Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/12/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB30 | |
| HB26 | |
| HB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 12, 2013
1:34 p.m.
1:34:30 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 Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Sponsor; Representative Mike
Hawker, Sponsor; Don Habegar, Director, Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Anna Latham, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jeff Johnson, Certified Public Accountant, Chair, State
Board of Accountancy, Fairbanks; David Artzt, Captain,
Alaska Marine Pilots, Dutch Harbor; Paul Fuhs, Lobbyist,
Southwest Alaska Pilots Association.
SUMMARY
HB 22 BOARD OF MARINE PILOTS
CSHB 22(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
HB 26 EXTEND BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY
HB 26 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (CED).
HB 30 STATE AGENCY PERFORMANCE AUDITS
CSHB 30(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Division of Legislative
Audit, one new zero fiscal note from Legislative
Finance Division, and one new zero fiscal note
from the Office of Management and Budget.
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act relating to performance reviews, audits, and
termination of executive and legislative branch
agencies, the University of Alaska, and the Alaska
Court System; and providing for an effective date."
1:35:40 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that a pending amendment for HB
30 had been discussed at the prior meeting. He MOVED
Amendment 1 in Representative Gara's absence.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Kawasaki asked for an explanation of the
amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked he was stalling for time and made
several comments about the amendment. He believed the
amendment recognized that cutting budgets was tough.
Representative Gara joined the meeting.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Gara to address the
amendment.
1:38:11 PM
AT EASE
1:38:40 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara addressed Amendment 1:
Page 5, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) If the agency is not able to identify 10 percent
of the general funds in the agency's budget
appropriated from the general fund that could be
reduced or eliminated using the criteria set out in
(c)(2)(A) - (C) of this section, the agency shall
identify which programs or elements of programs on the
list required under (c)(2) of this section do not meet
the criteria set out in (c)(2)(A) - (C) of this
section."
Representative Gara directed attention to page 5 of the
legislation. He explained that the amendment was intended
to provide the public and other legislators with additional
information that would enable them to understand the 10
percent budget cut suggestions required by the legislation.
He considered the amendment to be friendly. He furthered
that without the amendment people would receive a document
listing a series of cuts totaling 10 percent of an agency's
budget. He expounded that the bill asked agencies to
identify items that (A) did not serve a current need, (B)
were not authorized by the state's constitution, or (C)
were non-essential to the agency's mission. He stated that
if agencies could not find cuts under items (A) through (C)
they were directed to find cuts in low priority services.
The amendment specified that the report issued by
consultants should identify which of the standards the cuts
met. He referred to an opposition argument that the
amendment was unnecessary because the report would already
recognize which of the standards the proposed cuts met. He
countered that it may or may not; the amendment would
require it to do so. He emphasized that the amendment would
allow the public to see why the cut had been recommended.
He added that the amendment would ensure that agencies knew
why they had chosen the cuts they had.
1:41:59 PM
Representative Wilson expressed opposition to Amendment 1
and noted it had also been heard in a subcommittee meeting.
She was concerned that cuts may not always fit into one
distinct category. She believed the point of the exercise
was to identify proposed cuts based on the language
outlined in the bill. She opined that providing further
detail on why something had or had not been proposed for
cuts could be confusing.
Representative Costello spoke against the amendment. She
believed that the amendment weakened the legislation's
intention to ask some very difficult questions. She
stressed that the legislature, departments, agencies, and
the public would all be asking tough questions. She was
concerned that allowing the "out" would avoid the difficult
conversation. She had learned there would be opportunities
for public testimony. She stressed that working
collectively would help determine ways to move forward in a
less certain budget situation. She appreciated the
amendment's recognition that the process would not be easy
for anyone.
1:44:02 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman surmised that the amendment would allow
an agency to opt out of recommending 10 percent cuts if it
could not meet the criteria under (c)(2)(A). He believed
that public notice had been addressed. He pointed to
language that had been added in subcommittee (page 2, lines
5 through 8) related to the results of the review and
providing information to the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee (LB&A). He stated that the public would be aware
of the results when the audit was released.
Representative Gara asserted that Amendment 1 was not
intended to have the result discussed by Vice-Chair Neuman.
He explained that the amendment still required agencies to
identify 10 percent cuts. He stated that under the
legislation an agency would first look for items outlined
in (c)(2)(A) through (C) on page 5; if cuts could not be
found under the three categories the agency was required to
find other cuts (page 5, lines 9 and 10). He stressed that
the amendment would only require the disclosure of where
the cuts had come from; the disclosure would enable the
public to understand how the cuts had been identified by
auditors. He emphasized that the amendment would not change
the 10 percent requirement in the legislation.
Representative Thompson referred to page 5, lines 20 and 21
and read from the bill: "...including agency mission,
results-based measures, prioritization of core services,
and all programs within the core services from the most
important to the least important."
Representative Thompson concluded that the provision
requiring the information to be submitted to the
legislature [page 5, lines 18 through 21] would likely show
where the proposed cuts had come from.
Co-Chair Stoltze opined that the amendment provided an
"out" because it did not direct agencies to find the 10
percent cuts. He stated that the bill only required
agencies to make a recommendation; it did not mandate that
the legislature had to follow the recommendations. He saw
nothing wrong with asking agencies to designate the cuts
and noted that agencies could include a narrative if they
believed the cuts were not efficacious. He reiterated that
he was uncomfortable giving agencies an out from
identifying the cuts.
1:50:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, SPONSOR, opposed the
amendment. He clarified that the review committee did not
make recommendations for agency cuts; departments would
make recommendations to the committee. He believed that if
department's could not locate the 10 percent cuts they
would have the ability to provide a narrative explaining
why they believed items were essential to their budget. He
understood the concerns, but believed departments would
provide commentary on the impact cuts would have on their
current budgets.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that he agreed with the sentiment
he had seen on a sign that stated: "if it's in the yellow
pages why is government doing it?"
Representative Kawasaki voiced support for Amendment 1. He
observed that if an agency was not able to make cuts
specified in (c)(2) (A) through (C) they would have to
justify the remaining cuts. He believed the information
would help the review team and the legislature to determine
if the cuts were feasible.
Representative Gara agreed that Co-Chair Stoltze's concern
was valid, but stressed that the amendment did not provide
an out to agencies. He clarified that the amendment did not
alter the bill's intent; it only had to do with the
commentary included in the report. He elaborated that the
amendment would require disclosure of where the cuts had
come from (either from (c)(2) (A) through (C) or from the
lowest priority services in the agency). He emphasized that
the amendment would not change the consultants' proposals.
He communicated that the amendment's purpose was to provide
information to the public.
1:55:36 PM
Representative Chenault underscored that the review team
would not be responsible for identifying the 10 percent
cuts; agencies would be in charge of bringing cuts forward
to the review team.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Kawasaki
OPPOSED: Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson,
Wilson, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (8/2).
Representative Costello addressed the bill's three fiscal
notes. The first was a zero note from the Office of
Management and Budget. The second note from the Division of
Legislative Audit included $642,300 for three positions in
FY 13, zero fiscal impact for FY 14, $1,351,900 for three
positions in FY 15, $1,198,900 for three positions in FY
16, $1,324,900 for three positions in FY 17, and $1,177,900
per year for three positions in FY 18 and FY 19.
1:58:35 PM
Representative Costello relayed that the last note had zero
fiscal impact and was from the Division of Legislative
Audit.
Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that the fiscal notes had
been discussed at the prior meeting. The notes addressed
the issue of potential contracting.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to report CSHB 30(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 30(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from
Division of Legislative Audit, one new zero fiscal note
from Legislative Finance Division, and one new zero fiscal
note from the Office of Management and Budget.
1:59:52 PM
AT EASE
2:00:27 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Public Accountancy; and providing for an effective
date."
2:00:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, SPONSOR, relayed that HB 26
extended the termination date for the Board of Public
Accountancy to June 30, 2021. He explained that the
legislature routinely designated sunset dates for boards
and commissions; prior to the sunset date the board or
commission was reviewed through the legislative budget and
audit process to ensure that its services continued to be
needed. The bill was supported by legislative audit work
conducted the prior summer; the auditor had determined that
the board's termination date should be extended to June 30,
2021; that it was operating in the public's interest; and
that it had exercised appropriate regulatory oversight of
public accountants. He communicated that the audit
expressed one concern related to the overall operations of
the case management system of the Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (CBPL). The fiscal
note would continue to fund the board at its current level
with receipt supported services. He explained that the
funds were taken from the regulated community for the
purpose of administrating its professional licensing board.
2:03:18 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked CBPL to provide detail on the
concerns from its perspective.
DON HABEGAR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS,
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, addressed the issue of
concern outlined in the audit. He explained that a new
database had been installed into investigations; the
database had some issues in the installation and conversion
process that had been caught by a 2011 special audit. The
division had addressed the issue by generating a task-force
including a database specialist and the division's own
investigators and information technology staff. The task-
force had come out with a number of recommendations to fix
the issues. He elaborated that CBPL had asked the
legislature for a special appropriation to pay for incurred
costs related to the task-force. The division was currently
implementing the fixes; the software writing was
anticipated to be completed in draft form by April 1, 2013.
The division would have 60-plus days of testing to ensure
that the system was working correctly and the final fixes
were scheduled for completion by the end of June 2013.
2:06:08 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that most boards were self-
supporting, self-assessed, and that legislative affirmed
board members set policies. He referred to discussions that
the professional wishes had been side tracked related to
the use of funds. He asked for clarification on the issue.
Mr. Habegar had heard from the boards that they wanted the
increased ability to travel to out-of-state meetings. He
shared that AS Title 8 included approximately 40
professional licensing programs; 20 of the programs had
boards and 20 had department oversight. The boards
generally belonged to national professional associations
that helped to steer the profession in various states. The
Alaska boards liked to be part of the discussions, given
that national associations set policies that had national
and state impacts. The division had approximately $400,000
in travel authority in FY 13 (the governor's proposed FY 13
request had been $550,000). He had devised a system that
included travel to all in-state meetings, which were
statutorily required. He had carved out a portion of the
funds for administrative purposes (e.g. his travel to
Anchorage to "steer" staff). He communicated that out-of-
state travel was parceled out of remaining funds.
2:08:34 PM
Representative Costello asked whether the division planned
to provide licensees with online visibility in regards to
how their fees were spent. She supported the idea.
Mr. Habegar answered that the division had been working on
bringing its accounts up to speed; it had conducted a 10-
year review of all the boards' revenue and expense reports
and had reconciled the reports to the state accounting
system. He furthered that quarterly reports were reconciled
to the state accounting system and were provided to the
boards. He believed putting the reports online was a good
suggestion and the division would take it into
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR pointed to a
reconciliation showing excess funds carried forward by the
Board of Accountancy, which showed $147,000 accumulated in
its account. He observed that the board's request to send
two CPAs to the national conference had been denied because
it had not fit in the budget; however, there was $147,000
in the board's account. He asked if there should be two
line items in the budget for department travel and for pre-
paid professional board travel. He thought the distinction
may prevent the misconception that general funds were being
saved when the travel budget was cut. He discussed that
other boards had used state travel funds for national
conferences; subsequently, the funds were reimbursed, but
instead of going back into the board's travel account, the
funds were deposited into the state's general fund. He was
concerned that the issue was creating a problem and
wondered about a solution.
2:11:41 PM
Mr. Habegar replied that he had spoken with all 20 boards
about the issue at some point in time. He felt that the
$400,000 provided by the legislature could not be overspent
even if the division collected other revenue sources. For
example, professionals paid licensing fees on a biennial
basis; two years of revenue was typically collected in
advance of two years of expenses; therefore, a program
could have a surplus at any one time. He expounded that
programs may have a carryover if expenses came in as less
than revenue; after analysis by the division, the carryover
may be used to reduce fees or to pay for additional
anticipated expenses (i.e. for a court case or other).
Mr. Habegar addressed the second part of Representative
Thompson's question related to third-party reimbursement
for travel. He relayed that state policy required the
division to show the costs on revenue expense reports. He
agreed that the incurred expenses records should be public;
therefore the division paid for the travel up front. He
confirmed that when third-parties (e.g. national
organizations) reimbursed for travel expenses the money was
deposited into the general fund.
2:14:36 PM
Representative Thompson found it hard to believe that board
members paying into a travel account were denied out-of-
state travel and that instead the division recommended
reducing fees when excess revenue accrued from licensing
fees. He saw confusion arising because licensees were not
able to use the money designated for travel. He asserted
that pre-paid professional travel fees should be separated
from the department's general fund expenditures.
Representative Hawker had met with members of the
Corporations Board who claimed that they had been granted
insufficient spending authority for the receipt supported
services (RSS) funds collected in aggregate for all of the
state's boards and commissions. The issue resulted in the
agency's need to ration the amount of RSS funds that were
collected from each of the boards. Additionally, boards or
commissions (paying their own way through RSS) were
prevented from accessing all of the money that was assessed
and taken by the state. He asserted that the practice was
"confiscation and impoundment" of money paid by self-
supporting organizations into the state's custody who
expected it to be available for the operation of their
boards and commissions. He agreed that the practice was
tantamount to theft if the agency did not have authority to
spend its money. He noted that the issue was scheduled to
be discussed in subcommittee. He emphasized that the funds
came from RSS and not the general fund.
Representative Hawker recommended that in the case of
third-party reimbursement for travel, the operating budget
language section should specify that an appropriation for
RSS includes the monetary appropriation and any
reimbursement of funds from national organizations. He
stressed that the solution was very simple. He asked the
committee to consider ensuring that the legislature
authorized the spending of all money taken from Alaska's
citizens and that the state was not stealing travel money
from the organizations.
2:19:18 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze believed the discussion point was
appropriate.
Representative Hawker noted that the conversation pertained
to an operation of the board of corporations and public
licensing; it had nothing to do with HB 26 and the
reauthorization of the Board of Accountancy.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the Board
of Accountancy's operations were paid for by membership
fees and not with general fund dollars. Mr. Habegar replied
in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked if travel money had been held
back due to a dispute (within the profession) that more
money should be spent on investigation and less on travel.
Mr. Habegar answered in the negative. He furthered that
investigations were fully funded with fee supported
services. The issue pertained to travel authorization.
Representative Gara asked how long the proposed extension
was.
Co-Chair Stoltze responded that the audit recommendation
was for an eight-year extension.
Representative Gara read the last sentence of a one-page
Division of Legislative Audit document (copy on file): "The
noted deficiencies hamper the division's ability to provide
adequate investigative support to the board." He believed
the statement warranted concern. He wondered if the
deficiency should be fixed prior to granting the extension.
2:22:03 PM
Representative Hawker argued that waiting to grant the
extension would be "punishing the innocent and letting the
guilty go free." He stated that AS 08.03.020(c) allowed the
legislature to extend the board's termination date for up
to eight years. He accentuated that the problem noted in
the Division of Legislative Audit document had nothing to
do with the operation of the Board of Public Accountancy;
it had to do with a larger unsolved problem within CBPL. He
relayed that the time and work put into the sunset
authorizations by the legislative auditor was significant;
the authorizations additionally were expensive and required
substantial "man power" that took away from the division's
ability to pursue other requests (particularly special
audits requested by legislators). He believed the Board of
Public Accountancy had sufficiently demonstrated that it
merited the 8-year extension. He stated that the problem
identified lay with CBPL; a special audit related to the
problems had been released by the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee on June 29, 2011. He acknowledged that CBPL
had been working diligently to resolve the issues. He
believed the division needed to be working with the
legislature to resolve the budget issues and to continue
work with legislative oversight to remedy its internal
operation problems.
2:25:15 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the Professional Licensing
Board had done a good job making improvements over the past
several years. He added that in the past there had been
some "wild audit reports" that had been highly frustrating.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked whether there were any repetitive
issues brought to the Board of Public Accountancy by its
members. Mr. Habegar replied that there were issues, but
they were part of the normal course of business for a
professional board (e.g. granting licenses, determining
whether licensing violations had occurred, regulation of
the profession, and other); the board handled the issues on
a quarterly basis. He furthered that the board was busy
with routine business. He did not see any anomalies before
the board.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
JEFF JOHNSON, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT and CHAIR, STATE
BOARD of ACCOUNTANCY, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
appreciated the discussion. He had been on the board for
several years and had learned from other members that the
investigative process had been greatly improved in the past
couple of years. He believed the board was headed in the
right direction and mentioned the improved reporting system
that should be operational in the spring of 2013. He stated
that in the past there had been a problem with the
timeliness of investigations and protection of the public's
interest. He reiterated that the board felt it was headed
in the right direction.
2:28:40 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Mr. Johnson supported the
legislation. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Costello discussed the fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
for receipt services in the annual amount of $161,700 for
FY 14 through FY 19 and one full-time position.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 26 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He made a
remark about an "attorney barb" and WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Hawker commented that he would come before
the committee during session with an Alaska Bar Association
reauthorization bill.
There being NO further OBJECTION, HB 26 was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (CED).
2:31:11 PM
AT EASE
2:33:11 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 22
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date."
2:33:15 PM
ANNA LATHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, discussed
that HB 22 would extend the termination date of the Board
of Marine Pilots (BMP) to June 30, 2019. She stated that in
accordance with AS Titles 24 and 44 the board was set to
expire on June 30, 2013. She relayed that the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee had determined that the board
should be extended because its activities demonstrated a
public need and it operated in an efficient manner. She
stated that regulating and licensing qualified marine
pilots benefited the public's safety and welfare and
protected the marine environment. She explained that HB 22
had been pre-filed with an estimated extension date of June
30, 2018. She furthered that after reviewing the audit
Representative Olson had requested a CS to align the
termination date with the date suggested in the audit.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the Labor and Commerce
Committee CS. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Thompson referred to a Division of
Legislative Audit document (copy on file) and read its
recommendation: "While the board has successfully resolved
many of the issues identified in the prior sunset audit,
current analysis of BMP operational activities showed
administrative deficiencies regarding public meeting
notifications, licensing documentation, and oversight of
the pilot associations' drug and alcohol programs." He
wondered whether measures had been taken to rectify the
issues.
Ms. Latham replied that at the time of the audit in
November 2011 the marine pilot coordinator who oversees the
mentioned issues had been in his position for under one
year; he had been unaware of the operational deficiencies
noted in the audit. Subsequently, the board was developing
a desk manual and written procedure to codify needed
primary functions. She detailed that the coordinator was
developing appropriate documentation and checklists to
ensure that an adequate oversight process was in place.
2:37:02 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the length of the board's
prior sunset extension. Ms. Latham responded that the board
had been extended in 2007.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Mr. Habegar for any comments on the
audit conclusions. Mr. Habegar answered that the previous
marine pilot coordinator had departed from the position
with little notice; it had put the board in a bind and
subsequently items had been noted in the audit that
occurred while the new coordinator had been in training. He
believed the recommendation was appropriate. As a result,
the board was implementing administrative backstops. For
example, one of the issues involved providing ample public
notice for board meetings.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether was any challenge getting
board members together. Mr. Habegar replied that the only
challenge had to do with meeting during the height of the
summer maritime season when special issues arose (e.g.
investigative issues requiring board input). He
communicated that teleconferencing normally solved the
issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if Alaska's entry into Arctic
waters and the role of marine pilots had been a board
discussion point. Mr. Habegar affirmed that the board had
discussed Arctic access, but he had not seen any final
conclusions.
2:40:13 PM
Representative Munoz asked for an explanation of yacht fees
that appeared in the revenues and expenditures budget
breakdown from 2007 to 2012. Mr. Habegar replied that
foreign pleasure crafts of a certain tonnage or length were
statutorily required to have a pilot. A waiver was
possible, but certain fees payable to the state were
required.
Representative Munoz asked if the yacht fees were
applicable to vessels of a certain size. Mr. Habegar
believed the requirement applied to foreign pleasure craft
vessels between 75 feet and 150 feet.
Representative Munoz asked for verification that the fee
structure was biennial. Mr. Habegar answered in the
affirmative. He noted that all of the state's professional
licensing programs were biennial.
Representative Munoz asked for the fee amount. Mr. Habegar
replied that the biennial pilot fee was $2,500 and the ship
agent fee was $800.
Representative Gara asked what percentage of marine pilots
were Alaskans. Mr. Habegar responded that he would follow
up on the question.
Representative Gara observed that the board oversaw
trainings and approved training programs for marine pilots.
He wondered if the board had considered doing anything that
would increase the number of Alaskan pilots. Mr. Habegar
was not aware of any board action that would require Alaska
hire of pilots.
Representative Gara noted that Alaska hire would probably
be illegal. He surmised the training function would be the
only avenue to explore that could increase the number of
Alaskan pilots; he asked for the department to follow up
with the board on the issue. He requested the percentage of
Alaskan and non-Alaskan marine pilots. He would like to see
the positions filled with more Alaskans, given that the
jobs were good and high paying.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that it would also be good to
know how many marine pilots were Alaskans who had moved
out-of-state.
2:44:49 PM
DAVID ARTZT, CAPTAIN, ALASKA MARINE PILOTS, DUTCH HARBOR
(via teleconference), described his marine pilot service
region. He was happy to answer any questions.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about Alaska's entry into Arctic
waters and the role of marine pilots in safety issues. He
wondered about federal government requirement. Mr. Artzt
replied that currently statutes required state-licensed
pilots onboard specific vessels within the state's
boundaries (typically within three miles of the coastline).
Federal waters were overseen by the U.S. Coast Guard. He
stated that any activity within state water boundaries fell
under current regulations requiring pilots on vessels.
2:47:17 PM
Representative Edgmon referred to the Northern Waters Task-
Force that had provided its report to the legislature the
prior year. He noted that marine pilots had not been
included in the final report; however, members had been
supportive of marine pilots' involvement in areas like the
Arctic.
PAUL FUHS, LOBBYIST, SOUTHWEST ALASKA PILOTS ASSOCIATION
(via teleconference), voiced support for the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. He asked if there
were any amendments.
Representative Costello pointed out that the first line on
page 2 of the DCCED fiscal note should be corrected to read
June 30, 2019 instead of 2018. The fiscal note included
receipt services in the annual amount of $151,200 for FY 14
through FY 19 and one full-time position.
2:50:49 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 22(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 22(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:52:17 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Audit Summary.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Audit 08-20076-13.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB 22 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB 26 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB26 Audit Report Digest.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB26 Audit Public Accountantcy.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 30FN.3-Leg Audit-2-11-13.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CSHB 30 Gara-1- Amendment.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 30 |