Approved: February 14, 2006
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Morrison at 1:30 P.M. on February 13, 2006, in Room 526-S of the Capitol.
All members were present.
Committee staff present:
Melissa Calderwood, Kansas Legislative Research Department
Mary Galligan, Kansas Legislative Research Department
Renae Jefferies, Revisor of Statutes’ Office
Gary Deeter, Committee Secretary
Conferees appearing before
the committee:
Elmer Zerr, Zerr Engineering, Colby
Dale Owings, Penco Engineering, Plainville
Scott Heidner, American Council of Engineering Companies of Kansas
Tom Conley, Chief, Radiation and Asbestos Control Section, Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
Others attending:
See attached list (not available on electronic copy).
The minutes for February 9, 2006, were approved.
The Chair opened the hearing on
HB 2715.
Elmer Zerr, Zerr Engineering, Colby, spoke as a proponent.
(Attachment 1) He noted that earlier legislation (SB 396)
raised the fee for inspecting industrial portable gauges from $300 to $800, the
fee being assessed per entity or company, not per unit. He stated that the fee
is inequitable to small companies who own one unit when larger companies, owning
numerous units, pay the same fee. He commented that the bill will correct the
disparity between large companies and smaller ones.
Dale Owings, Penco Engineering, Plainville, testified in favor of the bill. (Attachment
2) He said his firm operates in 18 counties in northwest Kansas, working
on small projects, mostly bridge repair. He explained that his contracts do not
permit including gauge inspection as an expense, requiring his firm to absorb
the cost of inspections. He likewise recommended the principle of structuring
the fee per unit than per entity.
Scott Heidner, representing the American Council of Engineering Companies of
Kansas, spoke as a proponent. (Attachment
3) He said the 70 member firms support the per-unit fee schedule, adding
that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) must be properly
compensated for inspections, especially since inspections by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) would triple the fees. He offered to work with KDHE
to find an acceptable resolution that would be fair to the agency as well as to
smaller and larger firms.
Mike Butler, Schwab-Eaton Civil Engineers, Manhattan, provided written testimony
as a proponent. (Attachment
4)
Tom Conley, Chief, Radiation and Asbestos Control Section, Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, (KDHE) said the agency was not opposed to the bill if
the changes could be made revenue-neutral, adding that without KDHE inspections,
the federal government will assess much higher fees for their inspections. (Attachment
5) He suggested $200 per unit to meet the agency’s revenue requirements.
Conferees responded to members’ questions: Mr. Heidner said 17 firms (out of
70) that he represents would pay more, the remainder less, noting that a
$200-per-unit increase would be an exorbitant increase for larger firms. Mr.
Conley replied that the inspection process includes not only assessing the unit,
but the procedures of use as well. He suggested alternatives, such as a base
charge plus a per-unit fee, or perhaps a lower and higher fee for under or over
5 units. Mr. Heidner said the NRC assesses a per-company fee of $2500. He also
suggested modifications similar to Mr. Conley’s recommendation.
Susan Kang, Policy Director, KHDE, said the agency was willing to work with the
engineers to arrive an equitable resolution. The Chair received a commitment
that Mr. Heidner, Ms. Kang, and Mr. Conley would work out a satisfactory
solution to bring back to the committee.
A fiscal note was provided for the committee. (Attachment
6)
The hearing was closed.
Staff Mary Galligan provided a briefing on
HB 2829, a bill to regulate clinics and facilities where
office-based surgeries are performed. She said the bill enacts new law
requiring the Secretary of KDHE to develop rules and regulations regarding these
clinics, noting that the bill is similar to
HB 2503 that passed the legislature last year, except that the
latter addressed only a sub-set—abortion clinics. This bill would cover any
facility other than a licensed medical facility where office-based surgeries are
performed; the Secretary is enjoined to give consideration to the Kansas Medical
Society standards of care for clinics adopted by the Kansas Board of Healing
Arts, standards which the Board made permanent on February 11, 2006. She stated
that the bill sets forth enforcement procedures according to the Kansas
Administrative Procedures Act and establishes fines for noncompliance. The
Secretary is required to conduct a timely inspection upon receiving a complaint
and submit the cost to the Board of Healing Arts for reimbursement; the Board of
Healing Arts likewise must forward complaints to the Secretary, who must share
pertinent information with the Board of Healing Art and the Board of Nursing.
Representative Bethell requested the committee consider for passage
HB 2649, commenting that he had worked with the Kansas Medical
Society, the Kansas Association of Osteopathic Medicine, and other interested
parties to amend the bill to eliminate opposition to it. Members discussed the
best way to adopt the bill and its amendments. (Attachment
7 reflects the amendments.) Jerry Slaughter, Executive Director, Kansas
Medical Society, commented that one section was changed to reflect legislative
intent rather than appearing to create a legal duty or right; another made the
enforcement section consistent with the Healing Arts Act; another removed
language that might be construed as assisted suicide. No action was taken on
the bill.
The Chair opened discussion of
HB 2342 – allowing determination and pronouncement of death by ARNPs
and RNs in adult care homes and licensed hospice facilities. A motion was
made and seconded to change and to or in line 14; the motion
passed.
Another motion was made and seconded to insert physician assistants where
appropriate in the bill. The motion passed.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend the bill favorably as amended.
Members discussed various issues raised by the bill. One member expressed
concern that the pronouncement of death by an employee might limit rights of
redress for the family of the deceased. A member commented that the bill
establishes in statute what is already common practice and that issues of abuse
of a resident are outside the parameters of the bill.
A motion to change the word employee to acting within the scope of
their duties was, after discussion, withdrawn.
The motion passed.
The Chair adjourned the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
February 14, 2006.