Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/16/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB28 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 16, 2011
1:34 p.m.
1:34:49 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Kaci Schroeder Hotch, Staff, Representative Bill Thomas;
Don Habeger, Director, Division of Corporations, Business
and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; James Armstrong, Staff,
Representative Bill Stoltze.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mark San Souci, NW Regional Liaison, Department of Defense;
Mark Romick, Director of Planning and Program Development,
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Revenue;
Stacy Schubert, Director of Governmental Relations and
Public Affairs, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation,
Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY
HB 28 TEMP LICENSES FOR PROFESSIONALS
CSHB 28 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with previously
published zero note: FN1 DCED.
HB 65 SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEV. FUND GRANTS
HB 65 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero impact note by
the Department of Revenue.
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to temporary licenses for certain
nonresident professionals."
1:35:31 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough moved the workdraft CSHB 28 (FIN) 27-
LS0192\S dated February 15, 2011.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
KACI SCHROEDER HOTCH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS,
discussed that HB 28 focused on improving the lives of
Alaska's military members. Families of military members
were largely impacted by frequent deployments, long periods
of single parenthood, and relocation. She explained that
14.5 percent of military spouses crossed the state line
annually, which made them one of the most mobile
populations in the nation. Only 1.1 percent of civilian
spouses crossed the state line on an annual basis. Military
spouses often moved every two to four years. The readiness
of Alaska's armed forces was directly impacted because the
ability for a spouse to maintain employment often factored
into a member's decision to remain in the military.
Military spouses were less likely to be employed and tended
to earn less than their civilian counterparts. Similar to
their civilian counterparts, military spouses depended on
two incomes and hoped to achieve aspirations of their own.
The legislation would assist spouses in their transition
into the State of Alaska.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for a history and description of the
changes in the workdraft. Ms. Schroeder Hotch communicated
that most of the changes in the workdraft were at the
request of the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED). She discussed that whenever
the word "department" appeared in the legislation, the
language had been amended to read "department or
appropriate board." She explained that depending on the
circumstance, the department or a board was responsible for
regulation. She pointed out that the word "courtesy" was
inserted directly following any occurrence of the word
"temporary." The workdraft also removed marine pilots from
the exemption list on Page 3. She explained that tight
regulations alleviated the department's initial concerns
regarding its ability to comply with the bill.
Representative Wilson had been told that the legislation
was redundant by several callers. She wondered what
specific action the bill implemented that was not already
in place. Ms. Schroeder Hotch clarified that the bill was
not a criticism of existing law. She discussed that the
bill would put into statute what was currently done under
regulation. The bill included a section for the special
consideration of military spouses. Language to expedite the
issuance of a license was inserted on Page two and was the
primary change to the statute. It was very difficult for a
military spouse to find employment when they only lived in
Alaska for two years and had to wait six months to obtain a
license.
1:40:18 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Guttenberg had also heard from a caller that
the bill would not do anything new. He saw that the
legislation shortened the temporary license to 180 days. He
wondered whether boards and commissions were capable of
taking action in the shortened timeframe in the event of a
large influx in military families.
Ms. Schroeder Hotch believed that DCCED did have the
ability to act within the new timeframe. She explained that
although some boards only met a couple of times per year,
there were ways for the boards to vote by email or by mail.
DON HABEGER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, discussed that the
department was already familiar with each of the six
different tasks included in the bill. He did not believe
the legislation would have a significant impact on the
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing (CBPL). The only new process for the division was
related to the expedited licensing for military spouses. He
indicated that the department's zero impact fiscal note
reflected its belief that CBPL could easily absorb the
work. The ability to vote by mail and other methodologies
would enable boards that met less frequently to take action
on applications.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Mr. Habeger if he had any objections
to the deletion of Section E on Page 3.
Mr. Habeger replied that the section did not pertain to
CBPL.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered whether the legislation impacted
the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission's licensing
of educators.
Ms. Schroeder Hotch replied that the bill did not affect
teachers. She explained that a similar statute for teachers
existed and was working well.
1:43:59 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze opened public testimony.
MARK SAN SOUCI, NW REGIONAL LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
(via teleconference), stated that taking care of military
spouses was the number one priority of the defense state
liaison office. The temporary license would enable spouses
to begin work immediately and would give them up to six
months to fulfill any requirements imposed by the state. He
discussed that Florida had passed similar legislation the
prior year and that HB 28 would place Alaska on the cutting
edge of the issue. He expressed appreciation for Co-Chair
Thomas's sponsorship and for the committee's consideration
of the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Mr. Habeger discussed the zero impact Fiscal Note 1. The
department believed that the tasks under the legislation
were already occurring in one form or another and would
only require a slight variation or adjustment. He discussed
that there were three existing programs that had a military
exemption by regulation. The department believed it could
absorb the work relatively easily.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked DCEED for its cooperation. He
appreciated the department's willingness to absorb the
functions through its normal activity.
Representative Neuman wondered how the list of professions
covered under the bill had been compiled.
Ms. Schroeder Hotch responded that the list included all of
the professions that were regulated by CBPL. She believed
that marine pilots would be included with the adoption of
the CS. She relayed that teachers were also in high demand
and were covered under a different statute.
1:48:09 PM
Representative Guttenberg believed the legislation was
positive. He wondered whether different jurisdictions had
aligned definitions related to the terms "unresolved
complaint, review or procedure," listed on Page 2, Line 13,
Sections 4 and 5. He asked whether an appeal process
existed for people who objected to a ruling.
Mr. Habeger responded that the bill pertained to just one
component of the extensive central licensing statute. The
division believed that a number of prohibitions or
authorities existed in order to verify the accuracy of the
credentialing commitment. There was an investigative unit
that could determine whether there was a mark against a
person in another jurisdiction. A board or the department
could then provide further review to determine whether
something was substantial enough to warrant probationary
modifications or the refusal of a license. The department
believed it could handle these occurrences.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was a way to
go from provisional to permanent licensing. Mr. Habeger
answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 28 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 28 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published zero
note: FN1 DCED.
1:51:53 PM
AT EASE
1:55:10 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act making regional Native housing authorities
eligible to receive grants through the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation from the senior citizens housing
development fund."
1:56:05 PM
Representative Edgmon, Sponsor, discussed that HB 65 would
provide regional housing authorities with easier access to
the Senior Citizens Housing Development Fund within the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). To ensure their
eligibility for fund access, approximately half of the 14
housing authorities throughout the state had created
501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations. Under the
legislation, the remaining housing authorities would be
listed in Alaska Statute Title 18 and would have easier
access to the grant fund. The fund amount in the FY 12
budget was $4 million to $5 million and in past years the
fund contained $4 million to $6 million. The bill would
allow housing authorities to partner with other funding
agencies including the Denali Commission, HUD [U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development], USDA [United
States Department of Agriculture], AHFC, regional housing
authorities, and the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self Determination Act (NAHASDA). He relayed that the
housing authorities worked well with seniors and were
skilled at placing them in housing units throughout the
state. He communicated that the bill had a zero impact
fiscal note and was supported by the Alaska Commission on
Aging, the American Association of Retired Persons, AHFC,
and the regional housing authorities.
Representative Neuman wondered how familiar Representative
Edgmon was with the Senior Access Program.
Representative Edgmon responded that he was peripherally
familiar with the program and deferred the question to
AHFC.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that they would hold the
question until a representative from the corporation was
available via teleconference.
Representative Gara expressed his support for the
legislation. He wondered whether expanding the limited pool
of money to a broader spectrum of recipients meant that
less money would be available for those who currently
relied on the funds.
Representative Edgmon responded that the bill had unanimous
support and was providing a partnership rather than a
competitor to existing senior housing builders. Housing
authorities would be more instrumental players in low
income senior housing throughout the state. By the nature
of the business housing authorities had access to some
federal funds that other builders may not have.
Co-Chair Stoltze opened public testimony and asked if AHFC
supported the bill.
MARK ROMICK, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT,
ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(via teleconference), replied in the affirmative.
STACY SCHUBERT, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (via teleconference), also stated the
agency's support of the legislation.
Representative Neuman asked for an explanation of the
Senior Access Program. Mr. Romick responded that Planning
and Program Development was the administrator of the Senior
Access Program. He was happy to answer specific questions
about the program.
Representative Neuman wondered how many people applied to
the program and how it was funded. Mr. Romick explained
that the Senior Access Program was a component of the
Senior Housing Development Fund. A portion of the total
fund was set aside for the program on an annual basis. The
program was designed to provide accessibility modifications
for seniors to help them remain in their homes for longer
periods of time. The funding was made available through a
competitive process that was operated by three grantees
throughout the state. The program served 100 to 150 seniors
per year depending on the required home modifications. The
modifications varied from outdoor ramp installations to
indoor chairlift installations.
2:05:08 PM
Representative Neuman appreciated the detailed response and
agreed that it was important to help seniors remain in
their homes. He wondered whether the Senior Access Program
would be able to obtain funding directly through the
regional native housing authorities.
Mr. Romick replied that the legislation would allow housing
authorities to apply to AHFC for funds to implement
regional Senior Access Programs. There were currently no
housing authorities involved in the program. He did not
know whether the lack of involvement was due to the
501(c)(3) requirement or to the availability of other
funding resources for accessibility modifications.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether HB 65 addressed
Native housing authority accessibility for the entire
Senior Citizen Housing Development Fund.
Representative Edgmon responded that although the regional
housing authorities in statute were called "Native housing
authorities," their benefits targeted low-income residents
and were not ethnic specific.
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified that the Greater
Opportunities for Affordable Living, Senior Access Program,
and Pre-development Grants, all qualified for funds. She
referred to a memorandum from Representative Edgmon, titled
"Examples of 501(c)3 Nonprofits that have Received SCHDF
Grants" (copy on file) and listed the following examples:
· Chugach Colony Estates - Grantee: Palmer Senior Center
Citizens' Center, Inc.
· Meadow Lakes - Grantee: Meadow Lakes Community Council
· Togiak Senior Housing - Grantee: Bristol Bay Housing
Development Corporation
Representative Guttenberg discussed the Aleutians, Cook
Inlet, Kodiak, Bristol Bay, and the Interior Regional
Housing Authority. He questioned whether the Interior
region encompassed the Native community of Cantwell. He
wondered whether the legislation would leave any region of
the state uncovered.
Representative Edgmon believed the state was fully covered.
Mr. Romick responded that the entire state was covered by
the regional housing authorities.
Representative Doogan referred to a table titled "Examples
of Senior Housing Projects Partly Funded with Senior
Citizens Housing Development Fund (SCHDF) Grants" (copy on
file). He wondered about the origin of the original housing
development funds.
Representative Edgmon believed that it would depend on who
the project builder had been. If the builder had been a
housing authority the funds may have been federal NAHASDA
funds laired with funds from the Denali Commission, USDA,
and HUD. The passage of HB 65 would include the senior
housing grants from AHFC in the list of fund sources as
well.
Representative Doogan ascertained that the amounts listed
in the "SCHDF $'s Available" column (on the left side of
the table) did not represent limits but referred to
available funding from various sources during each fiscal
year.
2:11:15 PM
Mr. Romick asked for clarity on the question.
Representative Doogan wondered how the amounts listed in
the "SCHDF $'s Available" column were determined. Mr.
Romick asked for further clarification.
Representative Doogan referenced the table and wondered how
the $4.4 million (listed in the last cell of the column
labeled "SCHDF $'s Available") was derived.
Mr. Romick believed that in the past the funds were
primarily corporate. A portion of the current $4.4 million
capital budget request was general fund.
Representative Doogan asked about the meaning of corporate
funds. Mr. Romick clarified that the corporate funds were
AHFC corporate dividends.
Representative Edgmon explained that builders received
funds through a rigorous allocation process. When AHFC
awarded money from the Senior Citizens Housing Development
Fund, it was required to review operating expenses, utility
bills, and to compare proposals with its thermal energy
standards.
Representative Doogan expressed his interest in the details
and did not wish to convey concern about the vetting of the
bill.
Representative Wilson asked whether the entire $4.4 million
was state general fund.
2:15:52 PM
AT EASE
2:16:16 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Edgmon answered in the affirmative.
Representative Costello asked whether future funding was
expected from the Denali Commission.
Mr. Romick answered that AHFC was not expecting any funding
from the Denali Commission in the upcoming fiscal year due
to the current state of its appropriations from Congress.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for clarity on the $4.4 million
funding source. She wondered whether the money would come
from general fund, corporate receipts, or from the
Association of Alaska Housing Authorities.
2:18:07 PM
AT EASE
2:18:16 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Edgmon answered that the money came from
general fund through the capital budget process.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
discussed the replacement of Fiscal Note 1. He explained
that the OMB Component Number had been miscoded on the
original fiscal note. The correct AHFC component number was
110 and it replaced 109.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about sustainability plans related
to future senior housing projects. There had been problems
in his district that he did not want to see replicated in
other areas of the state.
Representative Edgmon responded that the senior population
was the fastest growing segment in Alaska and that
sustainability would be an ongoing question.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that sustainability was an important
issue that faced his community.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report HB 65 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
HB 65 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero impact note by the Department
of Revenue.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:22 PM.