Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/09/2012 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB286 | |
| SB92 | |
| SB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 9, 2012
9:05 a.m.
9:05:14 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:05 a.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
James Armstrong, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze; Angela
Rodell, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury Division, Department
of Revenue; Denise Michels, Mayor, City of Nome; Dana Owen,
Staff, Senator Dennis Egan; David Logan, Legislative Chair,
Alaska Dental Society; Don Habeger, Director, Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Joe Michel,
Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Christine Klein, Chief Operating Officer, Calista
Corporation; Gail Walden, Member, Alaska State Dental
Hygienists' Association, Wasilla; Daisy-May Barrera,
University of Alaska Fairbanks Student, Bethel; Ukallaysaaq
Okleasik, Planning Director, Northwest Arctic Borough,
Kotzebue; Crystal Rogers, University of Alaska Southeast
Student, Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 286 G.O. BONDS FOR PORTS
HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HCS CSSB 92(FIN)
DENTISTS/DENTAL HYGIENISTS/ASSISTANTS
HCS CSSB 92(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with
previously published fiscal impact note: FN3
(CED).
HCS CSSB 130(STA)
ALASKA NATIVE LANGUAGE COUNCIL
HCS CSSB 130(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with
previously published fiscal impact note: FN2
(CED).
HOUSE BILL NO. 286
"An Act providing for and relating to the issuance of
general obligation bonds for the purpose of paying the
cost of municipal port projects; and providing for an
effective date."
9:06:30 AM
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 286, Work Draft 27-GH2769\B (Kirsch,
4/6/12).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
discussed that the CS would issue $453,499,200 in
transportation general obligation (G.O.) bonds across the
state. He remarked that the House and Senate had worked
together to develop a balanced package. Projects included
in the bill were shown in the capital budget for
appropriation authority. He recommended a technical
amendment that would replace the word "reconstruction" with
the word "construction" in relation to a Katlian Bay Road
item (page 3, line 16).
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the change would be substantive
and not technical and that the issue would be addressed in
the amendment process. Mr. Armstrong remarked that
committee members had been in possession of the CS for a
couple of days and he was not aware of any other changes
that needed to occur.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that there had been suggestions
made regarding the appropriate titles and project
descriptions in the CS. He asked for a description of the
bill and the Department of Revenue's (DOR) role in the bond
process.
ANGELA RODELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TREASURY DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained that the bill provided for
the issuance of $453,499,200 in G.O. bonds. The state's
debt was managed by DOR and the issuance would be conducted
out of its office. The debt would be issued piecemeal as
the projects were ready to be funded to ensure that items
were not prefunded prior to being "shovel" ready. The
department believed it was appropriate to issue debt for
the projects that were long-term; the current market
conditions made it very affordable to issue debt and the
issuance would allow the state to use its cash for other
purposes and to pay down its higher cost debt. She relayed
that the projects in the CS were significantly different
than the ones proposed by the governor, but all of the
projects included were appropriate for debt issuance.
9:10:22 AM
Representative Doogan wondered whether all of the projects
proposed by the governor were incorporated into the CS. Mr.
Armstrong replied that the Senate Transportation Committee
had added two projects.
Representative Doogan clarified that he wanted to know
whether all of the governor's original items were included
in the bill. Mr. Armstrong responded that all of the items
were included albeit in smaller amounts.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the size of the bond package.
Mr. Armstrong added that funding for a Ward Cove project
was removed from HB 286 and had been included in the
proposed capital budget.
Representative Gara queried what the public's annual
payment cost would be and how long it would last when the
full bond was issued. Co-Chair Stoltze answered that the
amount was listed in the fiscal note.
Mr. Armstrong referred to the Office of Management and
Budget fiscal note. The total cost would be $36,392,000
beginning in FY 17 for a period of 20 years.
Representative Gara asked for an estimate of annual
payments made resulting from a bond that had passed two
years earlier. He was interested to know how much the bill
would add on to existing future debt. Co-Chair Stoltze was
interested in the amount that had been paid down on debt as
well.
Mr. Armstrong replied that the education bond was
$29,772,000 for a $397,300,000 package that had been
developed two years earlier.
Ms. Rodell added that there was $197 million of the past
authorization that DOR had not issued because the need for
the funds had not surfaced as of yet; the department
expected to issue the amount during FY 13. She relayed that
a refunding had been done in January 2012 that provided
approximately $27 million in all-in savings, which equaled
about $3 million per year.
9:14:00 AM
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to the fiscal note and asked
for an explanation of the difference between the terms
"tax-exempt" and "tax exempt" listed in the bill. Ms.
Rodell replied that tax-exempt meant completely tax exempt.
The non-hyphenated term "tax exempt" referred to tax exempt
subject to the alternative minimum tax, which was a federal
tax code related to the nature of projects. She elaborated
that in the case of private activity projects (most port
projects fell into the category because they were leased to
private industry) tax exempt income on a bond was subject
to the alternative minimum tax if the taxpayer had to pay
an alternative minimum tax.
Co-Chair Thomas discussed that G.O. bond money had been
appropriated for a Cordova bridge a couple of years
earlier; however, the bridge had been washed out and was
closed indefinitely. He would talk with the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) to determine the
appropriate course of action, given that G.O. bonds could
not be reappropriated. He reported that his office would
research the issue and follow up with DOR.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether there were
restrictions on conducting project work before the bond
issuance in February 2013. He assumed that projects
included on the list would be shovel-ready at the time the
bonds were issued.
Mr. Armstrong replied that DOT planned to add some money to
its accelerated capital fund account in order for
preliminary work on some of the projects to begin. He
relayed that the capital budget included $4 million to $5
million and that there was a request to increase it by $3
million.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether the amount would
be included in the capital budget. Mr. Armstrong replied
that funding was in the governor's proposed capital budget
and that he would provide the detailed information to the
committee.
Representative Guttenberg queried the state's total
outstanding bond obligation and its overall maximum bond
issuance level. Ms. Rodell replied that the state's current
debt obligation was approximately $650 million to $660
million. Markets and rating agencies would look to the
state's overall debt including the unfunded pension
liability, and any moral and lease obligation debt. The
amount was well within the limits of the state's ability to
withstand debt; Alaska currently had tremendous financial
reserves, which created flexibility around financing
infrastructure projects.
Representative Doogan asked about the location of
Mertarvik, Alaska (page 2, line 26 of the legislation).
Representative Joule replied that Mertarvik was the new
site chosen for the move from Newtok.
9:18:37 AM
Co-Chair Thomas noted that the bill would come before the
committee again following public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the adoption of
the CS. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 27-
GH2769\B was ADOPTED.
9:19:29 AM
DENISE MICHELS, MAYOR, CITY OF NOME, thanked the committee
for considering Nome's initial request. She requested the
inclusion of an additional $40 million for a total of $50
million. She communicated that the city had been working on
becoming the deep-draft Arctic port for the nation. There
was a 35 percent design showing that the port could get to
minus 35 percent to support all vessels going up for Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) leases; the city's data showed that
Port of Nome numbers had gone up with increased drilling.
She furthered that annual dockings had increased from 30 in
1988 to 304 at present. The city was looking at a
partnership with the state to support the industry, job and
economic development creation, and to ensure that
enforcement existed. She noted the funding tied in with the
Northern Waters Task Force Report, the 2009 Arctic Marine
Shipping Report, and other state planning documents (Road
to Resources and road to Nome).
Representative Gara wondered how people would feel about
dredging in an area where people mined for gold. Ms.
Michels replied that Nome was working with all users to
prevent any user conflict. She relayed that dredging had
increased significantly since 1990; there were 51 permits
in the current year. The state had received $9 million in
revenue on increased lease sales.
CHRISTINE KLEIN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, CALISTA
CORPORATION (via teleconference), thanked the committee for
its time. She pointed out that funding for the Port of
Emmonak had been dropped from the legislation. She shared
that the $16.5 million project was shovel ready. Currently
there was no existing port on the lower Yukon River; there
was a fishery that was very important to the region. She
requested that the project be reinserted into the bond
package.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Mr. Armstrong referenced an earlier question from
Representative Guttenberg and pointed to information on a
Project Acceleration Account on page 84 of the CS.
Representative Gara asked whether the Port of Emmonak was
included in the capital budget. Co-Chair Stoltze did not
know. He would relay the concern to Senator Lyman Hoffman.
Representative Edgmon clarified that the district was
Senator Olson's.
HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
9:25:22 AM
AT EASE
9:31:00 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 92(FIN)
"An Act relating to dental hygienists, dentists,
dental assistants, dental hygiene, and dentistry."
9:31:35 AM
DANA OWEN, STAFF, SENATOR DENNIS EGAN, discussed that the
proposal for the legislation had been brought to the
sponsor by a committee of dentists and dental hygienists.
He explained that the related statutes had not been
reviewed or revised in over 20 years; during that time
there had been significant changes in dentist practices and
regulation. He relayed that Dr. David Logan, former
president of the dental board was present to provide
detail. He furthered that due to the bill's high level of
detail it had been amended in each committee of referral.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for a general overview of the
legislation.
Mr. Owen observed that it was unusual to have two groups
such as dentists and hygienists come together on a single
bill; groups that overlapped in their practice were
frequently at odds over their scope of practice.
Co-Chair Stoltze had detected some tension between the
dentists and hygienists on prior iterations of the
legislation; both groups would have a chance to testify
during the meeting.
DAVID LOGAN, LEGISLATIVE CHAIR, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY,
thanked the sponsor's office for all of its work on the
legislation. He shared that the society had reached out to
the Alaska State Dental Hygienists' Association (ASDHA) in
recognition that the bill affected both groups of
professions. He relayed that a substantial amount of time
had gone into the development of the legislation, given the
numerous necessary changes. He explained that under the
legislation the dental board investigator position would be
increased from part-time to full-time, which would result
in an increase of licensure fees for license holders. The
legislation accomplished multiple items including, the
determination of who was eligible to own a dental practice,
the ability for a practice to transition out following the
death of a practitioner, and significant language cleanup.
9:36:31 AM
Representative Wilson asked what the increase in licensure
fees would be. Mr. Logan responded that the fee increase
would be determined by the Division of Corporations,
Businesses and Professional Licensing (CBPL). He had heard
estimates of a potential $100 increase.
Representative Guttenberg referred to a former constituent
who had been licensed and practiced dentistry in New
Zealand for 10 years; the individual had not been able to
obtain a license to practice in Alaska. He wondered whether
the legislation would address the issue. Mr. Logan
responded that the bill revised the section on
qualifications for licensure and the ability to obtain a
license through a credentialing process based on a
dentist's previous practice and history. He observed that
there were dentists credentialing in frequently from other
countries. He deferred the question to the director of CPBL
for additional detail.
Representative Guttenberg replied that the individual had
been told that he would need to go back to school in order
to obtain a license in the state. He would discuss the
matter with the CBPL director.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the bill altered past
legislation that allowed dental hygienists to travel and
work in rural areas without the supervision of a dentist.
Mr. Logan replied that there was one section clarifying
allowed procedures, but that no substantial change had been
made.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for the specific section in the
legislation. Mr. Logan pointed to Section 13, page 8. He
expounded that the bill would insert the word "licensed" in
front of the words "dental hygienist."
9:39:27 AM
Representative Doogan surmised that the bill would allow
other entities to own dental practices including
municipalities and higher education facilities. Mr. Logan
responded in the affirmative; Section 37.08.367 defined who
could own a dental practice.
Representative Doogan wondered why the ability to own a
dental practice would be expanded to other entities. Mr.
Logan replied that an entity may want to own a facility to
provide care for poor people.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that examples would include
neighborhood health clinics or the Department of
Corrections. Mr. Logan replied in the affirmative.
Representative Doogan believed the provision opened the
door for multiple dentists to take a share in a larger
facility and to expand the number of people licensed in a
particular place.
9:41:23 AM
Mr. Logan replied that there was currently no size
restriction on the number of dentists or hygienists allowed
to work in one practice.
Representative Doogan asked whether the bill would set up a
situation in which a number of dentists could create a
"Crowns R Us" practice. Mr. Logan replied that the bill
would not limit the ability for dentists to open a "Crowns
R Us" practice.
Representative Neuman asked whether the bill strengthened
or weakened hygiene requirements. Mr. Logan responded that
the bill would only clean up any antiquated language
related to dental hygienist requirements. He furthered that
current statute referred to a state exam; however, the exam
had not been conducted for approximately 20 years.
Qualifications remained the same and included graduation
from hygiene school, passing a national written test, and a
regional practical board.
9:43:40 AM
GAIL WALDEN, MEMBER, ALASKA STATE DENTAL HYGIENISTS
ASSOCIATION, WASILLA (via teleconference), supported the
bill. She was on the committee that had worked to review,
update, and condense the Dental Practice Act that was
addressed in the legislation before the committee. She
stated that the bill maintained the current high dental
hygiene standards, licensure, and practice. She added that
the bill updated a significant amount of outdated
information in statute.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed that the process that had gone
into developing the legislation was notably better than in
prior attempts because dentists and hygienists had worked
together.
Representative Neuman pointed to Section 3 related to
dental hygienist qualifications. He asked for verification
that the bill only provided cleanup language and did not
hinder the ability of existing hygienists to practice in
Alaska. Ms. Walden responded that ASDHA felt strongly that
the language would not make changes that would affect
dental hygienists or impact care. She emphasized the
association's support for the wording included in the bill.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the goal of proposed
language in Section 21: "the board may delegate the board's
power to act here and decide matters." Mr. Logan replied
that the mechanism allowed the board to delegate some of
the administrative capacities to the division. The day-to-
day paperwork would be virtually impossible for the
practicing professionals on the board.
9:46:42 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that the
bill would give some of the board's responsibility to the
department. Mr. Logan replied that the board was assigned
certain powers under the central statutes and it was
necessary to have the ability to delegate items to the
division from a practical standpoint; decisions would still
be made by the board.
Ms. Walden thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson asked about current licensure fees
and how much they would increase under the proposed
legislation.
DON HABEGER, DIRECTOR, CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, replied that currently a dental
license fee renewal cost approximately $290 to $300;
renewal for a dental hygienist license was $120. There were
a number of factors included in the determination of a new
fee; a new position would be created to meet the mandate of
the legislation. There was currently a part-time dental
investigator; the work would be shifted and other
professions would pick up the 30 percent to 50 percent
cost. Professionals would not pick up the entire cost; on
the high-end the increase would be approximately $80 on top
of the current price. He did not believe the analysis would
show the high-end increase because the board had a $100,000
roll-forward that may be used. A discussion and decision on
the fees would take place with the board and once
determined the detail would be set in regulation.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the increase would be
proportionately raised between the dentist and dental
hygienist licensees. Mr. Habeger answered that CBPL was
required to have the discussion with the board prior to
setting the fees; therefore, he did not know whether the
increase would be directly proportional or equal.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered who was sitting on the board
in order to determine how the fees would be allocated
between the two groups.
9:51:17 AM
Ms. Walden replied that ASDHA understood that the fees
would be up for discussion. She believed the board would
factor in that there were more investigations related to
dentistry than dental hygiene.
Representative Doogan noted that the initial fiscal note of
$113,000 was reduced to $107,000 [in subsequent fiscal
years]. He wondered whether the remainder represented the
leftover cost after the fee increase. He asked whether the
fiscal note would be zeroed out. Mr. Habeger responded that
the initial $113,000 recognized necessary startup costs for
items such as office equipment; because those items would
not be needed in subsequent years the cost had been reduced
[after FY 13].
Representative Doogan asked whether the note should be zero
[after FY 13]. Mr. Habeger replied that the startup costs
would be reduced to zero in subsequent years.
Representative Doogan pointed to the annual $107,000 cost
that extended out beyond the first year. Mr. Habeger
replied that certain costs would continue and were factored
into the $107,000 including, the investigator salary,
transportation costs of approximately $2,000 per year,
contractual costs such as the involvement of the Department
of Law if an investigation went to a hearing, and other.
Representative Doogan surmised that the additional cost was
related to law enforcement and not salary. Mr. Habeger
replied in the affirmative. He specified that costs
included in the $107,000 subsequent to FY 13 would be for
the investigator, and support services (including telephone
and internet).
Representative Doogan thought that the fiscal increase
resulting from the legislation would be covered by dentists
and dental hygienists; he no longer believed that was the
case.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Representative Doogan's initial
understanding was correct.
9:55:29 AM
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development Fiscal Note 3.
She explained that for personnel services, costs would be
funded by receipts received by professionals. The fiscal
note included funds for travel, services, and commodities.
Commodities began at $6,000 in FY 13 and were reduced to
$1,000 from FY 14 to FY 18. The department was requesting
$112,900 in FY 13 from receipts collected from dental and
dental hygiene licensing; the figure was reduced to
$107,000 annually from FY 14 through FY 18. There was one
full-time position that would be hired in perpetuity to be
supported by licensing fees.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (by request of
the sponsor):
Page 15, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 30. AS 08.36.234 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) A dentist applying for licensure without
examination shall be interviewed in person by the
board or by a member of the board before a license is
issued. The interview must be recorded. If the
application is denied on the basis of the interview,
the denial shall be stated in writing, with the
reasons for it, and the record shall be preserved."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair Thomas OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Owen explained that the amendment addressed an item
that had been overlooked earlier in the bill process. He
asked Dr. Logan to explain the intent of the amendment.
Mr. Logan communicated that dentists and hygienists could
obtain a license by taking an exam at one of the regional
boards or hygienists could use their past five years of
practice history as a basis. He furthered that the board
felt that there were not really any meaningful questions to
ask during the hygienist licensure process; similarly there
was not much to ask dentists coming out of school because
they had no practice experience or track record. He
detailed that the amendment would make it mandatory for
dentists who were credentialing into the state to interview
with the board because they did have a past track history.
Representative Costello asked about the decision to include
the language "or by a member of the board." She believed
that the responsibility for the people applying for
licensure in the state should be taken on by the entire
board. Mr. Logan replied that the decision had been made by
Legislative Legal Services with the goal of giving the
board flexibility. He was agreeable to the change that
would include the board in its entirety.
Representative Costello MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1 on line
5 to delete "or by a member of the board."
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion. He asked
whether a decision by one member of the board would have to
be ratified by the entire board. Mr. Logan replied that
each application for credentialing was ratified by the
majority of the board.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that
Amendment 1 would allow the examination of a dentist
credentialing into the state to be conducted by a single
board member and the change under the amendment to
Amendment 1 would require the examination to be conducted
by the entire board. Mr. Logan responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Gara agreed that all of the board members
should have the opportunity to ask questions during an
examination of a dentist credentialing into the state. He
asked for verification that his understanding was the
intention of the amendment to Amendment 1.
Representative Costello replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that there may be occasions when
the board was not able to get together for a couple of
months, which could delay an interview. He did not want to
cripple the board's ability to conduct interviews.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered how the change would impact
a dentist who moved to an isolated location for service;
the person may be required to travel to a board meeting.
She asked how often the board met. Mr. Logan replied that
the board met quarterly. He relayed that jurisprudence
examinations occurred at board meetings; therefore,
interviewees would be required to attend a meeting for
their interview.
10:02:52 AM
Representative Joule wondered whether the amendment to
Amendment 1 would require all members of the board to be
present at the board meeting to conduct an interview. Mr.
Owen replied that the quorum to do business would be
sufficient.
10:04:55 AM
RECESSED
2:21:11 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze indicated that an amendment to Amendment 1
had been discussed earlier in the morning. He asked if
there were any amendments to Amendment 1.
Representative Edgmon asked whether the earlier
contemplated amendment was no longer part of Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Stoltze indicated there were no amendments to
Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Thomas WITHDREW objection. There being NO further
OBJECTION Amendment 1 was adopted.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report HCS CSSB 92(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 92(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published fiscal
impact note: FN3 (CED).
2:23:45 PM
AT EASE
2:26:40 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 130(STA)
"An Act establishing the Alaska Native Language
Preservation and Advisory Council and relating to
the preservation, restoration, and revitalization
of Alaska Native languages."
Co-Chair Stoltze turned over the gavel to Vice-chair
Fairclough.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute (CS) for CSSB 130(FIN) Work Draft 27-LS0779\R,
(Mischel, 4/9/12) as a working document.
Representative Doogan OBJECTED for discussion.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
communicated that the only change included in the CS was
the addition of Section (f) on page 2, line 26, that read
"the department shall provide staff as needed to support
the council; the staff must demonstrate competency in an
Alaska Native language."
Representative Doogan WITHDREW his objection. There being
NO further OBJECTION, the CS was ADOPTED.
Vice-chair Fairclough read the bill title for the
committee. She OPENED public testimony.
DAISY-MAY BARRERA, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS STUDENT,
BETHEL (via teleconference), provided opening testimony in
her native Yupik language. She voiced her support for the
bill. She believed the bill was very important for future
generations. She recommended the appointment of an elder to
the council; elders were viewed as the foundation and
backbone of their cultural ideas and traditions. The elder
would serve as a guide and mentor in the establishment of a
very important program. Additionally, she advised the
appointment of a young person to serve on the council as a
role model for Alaskan youths. She believed the appointment
would send a powerful message that indigenous languages
were part of Alaska's heritage and needed to be protected.
She believed that the involvement of multiple parties would
help to rebuild relationships and to repair differing
worlds. The leadership of the legislature joining with the
12 regions would develop the healthiest approach to
identify the need of each language to be protected for the
future. She closed her testimony in Yupik and thanked the
committee for its time.
UKALLAYSAAQ OKLEASIK, PLANNING DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST ARCTIC
BOROUGH, KOTZEBUE (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. The borough supported the Alaska
Native Language Advisory Council and believed it was long
overdue. He encouraged the passage of the bill in order to
preserve and advance the state's proud cultural heritage.
Linguists around the world considered Alaska Native
languages to be endangered. He stated that the
disappearance of the languages had huge social implications
that included depression, self-destructive behaviors, and
community shame. The council would be a positive step
towards putting healthy communities forward. Within the
Northwest Arctic region the Inupaiq language was in serious
decline. Studies indicated that only 18 percent of the
population could understand the language and only 14
percent could speak it fluently. He stressed that immediate
action was needed in order to strengthen the languages.
Borough resolutions had been passed recognizing the
importance of the native language; the language could
increase cultural heritage, support sustainable
communities, and encourage collaboration among generations.
He reiterated the borough's support of the bill.
CRYSTAL ROGERS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST STUDENT,
JUNEAU (via teleconference), offered a younger generation
perspective. She began her testimony in her native
language. She highlighted that there were more young people
studying their native languages than may be realized. She
stated that there were many youths committed to learning
their native languages and that help was needed from the
legislature and the governor. She supported the passage of
the bill and thanked the committee for its time.
2:39:22 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson reviewed the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development fiscal note. The request
was $240,200 for FY 13 and $216,200 for outlying years from
FY 14 through FY 18. Funding would pay for two new full-
time positions.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there were any
amendments. Vice-chair Fairclough replied that an amendment
by Co-Chair Thomas had been rolled into the CS.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that there was
only one fiscal note. Vice-chair Fairclough answered in the
affirmative.
2:41:03 PM
Representative Doogan expressed strong support for the
bill.
Representative Joule MOVED to report HCS for CSSB 130(FIN)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 130(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2 (CED).
ADJOURNMENT
2:46:01 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.