to handle
it is to cap it and phase it out over time.
He supports getting rid of it but politically it won’t happen.
Senator Case
testified that wholesale pricing is a big issue. The shell game has continued. He thinks the benefits of deregulation should
not apply to companies that do not come into line with access charges. The status quo is not acceptable because it
is not fair to the companies that have done everything in the spirit of the
law.
He supports the bill
that is on the table even more than the one last year. The PSC and OCA need direction what the
policy of the committee is. If they
think there is competition then tell them that.
Chairman Meier asked
if deregulation would prevent a company from offering a basic package. Senator Case said competition will take the
industry in different ways and he doesn’t see that as a bad thing.
Senator Case testified
that there is one other area that needs to be addressed in legislation. He stated that broadband needs to be
addressed. He agreed that the WEN
network is a monopoly contract.
Government should not be involved in this competitive market. This bill should include a provision that
when government gets involved in this kind of market they should be
non-discriminatory.
As to wholesale
prices, Senator Case thinks there are a few things that they could do. The bill could allow the PSC to investigate
on their own, set the standard for reasonableness as a cap. If someone is above the cap they would have
to provide cost information to prove it up.
Senator Scott asked if they should just set the intrastate access charges. He sees the higher switched access rates as
simply a way of getting the rest of the state (when they call in to the area)
to pay for better services for the local clients. Senator Case thinks it would be a great way
to go to cap the switched access rates.
Senator Scott asked
about the areas where there is no competition.
Senator Case thinks they could cap prices, or write legislation that
directs the commission to monitor those areas, but he thinks that should be
phased out eventually. Senator Scott
said he couldn’t vote for a bill unless it actually dealt with the issue. He also couldn’t vote for a bill that
eliminates or even phases out the state USF.
Senator Scott argued
that the bill should set the access charge, even if it's arbitrary. Rep. Martin wants to look specifically at
competition.
Liz Zerga, Alltel
Wireless and McLoud, testified that the issue of wholesale services need to be
addressed. Wholesale is still a
monopoly. The PSC should have oversight
and pricing authority over wholesale services and the relationship between
retail and wholesale prices. The bill
impliedly deregulates wholesale. The
best way to do it is to say they are still regulating unbundled services,
access charges and wholesale. Imputation
is a good idea – retail prices should contain wholesale prices within
them. But they don’t want wholesale to
drive the retail prices.
Chris Robish,
Contact Communications, testified that their primary concern is wholesale
prices. He just needs access to the
elements, not the services. They could
set retail prices at 130% of wholesale.
As the bill is written today there is a very real possibility that his
company would not be here next year.
Chairman Meier is worried that tying it to retail would just increase
both.
Jody Levin, Qwest,
testified that they really like this bill.
It finally recognizes that the market is competitive. It gives equal footing to Qwest with their
unregulated competitors. The notion of
imputation driving retail rates up is not realistic. The moment they raise a rate, customers leave. A bill was passed in
Ms. Levin handed out
proposed amendments to the bill (Appendix 6).
Don Jackson,
TriCounty Telephone, testified that they support the bill with added provisions
moving it toward the middle. He supports
everything Senator Case testified about.
He asked the LSO to review the FCC’s authority to deal with wholesale so
the committee is properly informed when dealing with this.
Tim Summers, AARP,
testified that the bill last year was acceptable. The area AARP would have issues with is the
elimination or phase out of USF. They
want price caps for local basic service and downward pricing flexibility.
Bruce Asay, Wyo.
Telecom Association, testified that he represents a diverse group with diverse
opinions about the bill. His association
supported last year's bill. For the most
part they support the bill today, with the exception that Sprint is concerned
with the loss of USF. They need to see a
transition period for the USF. With
respect to wholesale pricing, they thought the bill last year was fine because
it left that regulation to federal law.
With respect to access rates, they are all over because we are a very
rural state. Dubois is the highest rate
because they are enhancing their facilities currently. Those are real costs that benefit everyone
because they allow everyone to reach those customers. He will provide proposed amendments. Senator Scott asked what percentage of his
clients’ income is from switched access.
He agreed to provide that information.
Chairman Meier wanted it in a form that would allow them to see what a
cap would do to them.
The committee
recessed until 1:00pm
Chairman Meier moved
to place a cap on the rates at July 1, 2006, or the federal subsidized rate or
lower. This will require bringing back
in to the bill price caps on essential services. It will also entail bringing back in the
definition of essential service as well as several other definitions.
Liz Zerga thinks
there will be a need for a definition of an incumbent local exchange
carrier. With respect to services not
covered she wants to see "retail" before "nonvoice data
services". On page 3-line 17
through 19, by striking that language they are deregulating networks, not just
services. She argued that networks
should be regulated. The committee
agreed to do this.
Senator Scott moved
to leave USF in the bill exactly as it is.
Rep. McOmie wants to cap it.
Chairman Meier agreed that they need to cap it otherwise there is no
control over upward pressure on prices.
Rep. Gingery argued that the federal USF remains and would be
adequate.
Senator Scott wants
something included that sets switched access rates at 1.53 cents unless the
company can demonstrate that their incremental costs are higher. Senator Mockler pointed out that our highest
ones are not out of whack, she doesn’t see access charges as a problem. Chairman Illoway pointed out that you can’t
allow them to bring in costs without putting in a definition of costs.
The committee agreed
to insert Qwest's amendments. The time
period for raising prices will be changed to ten days. Rep. Gingery stated that the time period is
just putting Qwest’s competition on notice of their marketing plan. Ms. Zerga and Ms. Levin agreed to work on the
language for the contract filing section. Senator Case agreed that you don’t
want to require filing of every contract.
With respect to
determining reasonableness Senator Scott asked to have the
Mr. Robish stated
that he will propose some amendments to the LSO staff.
Senator Mockler
asked that the bill be out on the web at least a month before the meeting.
Rep. McOmie asked
about the need for the commission to have more authority. The committee did not deal with that.
Secretary of State,
Joe Meyer, let the committee know that there is progress on updating the
A bill dealing with
limited liability limited partnerships is currently under review in the
secretary of state’s office and needs to be put back to the next meeting.
The bill allows for
filing using electronic signatures throughout the business entity
statutes. (Appendix 7). Chairman Meier asked how the Secretary of
State's office will enforce this.
Secretary Meyer stated that they don’t really check the signatures now. The only time it comes up is in
litigation. Chairman Illoway asked what
a conformed copy was: it is a Xerox copy of an original signature. Jeannie Sawyer walked the committee through
the bill.
The bill passed
unanimously (Hanes, Johnson, Scott, Barnard excused).
This bill provides a
mechanism for limited partnerships and registered limited partnerships to
reinstate after administrative dissolution.
(Appendix 8). It also gives the
Secretary of State authority to promulgate rules to deal with the
reinstatement.
Bob Bailey, First
American Title, testified that this is much needed legislation for dealing with
land title administration. The
question arose whether a company that is revoked can do business during that
two-year period. Secretary Meyer
suggested putting in language that covers titles transferred during that
time. Rep. McOmie suggested that they
are opening up a can of worms. Mr.
Bailey says the situation usually arises where they can solve the problem by
reinstating then signing the title again.
Secretary Meyer
asked to have the bill laid back and brought back so that it will address what
other states do with title problems.
Chairman Illoway laid it back until the problem is solved. Chairman Meier suggested that it could not be
resolved unless the business entity proves they got rid of their property.
Secretary Meyer also
brought up the issue of the entity committing crimes. Doug McLaughlin brought up some concerns
about situations where the principal has died.
Carol Ganella
presented this bill. (Appendix 9). She worked on the language with several other
attorneys, who all agree on the conceptual issues. The first provision is a clarification of
conflict of laws. The second provision
is for creation of series LLC’s. This
allows an umbrella LLC to create smaller LLC’s to deal with specific
areas. Each series would be covered by
its own limited liability. This language
was crafted on
Secretary Meyer
testified that if the committee does this it is favoring LLC’s over
corporations. He questioned whether they
should they make the series concept available to every other business
entity. He is also concerned about the
ability to transfer assets between series without any notice.
Rep. Gingery stated
that he is worried about nefarious conduct.
He thinks series LLCs move us from clarity to secrecy and create more
opportunity for criminal elements to move into the state. Rep. Gingery wants to get more information
from more attorneys about the potential problems. Ms. Ganella hasn’t seen the nefarious conduct
because her clients are all law-abiding citizens. She is just trying to assist them with
keeping their costs down and keeping the books less complicated. Doug McLaughlin testified that individuals
who choose to violate the law are going to do so even under the current statutes. It's not the entity that is creating the
problems, it’s the individuals themselves.
The state should make criminal penalties for the conduct, not the tool
they choose to use. Rep. Gingery stated
that we don’t need to create more tools for the criminal element.
Rep. Gingery asked
about governing law statute. He wanted
to know if this will affect the company's ability to contract in other
states. And is it forcing the
Chairman Meier
stated that he doesn’t fear the series language like some of the others and
would like to see the committee go forth with this concept. The Secretary of State reiterated that this
bill has not been fully reviewed by his office and he needs more time to look
through it and put in the protections that are necessary. Chairman Illoway asked that Ms. Ganella work
with the SOS and staff to bring them a bill that is ready to be considered. The Secretary of State will put together a
white paper that explains in lay words what the bill does and what the concerns
are with each change. Senator Mockler
asked for a diagram of how this will work.
Rep. Gingery asked
for a bill that would help clean up the laws to make
Dr. Pat Arp and
Peggy Nightswonger of the Secretary of State's office testified.
Secretary Meyer
stated that 527 non-profits are an issue on the rise. The restrictions in the McCain – Fiengold
election laws do not apply to 527’s.
527’s are issue oriented non-profit groups that spend money attacking
individual candidates.
Chairman Illoway
indicated that although we don’t have a problem with this right now, we want to
stay proactive.
There was a recent
Supreme Court case that discussed the restrictions on campaign finances. (Appendix 10). Secretary Meyer stated that the decision does
not appear to apply to
The Secretary of
State has issued 8 directives regarding electronic elections. (Appendix 11). The directives will get us through the
election but they need to update the election code to allow for electronic
voting. The directives deal with
situations when ballots do not arrive on time.
They deal with aspects of current law that are not compatible with using
electronically scanned ballots including color ballots, marking of squares and
margins. They provide for a temporary
system of daily updated voter registration lists and unofficial tabulation
updates. Finally, they set the rules for
when voting machines may be turned on again (polls re-opened) after being
turned off (polls closed).
Chairman Illoway
asked how they update the polls with death records. If an individual dies they receive the information
about a month to two months after that happens.
The counties do get the information quicker by scanning the
obituaries. There will now be daily
matches electronically with the Department of Health vital records. However, vital records are still delayed from
the actual death.
Dr. Arp gave an
update on electronic elections. Things
are going well for this primary and general election. They are implementing the Help America Vote
Act. There was a great deal of
discussion regarding the safety and reliability of the electronic voting and
tabulations systems. This will be the
first year where this is required throughout the country. The companies who manufacture these machines
will have trained people available in each county to help with potential
problems.
Senator Mockler
asked whether yard signs need to say "paid for by…". The statutes do not require it and no one
knows why. The practicality is that it
would be illegible and may cause car accidents as people drive by.
The committee
recessed until July 14, 2006.
The meeting was
called to order at 8:00am.
Joe Evans, County
Commissioners Association, testified regarding subdivisions. He introduced a map and other materials that
show the number of subdivisions in
Mr. Evans explained
the results of a county land use study they did. (Appendix 13). Issues that they found from the survey are
that there are currently 16 counties that have zoning, most of which are
countywide regulations. This is
important because, other than zoning, there is nothing a county can do about
subdivisions of over 35 acres.
About half the
counties require an affidavit be filed for the family exemption. Others don’t because the county attorneys are
telling them they don’t have the authority to ask for it.
The county
commissioners association likes the two proposed bills but they are asking for
amendments that would address the questions some counties are seeing. They have a few other issues they would like
to see addressed but they will come back at a later date so as not to
complicate these two bills.
Mark Kot,
The first requested
amendment would be to allow counties to charge a fee that is not set, but does
not exceed the documented actual cost to the office. Mr. Kot agreed to provide the committee with
something showing the costs that they have incurred in reviewing and inspecting
subdivision applications. Senator Scott
asked if they could set a high end for the fee based on the information he
provides. Mr. Kot agreed that would be
acceptable. Rep. Martin sees a problem
using only
The second request
is to include another exemption for unmanned communication facilities, metering
stations, etc.
The last amendment
would be to insert some clear authority for the counties to demand
documentation for the exemptions.
Shawn Taylor, REA
association, testified that they would like to see some kind of language that
would provide buyer beware language to purchasers. Chairman Illoway doesn’t think it’s the
legislature's responsibility to ensure that people do what they should know to
do anyway. Rep. Gingery reminded the
committee that they had this discussion before and those requirements are
already in the statute.
Doug Cooper, local
rancher, testified that he likes the bills and he thinks it goes a long way to
helping them. He thinks the
identification language in W.S. 18-5-306(a)(xii) should include current mineral
exploration. He also thinks there should
be language showing pipelines, etc.
Senator Scott
expressed concern about identification of all the owners of the mineral estate
because there are situations where it can be difficult to track down all the
mineral owners.
Bruce Hinchey and
Margo Sabec, Petroleum Association of Wyoming, provided a white paper on the
need for this bill. (Appendix 15). He answered Senator Scott's question by
stating that money is put in trust for lost owners when mining occurs.
He suggested that
the two bills be combined.
Mr. Hinchey’s
proposed amendments to 07 LSO 0041.W1 that would clarify the large acre
provisions. He stated that they are
simply to make the statute read better.
He proposed changes
to 07 LSO 0040.W1 that would include language requiring notice to mineral
estate owners when land is subdivided so that they can possibly oppose it. Senator Scott asked questions about the
relationship between the surface estate and the mineral estate. Ms. Sabec explained the relationship between
the two estates.
The proposed
amendment would include language in W.S. 18-5-306 new (d) that states “(d)
The board shall require the applicant to submit a report by a
professional landman or geologist which identifies all owners and lessees of
the mineral estate on or under the land to be subdivided and summarizes
existing mineral leases and past mineral exploration and development on or
under the land. The subdivider shall
provided evidence that all owners and lessees of the minerals on or under the
land to be subdivided have been notified by certified mail of the application
for a subdivision permit and any proposed covenants, restrictions, or other
circumstances that may limit the exploration for or development and production
of the minerals on or under the land.
The board shall require the subdivider to give notice on the plat that
the surface estate of the land to be subdivided is subject to the full and
effective development of the mineral estate.”
Senator Scott
worried that someone could argue that the legislature would be recognizing that
covenants, etc. could preclude or limit exploration. Ms. Sabec agreed that the bolded language
could be stricken. Senator Scott
suggested just striking “proposed covenants, restriction or other” would be
good enough. Ms. Sabec thought he had a
valid point but she sees the benefit of striking all the bold language.
The reason it is
proposed as subsection (d) is to ensure that this provision isn’t exempted by
the board in small lot exemptions.
Senator Scott
brought up again that sometimes you can’t find the mineral owners. Ms.Sabec suggested that it is adequate to
show that you have made due diligence to find them. Chairman Meier wanted to know what the
burden would be on the surface estate owner to get this done. Ms. Sabec argued that it is very easy to do.
Rep. Gingery
expressed concern that this would be a provision that counties couldn’t opt out
of. Rep. Miller doesn’t agree that this
belongs in this bill. The bill deals
with large acre subdivisions. Also,
notices should be somewhere else in the real estate laws. Finally, the owner of the mineral estate
could be the BLM but the real person who needs to be notified is the mineral
lessee. Chairman Meier expressed concern
about finding a geologist or landman in some of the remoter areas of the
state. Rep. Miller pointed out that this
is pretty onerous and time consuming.
They would be opening a huge can of worms and it could give geologists
increased liability.
07 LSO 0041.W1- Subdivision-exemptions.
(Appendix 16)
Rep. McOmie
expressed concern over making this statute optional. He thinks that counties should have to do
it. Chairman Illoway is opposed to
dictating to counties, they should just give them the tools. Rep. McOmie said he is concerned that this is
being reactive, not proactive. Mr. Kot
testified that this is a rising problem throughout the state and they are more
comfortable making it a requirement. Jim
Waller, Big Horn County planner pointed out that this would make it a 100-acre
minimum everywhere. Nick Brazzale noted
that this is not causing a problem in all the counties. For example Sublette County answered the
questionnaire that they like the 35 acre limit because it fits with the
agricultural nature of the county. Rep.
Olsen stated that he wants it as an option.
Bruce Frederick, Washakie County planner, testified. Mark Kot testified that making it a
requirement would provide consistency throughout the state.
Rep. McOmie moved to
make the requirements mandatory. The
motion died for lack of a second.
Chairman Illoway
moved the amendments proposed by the Petroleum Association. The motion passed unanimously.
Senator Mockler
moved the following amendment:
Page 3-lines 4
through 7, delete and insert:
“(d) The subdivider shall provide evidence that
all owners, including lessees and mining claims, of the minerals on or under
the land to be subdivided have been notified by certified mail of the
application for a subdivision permit, unless the subdivider is the owner of
100% of the mineral estate. The board
shall require the subdivider to give notice on the plat that the surface estate
of the land to be subdivided is subject to the full and effective development
of the mineral estate.”
Rep. Gingery thinks
this should be something that the county should decide. Making it a subsection (d) it is no longer an
option to the county. Mr. Kot spoke
against the amendment because it will create a large burden on subdividers. Senator Mockler argued that the mineral
owners should be entitled to know if you are going to effectively abrogate
their rights. Rep. Miller testified that
this won’t be that onerous.
Rep. Gingery moved
to put it back in (xii). He argued that
it should be up to the county. Senator
Scott agreed. Senator Mockler argued that
this is important enough to require on all subdivisions. Concern was raised about how to check that
they are providing accurate information.
Jim Waller, Big Horn County planner, testified that there will be
difficulties sending certified notices to everyone.
Chairman Meier asked
about alternative forms of notification, such as to the Oil & Gas
Commission.
The committee voted
to put the language in (xii). The
amended amendment passed.
Rep. McOmie stated
that the bill that started out as a bill about subdivisions, two hours later
has become a notice bill to mineral rights owners. He stated he will still support the bill.
The bill passed
(Olsen and Miller opposed).
07 LSO 0041.W1-Subdivisions-large acre
parcels. (Appendix 17).
Jan Livingston, Teton
County commissioner testified in support of the bill. They want to see a way of allowing families
to preserve their rights but also want to put a restriction on speculation.
Chairman Illoway
moved numbers 2 and 3 of the amendments proposed by Sweetwater County. The amendments passed.
There was discussion
about the other exemptions that are already in the statutes.
Rep. Olsen moved
Page 2-line 16, delete “five (5)” insert “one (1)”. The intent is to stop the grantors from
speculating, not the grantees. The
motion passed.
Senator Scott says
he continues to have concerns about the bill because it does not deal with the
issue of family trusts, LLC’s, etc. At
some point we need to bring an amendment that would recognize this.
The bill passed unanimously.
Newly appointed
State Fire Marshall, Lannie Applegate, presented a power point presentation
regarding the recommendations for implementing the fire training study done
last year. (Appendix 18). Phil Oakes, State Fire Marshall’s office,
gave the presentation. In June the
National Fire Protection Service did a study and found some weaknesses in
Wyoming. The legislature asked for a
study of training in Wyoming. This is
the fire service’s plan.
Representation on
the committee was a good cross-representation of fire services in Wyoming as
well as local governments.
Recommendation 1 –
Enhanced communication. They now have a
monthly newsletter.
Recommendation 2 –
standard curriculum. They have
implemented this by creating a state library of fire training information and
curriculum, and they have online programs.
The annual maintenance is $22,000.
Recommendation 3 –
Full time instructional staff. They have
done this. The annual maintenance cost
is $60,000. They now have people in all
four districts. They now have no
vacancies.
Recommendation 4 –
Central training records system. These
records are now online for use by all fire agencies and state agencies.
Recommendation 5 –
Development and accreditation of firefighter certification. They have done this by developing a catalogue
online and in print. The certification
system is still voluntary. Six
qualifications are nationally accredited.
The annual maintenance cost is $10,500.
Recommendation 6 –
Grant programs to develop regional fire service. This is being done but they believe a core
facility should be used. The core
facility will be in Riverton. They also
contract with local training facilities to lend materials. If this is implemented there will be
additional costs. Other emergency
response agencies will also be able to use the existing regional facilities at
no cost. The cost to upgrade the
facilities is a total of $2.3 million.
Recommendation 7 –
Facilitate reactivation of the Wyoming Firefighters Association. This has been done.
Recommendation 8 –
Maintain a visible role and host regular meetings with fire service staff in
the field. They have done this.
They are requesting
a one-time expenditure of $2.6 million and an increase in their budget annual
of $260,000.
Chairman Meier asked
if each fire district applies for the money separately or if the department
will do it. Mr. Oakes stated that the
Governor asked that the department not make it a budgetary request of the state
Fire Marshall’s office. The fire service
is an association of fire districts and other local agencies.
Senator Mockler
thought that when the training school moved to Riverton it was agreed that the
privately operated group would maintain it.
The state can’t just give them the money because it is not a state or
local government. If the fire service is
not a state agency they can’t just give money to them. Chairman Illoway said they have to funnel the
money through the state Fire Marshal's office.
Chairman Meier thinks the money should go through the SLIB board. Mr. Oakes said the original money to build
the facility was through the SLIB board but they never got any more money for
upkeep. They want to see the state
maintain the Riverton facility plus give money to each regional training
center. They propose to do this through
contracting with those facilities so they are available for training emergency
personnel. Rep. Mercer asked who owns
the various facilities. Mike Carlson,
Fire Marshall’s Office explained that they are either owned by districts or by
the local governments. Chairman Illoway
thinks the local governments should be paying for them with their own
budgets. Chairman Meier says it is kind
of a statewide system of individual local agencies.
Chairman Illoway
said they could write a letter to the SLIB board recommending that they fund
it. If the Fire Marshall’s Office isn’t
going to administer it and the Governor doesn’t want to put in their budget, he
doesn’t think the legislature should do it.
The problem with SLIB is that there are 50% matches required and these
communities can’t come up with that.
Senator Mockler
stated that they could do it through the SLIB board as a grant program without
a match requirement the same way they did the money for impacted
communities. Senator Scott thinks the
expenditure makes sense but it needs to be part of the budget. The committee should provide that the budget
should be authorized but should come through the normal process. Chairman Illoway agreed that is should go
through this office. Mr. Applegate
committed that they would take that on.
Senator Scott asked
to have LSO staff research whether there is adequate authority within the state
Fire Marshal's office to run this program.
If there isn’t, give them the authority to run it. The committee agreed.
The State Fire
Marshall's office asked the legislature to allow fire services to increase the
mill levy to six mills. Rep. Martin
noted that it is a ministerial act for the county commissioners. The one who determines the mill levy is the
fire district itself. He is
uncomfortable allowing them to increase the levy when it is not put to the vote
of the people. The ones footing the
bill are the mines and they don’t vote on this.
Senator Scott
pointed out that this is a normal problem for all special districts. He thought the committee should draft a bill
that would allow the county commissioners to set the mill levies for all
special districts. Rep. Gingery stated
that there is a case involving a weed and pest district in Albany county where
the Supreme Court said it was not ministerial as long as they didn’t lower the
request to the point that they district becomes dysfunctional. He thought they should make a bill that
allows commissioners to set them if it goes to the vote of the people.
It was pointed out
that under current case law, if the district is elected it is ministerial, if
it's appointed then it's negotiable.
The fire service
would support a bill that would let it be three more mills if there was a vote.
Marion Lewis, Wyo.
Mining Association, testified that he is afraid that if they start down this
road all the other special districts would be asking for this.
Senator Mockler stated
that the legislature has a responsibility to ensure that these special
districts remain functional. Rep. Martin
argued that even with a vote, the vote doesn’t take into account the interests
of the industries, who are not considered a resident of the district. If they do this they also need to ensure that
the county commissioners have the ability to limit it.
Rep. McOmie would
want to see it like the 6th penny tax where the county would have to
approve it even before it goes on the ballot.
Senator Mockler asked for a bill that allows up to five mill with the
last two contingent on voter approval.
It could not be a special election (but that is already in the statutes
she thinks). LSO will do this.
The Fire Service
representatives testified that limitations on issuance of bonds is an issue for
them. W.S. 35-9-204. Fire service asked to increase bond issues
from 2% to up to 4%. Two percent is not
enough to purchase fire equipment. The
committee asked LSO to draft a bill. LSO
will have to look at Art. 16, Sec. 3 to see if there is constitutional problem
with this proposal.
The Fire Service
representatives testified that special district boundary changes are a
problem. There is nothing in the
statutes, which allows these districts to alter their boundaries. Chairman Meier asked if there was a way to
prevent cherry picking. Senator Scott
said you can require county commissioners to approve, or include some other limitation
on the percentage of the area that can be changed, or require approval of a
percentage of the assessed valuation and voters. There was some concern over the bill last
year because they saw potential for damage to the old districts. LSO was tasked to work with the Fire Service
to ensure that the subtraction of some areas does not violate the integrity of
the old district.
07 LSO 0057.W1
–Insurance department rules-sunset repeal.
(Appendix 19).
Ken Vines and
Stephanie McGee testified regarding sunset dates. Mr. Vines provided a handout explaining their
need to remove sunsets on regulations governing disclosure of personal
information and licensing of insurance producers. These are important regulations protecting
consumers and there have been no complaints.
They are standard across the country and mandated by federal law.
The bill passed
unanimously.
The insurance
department gets accredited every five years.
In the early 90’s there was a move to try to move insurance regulation
to the federal level. In response the
NAIC has worked to make the insurance departments come up to a certain level
and provide consistency in all 50 states.
(Appendix 20). Certain laws need
to be updated to maintain the accreditation.
His office does not rubber stamp these changes, but reviews them to
ensure that they are right for Wyoming.
Accreditation is important because it saves review for local
companies. In addition to the updates to
current law, they need to adopt the property and casualty actuarial model
law.
The committee tasked
LSO staff to draft a bill to make the changes requested and bring a bill to the
next meeting.
Ken Vines asked to
come back to the next meeting with a model law on risk-based capital. It is an early warning system to extend
risk-based capital to health insurance and HMOs. The two HMOs in Wyoming have been voluntarily
giving the information but they want to get it into law. The committee tasked LSO to work with the
department to bring a draft bill back to the next meeting. (Appendix 21).
The committee
decided to have the next meeting in Torrington.
Rep. Martin asked to have municipal officers authority on the next
agenda. He asked that LSO bring back the
bills he had from last year for the committee to consider. That would include the euthanasia technicians
bill too. The meeting will be October 17
& 18, 2006 at Eastern Wyoming College.
Chairman Illoway
presented a fact sheet regarding the regulation of carbon dioxide filters on
keg beer. The filters protect consumers
from contamination. The liquor division
tried to write this into their rules and the attorney general said they did not
have authority. The committee asked
Chairman Illoway to bring the bill as a private bill.
There being no
further business, Co-Chairman Pete Illoway adjourned the meeting at 1:45pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Representative Pete
Illoway, Co-Chairman Senator
Curt Meier, Co-Chairman