Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/24/2004 01:39 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 24, 2004
1:39 P.M.
TAPE HFC 04 - 66, Side A
TAPE HFC 04 - 66, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:39 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Stoltze
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson; Rick Urion, Director
Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic
Development; Johanna Bales, Auditor, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue; Kathy Hansen, Executive Director,
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance, Juneau; Pat Davidson,
Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mr. Ken Duckett, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters; Mr. Brennon Eagle, Wrangell
SUMMARY
HB 444 An Act relating to direct marketing fisheries
businesses, to the fisheries business tax, and to
liability for payment of taxes and assessments on
the sale or transfer of fishery resources; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 444 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 424 An Act relating to review of regulations under the
Administrative Procedure Act by the Legislative
Affairs Agency; and providing for an effective
date.
CS HB 424(JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with
individual recommendations and two zero fiscal
notes and one indeterminate fiscal note.
HB 464 An Act extending the termination date of the Board
of Certified Real Estate Appraisers
HB 464 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 291 An Act extending the transition period for
activities involving unstamped cigarettes; and
providing for an effective date.
SB 291 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 444
An Act relating to direct marketing fisheries
businesses, to the fisheries business tax, and to
liability for payment of taxes and assessments on the
sale or transfer of fishery resources; and providing
for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON explained that HB 444 is the
companion bill to Senator Stedman's SB 286. The House
Special Committee on Fisheries recommended the legislation.
It intends to encourage value-added processing and direct
marketing for local fishermen. It would lower their tax from
5% to 3% because the current tax structure discriminates
against small boat fishermen who process and market their
own catch directly. These fishermen are taxed at the same
rate as the large floating processors. The bill also
clarifies that the tax is to be charged on the wholesale and
not the retail value of the product.
IAN FISK, STAFF TO SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, explained that the
change in the tax rate from 5% to 3% for direct marketers
would bring the mainly Alaskan vessels into line with the
rate paid by the shore plants. He said that because the
vessels operate out of Alaskan communities where they spend
money to re-supply, it is felt to be the fair rate to tax
small businesses. Importantly, it changes the point of
taxation. Currently the processor pays the fisheries
business tax based on the grounds price, or the price the
fisherman receives on delivering to the dock. The direct
marketer's tax is assessed at the first point of sale
further down the supply chain, and it's often the retail
price or the second wholesale price. He pointed out that
it's a disincentive to add value to the resource.
Mr. Fisk explained that the bill rectifies the due dates for
all taxes that direct market businesses have to pay.
Currently the businesses pay the Fisheries Business Tax
collected no later than April 1 of the following year. A
salmon fisherman is responsible for the enhancement tax for
hatcheries and the salmon marketing assessments that are
currently collected monthly. This bill simplifies their
accounting and tax payment systems.
Mr. Fisk pointed out that the bill applies to vessels of 65
feet and less, and it conforms to one of the licenses from
the Department of Environmental Conservation. The bill
applies only to product caught and sold by the same
fisherman. In terms of fiscal impacts, the bill is revenue
neutral. He concluded that the bill would level the playing
field to enable small businesses to take advantage of direct
markets.
Representative Foster referred to the fiscal note and asked
whether the funding of the Tax Technician II position is $25
thousand. Mr. Fisk affirmed, and said that it will be $25
thousand in the first year because it will be the first year
the tax will be collected. It is not required to be a year-
round position. The position the Department is requesting is
reflected in the $50.2 figure. Representative Foster asked
if it would cost the state $50 thousand a year to save the
fishermen money. Mr. Fisk replied that the Department of
Revenue felt it would be needed to assure compliance with
the new law.
KEN DUCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED SOUTHEAST ALASKA
GILLNETTERS, VIA TELECONFERENCE, expressed strong support
for the bill. He said that the fishermen have experienced a
number of seasons of very low prices and they are working to
survive by attempting to add value to their catch. He felt
that this bill would facilitate that. He referenced their
letter of support (copy on file.)
BRENNON EAGLE, VIA TELECONFERENCE, WRANGELL, explained that
he has direct-marketed salmon, halibut and shrimp for 12
years. He expressed strong support for both parts of the
bill to define the value and lower the tax rate to put
fishermen on an equal footing with shore-based processors.
He expressed that this bill is part of the solution and it
is important to pass it this year to encourage this segment
of the industry.
KATHY HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA
FISHERMEN'S ALLIANCE, JUNEAU, stated that the Salmon
Industry Task Force has worked intensively on this
legislation during the past two years. It is a compromise
bill resulting from work with industry, processors and all
three agencies involved in direct marketing. She said that
it is a tightly woven compromise that had unanimous support
from the Salmon Industry Task Force, and it basically
involves tax parity and a better business environment for
small businesses.
HB 444 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 424
An Act relating to review of regulations under the
Administrative Procedure Act by the Legislative Affairs
Agency; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Williams announced that the sponsor of HB 424 had
agreed to zero out the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to report CS HB 424(JUD) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
CS HB 424(JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with two zero
fiscal notes, one indeterminate fiscal note, and individual
recommendations.
HOUSE BILL NO. 464
An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers.
PAT DAVIDSON, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
DIVISION, explained that the Division has done a review of
the Board and has recommended its extension for a period of
four years, to June 30, 2008. The Division has no
operational recommendations for the Board. She noted that
the licensing for real estate appraisers is found in the
federal regulations in response to the congressional 1989
Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act.
The intent of the Act was twofold: to ensure that federally
related transactions, or mortgages having involvement by
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, would be completed by real
estate appraisers who met minimum qualifications; and
secondly, that the appraisals were conducted in compliance
with uniform standards.
Representative Foster asked how often the Board meets. Ms.
Davidson was unsure, but thought it was twice a year.
Representative Foster asked if the fiscal note reflected the
Board's travel and per diem. Ms. Davidson explained that
the Board's costs include licensing, the licensing examiner,
travel and per diem, and costs related to investigative
functions. Representative Foster asked if appraisers pay a
licensing fee each year. Ms. Davidson answered that fees
for occupational licensing are on a biannual basis.
Representative Fate questioned why the revenue of the Board
dropped from $77 thousand to $18 thousand in the year
spanning 2001-2002. Ms. Davidson replied that it reflects
the biannual licensing. The big influx of revenues during
the year of licensing drops during the year it's carried
forward. The Division has analyzed the Board on the
cumulative 2-year basis when considering if the fee covers
its costs. She referred to page 12 of the report (copy on
file), noting that the schedule shows a cumulative deficit
for the Board. Ms. Davidson pointed out that the renewal
fees have been increased, which is expected to increase
revenues by 45% to sufficiently address the deficit.
RICK URION, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, commented
that the bill extends the Board. He brought up a
housekeeping amendment for the committee's consideration.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that only the Co-Chairs had
copies of the amendment. Co-Chair Williams advised that
amendments must be provided to the committee the day before
the hearing on a bill.
Mr. Urion explained that the bill's sponsor didn't know that
the bill would be heard in the committee today.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. Co-Chair
Williams OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Williams announced that HB 464 would be moved to
the bottom of the calendar.
SENATE BILL NO. 291
An Act extending the transition period for activities
involving unstamped cigarettes; and providing for an
effective date.
SENATOR CON BUNDE explained that the bill addresses the
unfair treatment of tobacco product retailers conducting
legitimate business. The Legislature passed a tobacco tax
and subsequently also required cigarettes to be stamped to
track who was paying the tax, so that legitimate retailers
would not be at a financial disadvantage to the black
market. The original legislation gave the retailers a 90-day
window to dispose of unstamped stock when the legislation
passed. It appeared to be an adequate time period because
manufacturers previously had a policy that any excess stock
could be returned to the manufacturer. The manufacturers
have since ended that practice, putting the burden on the
Alaskan retailers. The bill would extend the deadline from
March 31 to June 30, 2004 for holding unstamped cigarettes.
It is an adequate time period for selling unstamped
cigarettes. Senator Bunde said that if the bill does not
pass, the retailers' unstamped stock would be confiscated.
Representative Fate asked if the sponsor had studied the
turnover rate of cigarette sales, and whether June 30, 2004
is an adequate time period for the depletion of the stock.
Senator Bunde deferred to Ms. Bales.
JOHANNA BALES, AUDITOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
noted that she is also the Program Manager for the Cigarette
and Tobacco Products Tax, and has worked in this tax type
since 1997. She explained that the normal shelf life for
cigarettes is 4-6 months, so given the additional 90 days in
the bill; the retailers would have a full six-month period
since the cigarette stamp legislation was enacted. She
anticipated that some retailers would still have product on
hand, but most retailers indicated that the additional 90-
day period would be sufficient.
Co-Chair Harris asked if this would allow for a $1 a pack
tax increase on stamped cigarettes. Senator Bunde replied
that he doubted it, considering the bill title.
Representative Hawker questioned why the cigarette
manufacturers' liberal return goods policy has changed. Ms.
Bales replied that the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
has driven the return goods policy. In the past, the
manufacturers allowed distributors and retailers to return
product for the retail price on the day it was returned,
regardless of what they paid for it. One manufacturer told
Ms. Bales that the return goods policy was felt to be
"liberal to the point of stupidity." The return goods policy
changed after SB 168 was signed into law, without notice
that this would happen.
Vice-Chair Meyer requested clarification that the tobacco
companies' decision not to take product back is not related
to the passage of the tobacco stamp and relates instead to
the Master Settlement, and asked if it is happening in other
states. Ms. Bales affirmed that it has been instituted
nationwide. She explained that the Division tried to work
with the manufacturers to allow a window to take product
back after the stamp was enacted, but the manufacturers were
concerned that it would set a precedent with other states.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked how much inventory would need to be
sold. Ms. Bales was unsure. She pointed out that the
Division came to a compromise with the manufacturers who
agreed to take product back temporarily, allowing the
Division under statute to give a credit to the distributors
but not to the retailers. The Division believed that the
retailers would be given a full 90-day period, but the
retailers have continued to get unstamped product from the
distributors who used the initial 90-day period to sell off
their unstamped product. The retailers haven't been given a
90-day period like the distributors. The Division has been
given assurances by the distributors that all of their
product will be stamped by the end of March 2004.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked how it is known that 90 days is
enough time for retailers to sell the product. Ms. Bales
admitted that it would not be enough time for all of the
retailers. The Division told the retailers that they could
have "fire sales" and reduce their prices without violating
the minimum pricing laws that were enacted at the same time.
The retailers she had spoken with felt that 90 days would be
adequate.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked if Alaska Bush retailers would be
adversely impacted by selling by July 1 if they had
stockpiled product. Ms. Bales replied that she had received
about 100 calls from across the state indicating that the
90-day extension would be an adequate amount of time.
Senator Bunde clarified that the intent of the bill is to
ensure that the tax laws are enforced, because an open-ended
extension would allow some businesses to circumvent the tax
laws, an unfair advantage.
Vice-Chair Meyer agreed with collecting the tax as soon as
possible, stating that it should be implemented immediately.
He questioned the time period of the extension, and
disagreed with allowing a "fire sale" because it would not
discourage kids from smoking.
Senator Bunde expressed that a "bonfire sale" might be good.
He pointed out that the distributors have moved their
unstamped product, so it involves a lower volume of
cigarettes at the retailer level.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked if the extent of the black market is
known and how much product is bought off the Internet. Ms.
Bales replied that the Division has some preliminary data on
the number of stamps sold over the past few months, which
would yield an increase in cigarette tax revenues if the
current rate holds steady. She said that she has talked to
retailers who have been buying product on the Internet and
violating the tax laws for years, as well as not getting the
stamp affixed.
Representative Chenault commented that he knows a person who
received a bill from the Department of Revenue a year after
buying cigarettes over the Internet. He asked if retailers
are required to turn in names of persons who buy cigarettes
over the Internet. Ms. Bales affirmed. Representative
Chenault voiced that he did not think Internet sales pose a
major problem. Currently he could have cigarettes sent to
him from out of state without paying any tax, and run the
very small risk of prosecution for smuggling. The State
wants to ensure that it gets every dollar for every pack of
cigarettes sold in the state, which he implied is the real
reason the state has chosen to stamp cigarettes.
Senator Bunde clarified that the stamp simply allows
enforcement of the current law. He agreed with
Representative Chenault that the incentive behind raising
the tax is to make smoking more expensive and less
attractive.
Vice-Chair Meyer commented that his concern prompting the
question about the black market related to receiving an
email message saying, "start smoking now and get cheap
cigarettes." He asked if military bases are exempt. Ms.
Bales affirmed. Vice-Chair Meyer asked how it works if a
member of the military lives off base. Ms. Bales explained
that federal law prohibits the State from taxing sales to
the military, but there is a mandate to the military to sell
cigarettes at no less than 90% of the surrounding market.
She had been in stores on base and observed that the prices
are not significantly different than retail prices. Ms.
Bales said that the Department doesn't see a problem with
the military.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked if the stamp applies to chewing
tobacco, snuff and pipe tobacco. Ms. Bales explained that
the stamps are not affixed to other tobacco products because
all cigarette packages are about the same size, while other
products are of varied size. She was not aware of any other
state requiring a stamp on tobacco products other than
cigarettes.
SB 291 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 464
An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers.
Co-Chair Williams noted the previous motion on Amendment #1,
and he asked Mr. Urion to explain the amendment.
RICK URION, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, explained
that the proposed amendment attempts to solve a long-
standing issue with the Department. The amendment was in a
bill that the Governor intended to introduce last session
before other legislation assumed priority. The amendment is
not currently in a bill. Mr. Urion said that the Division
of Occupational Licensing is mandated by law to charge fees
for any profession that it licenses, and the fees cover the
costs of regulation. It has been assumed that fines for
professional violations are included in those fees, but Mr.
Urion pointed out that the law does not allow for this.
Although the collected fines have always been divided among
occupations, the Division has been told that it cannot use
those fines under the current ethics law, and that it may be
in violation of that law.
Mr. Urion continued explaining that the proposed amendment
allows the division to continue its practice, and every
licensed professional in the state supports it. He
explained that disciplinary action involving hearing
officers, investigators and attorney generals is one of the
biggest expenses borne by each profession. He said that it
only seems fair that the professions should also reap the
benefits of the fines arising from those actions. He noted
that the annual average is $66 thousand, and the licensing
of thousands of people reaps a tiny benefit. The amendment
would allow the Division to take the fines it collects from
a profession and add them to the fees charged for the
license.
Amendment #1 reads:
23-LS1706\A.1
Mischel
A M E N D M E N T
OFFERED IN THE HOUSE BY REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS
TO: HB 464
Page 1, line 2, following "Appraisers":
Insert "; and relating to occupational licensing fees
and receipts"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 08.01.065(c) is amended to read:
(c) The [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (f) - (i) OF THIS
SECTION, THE] department shall establish fee levels
under (a) of this section so that the total amount of
fees, together with the fines and penalties collected
for all occupations regulated by a board [AN
OCCUPATION] approximately equals the total actual
[REGULATORY] costs of the board and the department for
all occupations regulated by that board [FOR THE
OCCUPATION]. If the department regulates more than one
occupation under another chapter of this title, the
department shall establish the fee levels so that the
total amount of fees, together with the fines and
penalties collected by the department for all
occupations regulated by the department under that
chapter, approximately equals the total actual costs of
the department for all of the occupations regulated by
the department under that chapter. The department
shall annually review each fee level to determine
whether the [REGULATORY] costs for the relevant
occupations [OF EACH OCCUPATION] are approximately
equal to the fines, penalties, and fee collections
related to those occupations [THAT OCCUPATION]. If the
review indicates that the fines, penalties, and [AN
OCCUPATION'S] fee collections [AND REGULATORY COSTS]
are not approximately equal to the costs for the
relevant occupations, the department shall calculate
fee adjustments and adopt regulations under (a) of this
section to implement the adjustments. In January of
each year, the department shall report on all fee
levels and revisions for the previous year under this
subsection to the office of management and budget. If
a board regulates an occupation or group of occupations
covered by this chapter, the department shall consider
the board's recommendations concerning occupational
[THE OCCUPATION'S] fee levels and [REGULATORY] costs
before revising fee schedules to comply with this
subsection. [IN THIS SUBSECTION, "REGULATORY COSTS"
MEANS COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
REGULATION OF AN OCCUPATION PLUS
(1) ALL EXPENSES OF THE BOARD THAT REGULATES
THE OCCUPATION IF THE BOARD REGULATES ONLY ONE
OCCUPATION;
(2) THE EXPENSES OF A BOARD THAT ARE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OCCUPATION IF THE BOARD REGULATES
MORE THAN ONE OCCUPATION.]
* Sec. 2. AS 08.01.065(f) is amended to read:
(f) [NOTWITHSTANDING (c) OF THIS SECTION, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH FEE LEVELS UNDER (a) OF THIS
SECTION SO THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES COLLECTED BY
THE STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR ARCHITECTS,
ENGINEERS, AND LAND SURVEYORS APPROXIMATELY EQUALS THE
TOTAL REGULATORY COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE BOARD
FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS REGULATED BY THE BOARD.] The
department shall set [THE] fee levels under (a) of this
section [FOR THE ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL OF A CERTIFICATE
OF REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER AS 08.48.211] so that the
fee levels are the same for all occupations regulated
by the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors under AS 08.48 [BOARD].
* Sec. 3. AS 08.01.065(g) is amended to read:
(g) [NOTWITHSTANDING (c) OF THIS SECTION, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH FEE LEVELS UNDER (a) OF THIS
SECTION SO THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES COLLECTED BY
THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS REGULATED UNDER
AS 08.11 APPROXIMATELY EQUALS THE TOTAL REGULATORY
COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS REGULATED
BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER AS 08.11.] The department
shall set [THE] fee levels under (a) of this section
[FOR THE ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL OF LICENSES ISSUED UNDER
AS 08.11] so that the fee levels are the same for all
occupations regulated by the department under AS 08.11.
* Sec. 4. AS 08.01.065(i) is amended to read:
(i) [NOTWITHSTANDING (c) OF THIS SECTION, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH FEE LEVELS UNDER (a) OF THIS
SECTION SO THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES COLLECTED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FOR SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS, HOME INSPECTORS, AND
ASSOCIATE HOME INSPECTORS APPROXIMATELY EQUALS THE
TOTAL REGULATORY COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THOSE
THREE REGISTRATION CATEGORIES.] The department shall
set [THE] fee levels under (a) of this section [FOR THE
ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
ISSUED UNDER AS 08.18] so that the fee levels are the
same for specialty contractors, home inspectors, and
associate home inspectors under AS 08.18 [ALL THREE OF
THESE REGISTRATION CATEGORIES] and so that the fee
level for a home inspector with a joint registration is
not different from the fee level for a home inspector
who does not have a joint registration. In this
subsection, "joint registration" has the meaning given
in AS 08.18.171."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 5"
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 37.05.146(c)(24) is amended to read:
(24) receipts of the Department of Community
and Economic Development under AS 08.01.065 and from
fines and penalties collected in licensing and
disciplinary actions for occupations under AS 08.01.010
[AS 08.01.065(a), (c), AND (f)];
* Sec. 7. AS 08.95.920 is repealed."
Co-Chair Harris questioned how it would differ from the
courts' decision that their collected fines go directly to
the General Fund to be appropriated by the Legislature.
TAPE HFC 04 - 66, Side B
Co-Chair Harris continued, asking for clarification that
when the Division imposed a fine, the fine returns for use
by the Division rather than appropriation by the
Legislature. Mr. Urion affirmed.
PAT DAVIDSON, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
DIVISION, replied that Mr. Urion brought up an issue that
concerns the Legislative Audit Division relating to
including the fines. She noted that there are a couple of
boards with fewer than 30 licensees, and a fine of a couple
thousand dollars spread across only 25 or 30 licensees would
mean a benefit of only a couple hundred dollars to the board
which decided to impose the fine. The concern is that a
combination of a certain board and a certain fine could
raise questions about the Executive Branch Ethics Act.
With regard to the concern about other statutes, Ms.
Davidson said it is her understanding that imposing a fine
must take place through a due process conducted by an
unbiased individual. Otherwise, it may end up in court on
the allegation that the board can't impose a fine that is so
high that the board may appear to benefit from it. Ms.
Davidson said that those are the only arguments she has
heard with respect to including the fines in the calculation
of the fees.
Co-Chair Harris asked what the fines are imposed for. Mr.
Urion replied that it's varied and includes unlicensed
practice and drug and alcohol abuse. In response to a
question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Urion answered that fines
are not imposed for criminal activity. The people who are
licensed pay enforcement.
Co-Chair Harris asked if there is an unbiased or neutral way
these fines could be appealed. Mr. Urion explained that a
hearing officer makes the decision, the board says "yea" or
"nay," and the defendant can accept it, or reject it and
take it to the next higher court.
Co-Chair Harris asked who pays for the legal fees if it is
taken to the next higher court, and if the state reimburses
the legal costs if the person is found innocent. Mr. Urion
replied that to his knowledge, it has never happened before.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Urion
replied that the cases taken to higher court have never
prevailed. The hearing officers' decisions are extremely
well written and thorough. He gave the example of a recent
$20 thousand fine in the real estate industry, and said that
the defendant accepted it. He stated that the infraction
had been going on for years, and it was the highest fine
ever levied.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris. Mr. Urion
explained that Amendment #1 applies to all the boards and
commissions of every profession.
Representative Hawker commented that the bill seems to
change the character of how the state assesses occupations,
from the individual to the collective. He asked if that is
the intent. Mr. Urion replied that it is current practice,
and would allow an apprentice to pay less than a licensee.
Representative Hawker thought that the bill indicates that
occupations are regulated by an individual board, and would
have to meet the costs of that board. Mr. Urion said that is
true.
Representative Stoltze expressed concern that the amendment
has merit as a stand-alone bill, and he didn't want to see
the bill extending the real estate appraisers bogged down
with this amendment when the administration has the ability
to introduce it through the Rules Committee. It's a policy
consideration.
Co-Chair Williams stated that it was not his intention to
move the bill today.
Mr. Urion responded to Representative Stoltze, explaining
that he had brought the amendment before Labor & Commerce
Committee, and the Committee wanted to move the bill and let
Finance make the decision. He would have introduced it in a
bill if he could have.
Co-Chair Harris asked how long the bill has been sitting in
Co-Chair Williams's office. Mr. Urion was unsure. Co-Chair
asked why the amendment was not incorporated into a Finance
Committee Substitute through the office of the Co-Chairman.
Mr. Urion apologized, and said that he tried to do it
through the sponsor who was wary of killing the real estate
appraisers bill. He asserted that this is an appropriate
vehicle and title, and that every licensed profession
supports the amendment.
Co-Chair Williams expressed concern that the committee
members did not have the amendment earlier, and he suggested
that Mr. Urion talk to the Finance members individually.
HB 464 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|