Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority: Laraine Derr | |
| HB254 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB209 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2016
1:32 p.m.
1:32:29 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Laraine Derr, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority; Steve
Handy, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes; Fred Parady,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development; Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor,
Alaska Division of Legislative Audit; Mark Richards,
Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska;
Representative Wes Keller, Sponsor; Margaret MacKinnon,
Director, Assessment and Accountability, Department of
Education and Early Development; Betty Walters, Interim
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development; Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative Steve
Anderson; Representative Neil Foster, Sponsor, District 39;
Paul Labolle, Staff, Representative Neil Foster;
Representative Lora Reinbold;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Sam Rohrer, President, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association, Kodiak; Paul Chervenak, Self, Kodiak; Dick
Rohrer, Self, Kodiak; Kelly Vrem, Chairman, Big Game
Commercial Services Board, Sutton; Virgil Umphenour, Self,
Fairbanks; Bill Griffith, Department of Environmental
Conservation;
SUMMARY
HB 156 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
HB 156 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously
publish indeterminate fiscal note: FN1 (EED).
HB 209 WATER AND SEWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CSHB 209 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (CRA).
HB 254 EXTEND BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
HB 254 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact
note by the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY:
LARRINE DERR
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the day.
1:33:33 PM
^CONFIRMATION HEARING: ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AUTHORITY: LARAINE DERR
LARAINE DERR, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY, was a
Juneau resident and had been on the board since 2005. She
had been appointed following a term that had begun 5 months
prior to her being nominated to the board. She served for
just under 2 full terms. She explained that when she came
up for reappointment the attorney general's office had
issued a finding that she could serve for another term. By
law a person was entitled to serve 2 full terms. She was
recommended for reappointment in the previous year. She had
served in the capacity of the board's Finance Chair for the
majority of her tenure. She advocated the importance of the
Alaska Mental Health Trust to its beneficiaries. The Trust
had worked cooperatively with the legislature over the
years in serving the state's beneficiaries. It was a very
rewarding job and sometimes very heart rending. She enjoyed
her time in the position and would be honored to serve an
additional term.
Ms. Derr provided further details about her background. She
had served in various parts of government including working
for the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) doing a statewide school finance study. She also
worked for the Juneau School District. She was the
Commissioner of Revenue under Governor Hickel, then worked
for the University of Alaska as the head of the School of
Business and Public Management. She went from the
university to the Hospital and Nursing Home Association
running the Boards and Commissions Office for 7 years under
Governor Murkowski. She had personal experience dealing
with mental illness: she had two step sons who committed
suicide. She also had a step grandson who was on medication
for mental illness. She had experience in several of the
different beneficiary groups that the Trust served. She
made herself available for questions.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Representative Gattis and
Representative Pruitt had joined the meeting. All members
were in attendance.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked where she saw the Alaska Mental
Health Trust's mission diverge from the mission of the
Department of Health and Social Services or the State of
Alaska.
Ms. Derr responded that one of the criticisms the Trust
frequently received from the legislature was that in trying
new ways of serving its beneficiaries it would turn
successful programs over to the legislature for funding in
the regular budget for DHSS. She thought the Trust could be
more flexible and provide additional funds as new programs
became available. She suggested that the trust should be
more nibble and able to serve new programs.
Vice-Chair Saddler mentioned the Medicaid reform
legislation, SB 74. He asked for her thoughts on where the
trust would make the most contribution to the Medicaid
reform process.
Ms. Derr responded that there had been a lot of discussion
about the funding of the Medicaid reform bill. It was a
significant amount of money. She mentioned that the Trust
had reviewed budgets from previous years and directed staff
to look at different possibilities. In looking at budgets
going forward and looking at revenues from the Trust's
land's division, the Trust concluded it could support the
Medicaid reform for 3 years. Therefore, The Trust had
dedicated funds for at least 3 years to assist the
department.
1:38:59 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler reported having been a Deputy
Commissioner for Boards and Commissions. He asked for her
thoughts about serving in a board position for as long as
she had. He asked if she could remain a voice with new
ideas and innovative directions for the board after serving
for a decade.
Ms. Derr relayed her struggle trying to make a decision, as
Governor Walker had replaced her when he took office in the
previous year. She was replaced with a new member. She had
been involved for so long that there were different
programs and policies that had been put into place she was
able to observe their success. The person who had replaced
her the preceding year was not confirmed by the
legislature. As a result, she bounced back onto the board.
She reported being really pleased to be back on the Board
and was happy to be able to provide some history to new
board members. She added that if she did not have many new
ideas she would at least be able to see the completion of
the ones that had been instituted.
1:41:13 PM
Representative Munoz thanked Ms. Derr for her service and
elaborated that she had served the community of Juneau in
many ways and received some of the highest recognitions
that Juneau had to offer including the "Women of
Distinction Award," as well as an honorary doctorate. She
was pleased to support her reappointment to the board. She
asked about the land in the sub port area. She wanted an
update of what the board intended to do with the property.
Ms. Derr responded that the sub port used to be across from
the Prospector Hotel on the waterfront. The Trust owned the
property and had had many opportunities to give it away.
She relayed having to remind folks that the property was an
asset and used to support the Trust's program. The property
was currently on the market for purchase. The Department of
Natural Resources' Lands office handled all offers.
Representative Gara thanked Ms. Derr for her important
work. He believed that if she remained passionate about
doing the job then he encouraged her to do so and he
supported her. Ms. Derr thanked Representative Gara.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that Boards and
Commissions had forwarded her application to the Permanent
Fund Board, which was currently in front of members.
Ms. Derr remarked that her application was from a while
ago. She had served on the Permanent Fund Board when she
was previously the commissioner of the Department of
Revenue.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson suggested advancing Ms. Derr's name to a
joint floor session for consideration. No members objected.
1:44:49 PM
AT EASE
1:46:44 PM
RECONVENED
1:46:51 PM
Co-Chair Thompson invited Representative Stutes' staff to
the table.
HOUSE BILL NO. 254
"An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board; and providing for an
effective date."
1:46:51 PM
STEVE HANDY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE STUTES, read from
a prepared statement:
What the bill does:
· House Bill 254, An Act extending the termination
date of the Big Game Commercial Services Board and
providing for an effective date, extends sunset date
of the Big Game Commercial Service Board's
(BGCSB) three years from June 30, 2016, to June 30,
2019.
Who the BGCSB is:
· The BGCSB is staffed by the Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing
and consists of;
· two licensed Registered Guide
· two licensed Transporters
· two private landholders
· two public members
· one member from the Board of Game.
What the BGCSB does:
· The BGCSB provides a legislative command to
assist in resource conservation and consumer
protection. The Board develops professional and
ethical standards, administers exams, makes final
licensing decisions and takes civil action
against persons who violate regulations.
· Board members are appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the Legislature.
Why should the BGCSB be extended?
The Board's regulated professions include Assistant
Guides, Class
Guide
Guide
According to the report titled "Economic Impacts of
Guided Hunting in Alaska" prepared for the Alaska
Professional Hunters Association by McDowell Group, a
research and consulting firm;
· Guided hunting in Alaska accounted for a total of
2,210 jobs and $35 million in total labor income
in 2012, including all direct, indirect and
induced impacts.
· Guided hunting generated a total of $78 million
in economic activity in Alaska in 2012.
· Guided hunters purchased nearly $2 million in
hunting license and game tags.
Due to oversight by the legislature, the Board was
allowed to sunset before and this caused catastrophic
effects. It was the sunset that contributed the
financial difficulties reflected in the Legislative
Audit before you. However, in December, 2015, the
board was reinstated by the legislature.
The Big Game Commercial Services Board is essential to
the safety of hunters, guides and transporters coming
to Alaska to harvest our natural resources and to the
management of the resource itself.
Please consider and pass HB 254 to secure the BGCSB.
We have present Fred Parady, Deputy Commissioner of
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development and Sam Roher, president of Alaska
Professional Hunter Association, and Eddie Grasser
with the Alaska chapter of the Safari Club
International to answer specific questions.
1:50:10 PM
Representative Wilson asked for more details about when the
Board sunsetted and the potential fiscal impact. Mr. Handy
deferred to Mr. Parady.
Co-Chair Thompson encouraged committee members to continue
with questions and he would invite Mr. Parady to the table
shortly.
Representative Kawasaki asked when it sunsetted. Mr. Handy
responded that it sunsetted in 2005.
Representative Munoz remarked that there was legislation
moving through the process that would increase hunting and
licensing fees. She asked whether that legislation would
bring in revenue sufficient to cover the deficit. If not,
was the issue addressed with the bill sponsor. Mr. Handy
again differed to DCCED.
Co-Chair Neuman had received comments from Resident Hunters
of Alaska and other groups that opposed the extension
primarily because of charging transporters costs that might
have been incurred by big game commercial services. The
legislation also applied to people who carried non-
transporters. He read from a statement prepared by Resident
Hunters of Alaska:
"…not all air carriers who transport hunters to and
from the field choose to be a "transporter," in fact
many of the major air-taxis who fly hunters are not
"transporters" - are requesting the new fees for
mandated transporter hunt activity reports…"
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that they would be charged new
fees that mandated transporter hunter activity reports. He
suggested that other Alaska Airlines, Frontier, and Reeves
transported hunters. He wondered if they would be required
to pay the fees. He asked for details regarding the
discrepancies. Mr. Handy deferred to the experts at DCCED.
Co-Chair Neuman was not certain if he received the right
answer. Mr. Handy conveyed that he did not have the answer
and referred to the experts.
Co-Chair Neuman asked who would also be addressing the bill
before the committee.
Co-Chair Thompson would bring up others in the room and
online. He reviewed the list of available testifiers.
Co-Chair Neuman had just been asked by one of his
constituents about the issue. He asked how many registered
guides were in the State of Alaska and how many guides and
transporters were members of the Alaska Professional
Hunters Association. Mr. Handy thought it was over 1000. He
had other individuals that could provide specific numbers.
Co-Chair Thompson invited Mr. Parady to come forward.
1:54:02 PM
FRED PARADY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, spoke in support of HB
254 to extend the sunset date for the BGCSB. He expressed
the department's appreciation for the valuable insight
provided to the department by the Legislative auditor and
her staff for process improvements. In looking at the 2015
audit by the Division of Legislative Audit there were
strong words of support provided to the board. Amongst the
findings were that the board had provided reasonable
assurances that licensees were qualifies and that the
board's regulation and licensing benefitted public safety
and safeguarded Alaska's wildlife. In light of the deficit,
the department recommended a 3-year extension to 2019. The
division's audit had 4 recommendations. The first was that
the department improved its public notice process. The
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
had completed the process by rewriting its policies,
improving its checklists, and shifted responsibility for
notifications to one person to ensure accountability. The
second recommendation concerned investigations. There were
currently approximately 70 cases before the board in the
context of investigations. He mentioned that Angela Birt,
Section Chief, was in charge of the investigative unit for
all professions had insured that the gap in inactivity in
an investigation was less than 60 days. It was part of her
performance evaluation for each of her investigators. The
department had created a system to sustain electronic
contact when guides were in the field and created standard
operating procedures. The department created a tickler file
to send out reminders if there was inactivity for 30 days.
Often the sources of inactivity were awaiting action by
some other agency so that the investigation was momentarily
on hold. The department had also created a sanction matrix
that guided the implementation of investigations.
Mr. Parady continued with the third recommendation by the
Division of Legislative Audit which was to increase fees.
The fees were increased for the 2015 2-year renewal cycle
and were increased again for the 2017 cycle, part of what
was drawing the question from the transporters. He was
happy to report that whereas the deficit of the board was
$1.1 million on June 30, 2015, it decreased by $896
thousand as of December 31, 2015. It was a decrease of $225
thousand in the current licensing cycle. He anticipated
that the debt would be reduced by $535 thousand and would
be eliminated in the subsequent 2-year cycle. The board was
operating in the black at present and was working towards
erasing its deficit. The fourth recommendation had to do
with a transportation licensing update, the work of which
had been accomplished.
Mr. Parady emphasized the need for the board in order to
direct the associated profession. Because of their unique
insights into their activities the board provided
assistance to the public, the state, the DCCED, and to the
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing (DCBPL). In stepping back to the 30 thousand foot
view, guides in this sort of activity as part of the
tourism industry were a bright spot in the state's economy.
He concluded his comments by noting that licensing would
not go away even if the board did. The issues that came
before the board were complex and the department
appreciated the board's expertise in guiding the
profession. He was ready for questions.
1:58:23 PM
Representative Wilson wanted to understand how the board
sunsetting caused the current deficit. Mr. Parady did not
know all the details due to when he started as deputy
commissioner. His general understanding was that the
department did not have the board's expertise and insight
guiding how to proceed with investigations in terms of
knowing what was worthy of investigation and how to spend
investigative resources. A second problem was noted in the
audit that the deficit situation was made worse by about
$236 thousand (Page 11 of the audit report) because the
indirect cost allocation methodology that was corrected
following a special audit in 2011.
Representative Wilson asked for the fee increase
information. Mr. Parady would provide a copy of the
increases which occurred in 2015 and 2017 on a bi-annual
cycle. He added that in 2017 the average increase was 31
percent. There was also a new records fee and a new
transporter fee of $50 - a fee to help draw monies
associated with specific activities and to spread the load
to erase the deficit.
Representative Wilson was concerned with the bill and was
aware of guides that had been investigated. She was trying
to understand whether the deficit resulted from something
that had happened and the indirect costs or whether the
DCCED had conducted investigations that should not have
occurred. She provided an example. A fellow was charged and
went to court. He was found not guilty and the department
paid over $80 thousand trying to prosecute him. It was her
understanding that the cost of $80 thousand was then passed
on to other guides in the form of increased fees. She
thought only those found guilty should have to pay the
fees. She asked whether there was a provision that
protected guides that did the right thing.
Mr. Parady responded that her question was germane. It was
a conflict that confronted the department in all of the
DCBPL statues where the department was directed by the
legislature to balance each profession within its fee
structure when there was already a regulatory function in
place for the general benefit of citizens of Alaska and
perhaps should come from the general fund. He suggested
that she would run into her questions that she had broached
across any range of state activities where investigation
took place. Some investigations did not result in a guilty
conviction and therefore she was suggesting that they
should not return to the board. However, the decision to
conduct the investigation, the rules that governed the
profession, and the need for the investigation rested
within the profession. Unless there was a place to divert
the costs they would be carried by the profession.
2:02:33 PM
Co-Chair Thompson commented that the bill was only to
extend the board rather than to address fees.
Representative Wilson contended that if the department was
performing undue investigations and putting the cost onto
the board it was something that needed to be changed. For
instance, in the audit report on Page 14, under
"contractual" the state went from $94 thousand in FY 12 to
$172 thousand, to $188 thousand. She assumed "contractual"
had to do with investigator services. She wondered if she
was correct.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Ms. Curtis from the Division
of Legislative Audit would be testifying following Mr.
Parady's testimony.
Mr. Parady was unsure of the contractual line item
Representative Wilson was referring to. He thought that the
Department of Law's services were covered through an
interagency receipt.
Representative Wilson was concerned that additional costs
were being passed to guides through the board. She felt it
was relevant and expressed misgivings about increasing fees
such that it would discourage guides from participating in
the industry.
Representative Kawasaki referred to Exhibit 2 on page 14 of
the BGCSB Audit produced by the Division of Legislative
Audit (copy on file). He pointed to the personal services
line between $250 thousand to $300 thousand the past couple
of years. He also pointed to Exhibit 3 on page 18 where it
showed the total number of licenses issued. The exhibit
showed 111 total licenses issued in FY 12, 141 in FY 13,
157 in FY 14, and 119 in the following year. He was
uncertain of the costs, time, and effort to process the
renewals. He mentioned talking earlier in the day about the
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers reporting that 1000
manicurists needed licenses. He thought it seemed like for
that board it would take a significant amount of time to
process renewals. He wondered how much time it would take
for BGCSB to process its renewals.
Mr. Parady responded that the activities in each of the
licensee groups that were mandated in statute varied
broadly. In dealing with Manicurist's licensures, for
example, there were substantial health issues. He explained
that for big game outfitters several times a year the
department administered extensive tests for guides to be in
the field. The cost of administering those tests would not
necessarily exist for another profession. There were 43
professions that were licensed; 21 that had boards and 22
that did not. Licensing varied widely depending on the
profession.
Representative Guttenberg was concerned with administrative
and legal costs associated with legal actions. He wondered
if the department would be responsible for initiating
charges if there was not a board. Mr. Parady responded in
the affirmative. He supposed that costs would be borne by a
particular profession if the "bad actors" in that
profession were unlicensed and generated an investigation.
ON a lighter note, he reported that in the two years of his
tenure he had a case where a chiropractor treated a horse.
There was a question about whether it was a violation of
chiropractic or veterinary practice. It turned out to be a
violation of veterinary practice.
Representative Guttenberg thought Mr. Parady had answered
his question about whether charges went back to the license
holder, independent of whether the board existed.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked, in the years which there was a
deficit in the expenses of the board for investigations, if
they were made up from the general fund. If not, he asked
him to identify the funding source. Mr. Parady believed it
remained within the DCBPL, a receipt-supported agency. He
would confirm his answer later.
Vice-Chair Saddler was unclear about Mr. Parady's answer.
He suspected that investigators received payment for their
services. He asked if it came out of the DCBPL's budget in
which the legislature appropriated from the general fund.
Mr. Parady responded that he needed to confirm his
response. He explained that DCBPL operated within its
budget, operating in the black. The agency was receipt-
supported and did not received a general fund
appropriation.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the deficit was a result of
ongoing receipt deficits from those individuals paying fees
or if it was historical deficits from the past. Mr. Parady
indicated that the board was currently operating in the
black. The deficit was generated from the past. He
clarified that he was referring to the rolled up DCBPL,
receipt-supported in aggregate.
Representative Gara mentioned that when he worked for the
Office of the Attorney General there were a couple of
attorneys he worked with. One of them handled criminal
cases going after people that had committed game violations
and one who handled civil cases going after penalties from
people (some of them guides) who engaged in game
violations. He asked if Mr. Parady's department received
bills from the attorney general's office when it handled
such cases. Mr. Parady would have to get back to
Representative Gara with an answer.
Representative Gara suggested fines would be collected as
well. He wondered if the fines came through Mr. Parady's
office. Mr. Parady stated that fines typically went into
the general fund rather than their source. He would have to
do some research and get back to Representative Gara.
Representative Munoz asked about the criteria for beginning
an investigation. Mr. Parady could provide a guide handout
on the investigation matrix.
Co-Chair Thompson asked that a copy be given to his staff
to be dispersed.
2:11:54 PM
Co-Chair Neuman agreed that the state needed the BGCSB to
oversee guides and transporters. His concerns had to do
with some of the recommendations that were provided by the
Division of Legislative Audit. He referred to Page 33 of
the audit for the BGCSB which was the response from DCCED.
He pointed to Recommendation 3 which talked about how the
program had a known deficit in 2011 and after a legislative
inquiry into the division's proposed necessary fee
increases for the program, the decision was made not to
pursue a fee increase at the time. He summarized that the
board had been encouraged to increase its fees which the
board had refused to do. It appeared that the board was
looking at a modest increase. He asked what fees would have
to be increased in order to reduce the deficit. He also
wondered why the board had not taken any action at present.
Mr. Parady thought that it was a historical description of
the board's unwillingness to act in 2011. The board had
enacted two full rounds of fee increases in 2013 and in
2015. He had a 1-page summary which he would share with
staff. The increases were typically 31 percent. Some of
them were 14 percent. The board was trying to keep the
costs lower on the newer members coming into the
profession. The most recent round of increases was 14 to 31
percent.
2:14:34 PM
Co-Chair Neuman had no idea about what the percentage was
applied to. Mr. Parady provided two examples. A new master
guide license for a resident was $650 and for a non-
resident it was $1350. After the fee increase the cost of a
resident license would be $850 and for a non-resident it
was $1700 - both numbers reflected a 31 percent increase.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the air transport industry would
be charged additional fees. Mr. Parady would provide a
written answer to his question. In general, he understood
the transporter fee was $50 for transporting a big game
animal. It was unclear to him as to whom might transport an
animal that was not a registered transporter versus who had
to be registered.
Co-Chair Thompson invited Ms. Curtis to the table.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, relayed that there was information in
the audit report that would answer many of the questions
that were asked earlier. She would first address
Representative Wilson's questions concerning fees. She
relayed that in the appendix of the audit there was
historical information by license including the proposed
fee at the time of the audit in the previous summer. There
was a question regarding personal services and contractual
information in Exhibit 2. There was a question about what
was "contractual." She confirmed that Department of Law was
included. The board could also hire experts for certain
cases and could be found on the contractual line and it
varied by investigation. She had heard some questions about
what drove the investigative costs. She responded that her
audit found that there was a high case load for the
particular occupation. When Legislative Audit tested the
timeliness of the investigations they found 17 out of 25
cases that were reviewed had periods of inactivity ranging
from 5 months to 5 years. There were several cases that
were not being addressed in a timely manner. There were
some changes made including adding a dedicated investor to
the board to help address some of the backlog.
Ms. Curtis continued with her response. She addressed the
questions about the number of licensees. Representative
Kawasaki drew attention to Exhibit 3 on page 18 of the
audit. She noted that in comparing the current audit to the
one completed in 2011 overall there was a 13 percent
decrease in the number of licenses (found in the footnote).
Various types of licensees decreased to different rates and
could be found in the exhibit.
Ms. Curtis next addressed the most controversial
recommendation of the audit having to do with the $1
million deficit. She had heard allegations that it was the
sunset itself that caused the deficit. She did not know
where the information was coming from. It was not something
the audit concluded. She explained that when the occupation
sunsetted, the occupation was still regulated by the
department and would still incur costs that would have
become part of the new deficit at the time the board was
created. When her division did the audit in 2011 it
identified the deficit at that time of $376 thousand. If
the state did not reduce expenditures and increase revenues
the deficit would increase. After that point the division
changed its cost allocation methodology which increased the
deficit by over $200 thousand. They tried to increase fees
in 2012. There was a great amount of push back from the
industry. Their proposed increases were over 60 percent.
The occupation objected and ultimately the fees were not
increased in FY 12. There were fewer licenses bringing in
revenue to share the costs. She concluded that she had just
listed the major contributors. Fees were increased in FY 14
but at that point the increase in revenues were not
covering the costs.
2:20:43 PM
Representative Wilson was concerned about payments being
received without a board in place. Ms. Curtis responded
that that the cost of investigating would be borne by the
occupation regardless of whether they had a board. The
process would be different, but the costs would be the
same.
Representative Wilson supposed a problem was brought to the
board and the board decided whether to go forward with a
complaint. She wondered, without a board, if the problem
would be brought to someone else in the administration who
would determine whether the complaint moved forward. Ms.
Curtis explained how it worked. A complaint was brought
forward to be investigated. The board was not involved with
the investigation at all. Members had to keep an arms-
length distance to be able to eventually rule on it. The
complaint would be investigated and an attempt would be
made to work out a consent agreement with the claimant. If
an agreement was not successful there would most likely be
a review of the evidence by an assistant attorney general
and a determination would be made about whether there was
enough evidence. The commissioner would subsequently file a
complaint with the board. They would move forward to try to
take the license away. She was uncertain whether the
progress would happen without the board.
Representative Wilson asked if legislation was necessary to
enforce using the fees paid to the state to help offset the
state's deficit. Ms. Curtis responded that it was
definitely outside of the board purview. She was uncertain
about the violation of dedicated revenues.
Representative Wilson expressed her opinion that increasing
the fees like the state had been would definitely have an
impact. They were private business folk not making a profit
and would likely stop their service. She thought it was
important to know whether the problem was being made better
or worse.
Co-Chair Neuman asked what caused the $1 million deficit.
Ms. Curtis responded that it was due to an untimely
increasing of fees. If the fees had been increased
appropriately at the first sign of a deficit, it could have
been addressed more timely. In addition, the division
changed its cost allocation methodology after it was found
to be inappropriate in 2011. She relayed that over $200
thousand of the deficit was because of the indirect cost
allocations. Mainly, though, it was due to untimely
increasing fees.
2:25:15 PM
Co-Chair Neuman thought he was hearing that $200 thousand
of the $1 million deficit was because the department
changed the fee schedule as opposed to the board self-
regulating and increasing its own fees. Ms. Curtis referred
to Exhibit 2 that showed that the department allocated
indirect costs to boards such as electricity. There was a
methodology of allocating the costs to the boards. In 2011,
when Legislative Audit looked they found that it was not
appropriate because certain divisions were not getting
their appropriate allocation and the methodology was
changed. They started allocating based on licensees by
board, an equitable way of allocating it. They had to do
some widespread adjustments which resulted in the BGCSB
having an increase of over $200 thousand in its deficit.
Co-Chair Neuman confirmed that it was due to changes from
the department. Ms. Curtis responded affirmatively.
2:26:42 PM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
2:26:57 PM
MARK RICHARDS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESIDENT HUNTERS OF
ALASKA, opposed the legislation. He noted a letter
previously submitted on April 1, 2016. There were several
reasons the group opposed extending the BGCSB the main one
being that the board had been involving itself in issues
that affected resident Alaska hunters outside its purview.
Speaking about financial matters associated with the board
he wanted to address the board's ongoing debt and why the
group did not believe the board would be able to fund
itself in the black moving forward. He pointed out that
whether there was a BGCSB the guide industry would continue
being regulated. Guide licensing and examinations would
still take place, complaints would still come in, and
investigations would still occur. Not all occupational
licensees had their own board but were regulated and
overseen by the State of Alaska. If the board sunsetted the
continual modification and changes to guide regulations
would stop. The associated costs with such changes and the
continual lessoning of guide ethics regulations that
allowed big game guides to do things like spotting animals
from the air with the intention of harvesting those animals
would also stop. He pointed out that the new 3000 percent
increase in fees to transporters was in large part how the
board intended to pay off its debt by the end of FY 17. The
new fees to transporters were not enshrined permanently. In
the letter by his group and another letter from Seahawk Air
owner, Roland Ruoss reported that shortly the board would
be voting on reducing or eliminating fees to transporters.
There was also the possibility that a forthcoming legal
opinion could render the entire transporter category as it
related to aircraft untenable and unworkable. The board
would lose the fees to aircraft transporters permanently.
He felt that the board needed to fund itself from the
licensees as originally supposed to oversee as the guide
board and as the legislature originally intended.
Mr. Richards noted that the recent fiscal note that was
given to the committee only showed the cost of meetings and
did not reflect the other costs associated with the board
such as administrative costs associated with changes to
regulations or investigatory costs; the main source of the
board's continued debt. He mentioned the McDowell report
from the Alaska Professional Hunters Association that spoke
to the income the guide industry generated across Alaska.
He thought it was being used to bolster the need for the
board to continue. He opined that the guide industry
generated enough revenue that it should be able to fund its
own board on the licensing fees of its licensees. He also
relayed that the same report for the guide industry was
also meaningless in terms of whether the guide industry
needed the board to continue to function. He reiterated
that the guide industry would not cease to exist if the
board sunsetted. The question was whether the board could
function in a manner that was beneficial to the state and
the guide industry while being funded by its main licensees
it oversaw. His group did not believe it could. He added
that he had attended the BGCSB meetings for many years and
heard guides complain about other guides abusing the
system. He inquired about why the bad actors had not been
dealt with. Complaints were filed with the Alaska State
Troopers and with the board to no avail. He claimed that
high investigatory costs were responsible for slowing down
investigations and causing the board to sign consent
agreements rather than bringing violators to the full brunt
of the law. The consent agreements often allowed a guide to
continue to operate. He surmised that the board could not
function the way it was intended to function. His group
would have no issue with the board if it would stay out of
trying to affect resident hunters. He thanked committee
members for their time.
2:32:56 PM
SAM ROHRER, PESIDENT, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS
ASSOCIATION, KODIAK (via teleconference), spoke in support
of HB 254 to extend the BGCSB. He reported that currently
there were approximately 304 active contracting guides in
Alaska. He relayed that of the 304 active guides
approximately half of them were members of the Alaska
Professional Hunters Association. He signified that the
board was critical to the long-term viability of the
guiding industry. The board provided the only interaction
between the division and the guiding industry. He supposed
that without the board the industry had no meaningful input
on the development of regulations that directly impacted
the guiding industry. There were two specific issues he
wanted to address. The first was the board's debt. He
explained that it was important to note that some of the
debt began to accumulate during the period of time when the
board previously sunsetted. The current board inherited the
debt which continued to increase due to investigations that
the board had little or no input in. The situation had
changed and the debt was well on its way to being retired.
However, the debt would not go away even if the board
disbanded. He claimed that without the board's oversight
the debt would continue to grow and would continue to get
charged back to the guide industry in the form of increased
licensing fees.
Mr. Rohrer continued by addressing a second issue. He
pointed out that it was in the public's interest to have a
well-regulated guide industry. An important aspect was the
licensing of new registered guides. Under the current
board, prospective guides went through rigorous testing
including a written test and multiple oral tests taken in
front of proctors made up of board members and currently
licensed guides. During the period the board was sunsetted
the registered guide test consisted of a multiple choice
test and eventually with the test the answers became
available online for a fee. He reiterated that without a
board he did not believe it was possible to maintain the
same level of testing and assumed the testing would return
to the multiple choice test. He urged members to support HB
254.
2:35:56 PM
PAUL CHERVENAK, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of HB 254. He relayed that he was a 36 year resident
and hunter of Alaska and was a licensed master guide and
marine transporter. He believed in helping to develop
standards and manage the industry to make it one of the
safest and most professional there was. He opined that the
BGCSB enabled it to happen. He also believed that hunters
and commercial operators should help to pay for the
industry they used. He supported the recent increase in
license and reporting fees and urged members to support and
move HB 254 out of committee.
2:37:01 PM
DICK ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), was
introduced to the guide business in 1965 when he came to
Alaska. He had been licensed as a guide since 1971. He was
a master guide and served 2 terms on the BGCSB beginning in
2005 when the board was reinstated. He spoke of being a
financial officer to the board. He was disappointed when he
found out through accounting methods that $236 thousand of
revenue disappeared in 2011. In the same year he had heard
the deficit at the time was $376 thousand. Taking both
figures into consideration if the revenue had been
maintained there would not have been a concern with revenue
or expenses. Another thing that happened when the board was
reinstated was that the board encouraged the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development to implement a
computer system to keep hunting records in order to have
information readily available for the various agencies.
During the time it was being put together the board thought
it had commitments from federal agencies to provide $30
thousand to $40 thousand in revenue to go towards the
project that would have generated substantially more
revenue. The board was unable to figure out a way to
transfer the money directly to the board. He responded to a
question asked by Representative Kawasaki relaying that
there were only 112 under the board. He thought the number
reflected only the number of master guide outfitters. He
anticipated approximately 500 additional registered guide
outfitters and approximately 700 to 1000 more class "A"
assistant guides. He did not know the number of
transporters. He pointed out that it was not the board that
set the fees but rather the DCCED. He commented that it was
the legislature through the BGCSB statutes that established
the transporter license, rather than the board. He also
noted that, under the statutory definitions, air taxi
operators who flew from point-to-point were exempt from the
transporter licensing requirement. It was only those air
transporters that advertised big game hunting services and
charged a different fee for hunts were required to have a
transporter license. Any other air taxi operator was exempt
from the licensing requiring and exempt from the $50 that
he was claiming.
KELLY VREM, CHAIRMAN, BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD,
SUTTON (via teleconference), testified in support of the
bill. He relayed that the board was operating in the black.
The legal costs that caused the debt were out of the
board's control as Ms. Curtis had pointed out. The board
could only react to the charges levied against guides or
transports after they were made. The board decided the
appropriate level of punishment but did not get to decide
who to pursue in a violation. There were multiple ways to
incur a violation. It could be completely inadvertent. Some
examples included failing to file a form, failing to get
official permission from a land manager, or overtly meaning
to subvert the law. He relayed that the board currently
treated people with the same hammer. He felt a more nuanced
approach was needed and could only be attained after
reaching a consent agreement or obtaining a conviction. He
relayed additional challenges having to do with the
division raising the fees. Although he favored raising them
he claimed there had not been adequate public input prior
to the department deciding to do so. He believed it was the
only board that used volunteer proctors.
2:45:14 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was
in support of the board. He shared that the guiding
industry was unlike any other in the state: it was the most
regulated and had the highest standards. The board was
needed to decide whether investigations went forward. He
was very aggravated to see the DCCED violate Alaskans'
constitutional rights. He also mentioned that investigators
typically launched large investigations. He provided an
occurrence in which a young guide turned himself in and was
fined. He thought the board was needed to set standards and
to eliminate bureaucratic bullying. He thought the
transporters had been getting a free ride for too long. He
thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
2:49:29 PM
Representative Wilson asked about setting the fees. She
wondered if DCCED had not set the fees correctly. Mr.
Parady responded that the calculation of fees across the
department had confounded the DCCED for the past decade.
They had been the subject of a legislative audit twice.
Although the fee calculations were founded in mathematics
as the auditor described, the original push to increase the
fees was resisted by the board. The fee increase was
generated by the regulation rule making authority of the
DCCED, but it was done with the advice and recommendation
of the board. The delay lead to the worsening of the
problem. Currently, the board and the department had
initiated two rounds of fee increases, the board was
operating in the black, and the deficit would be erased.
Representative Wilson interjected that a larger picture was
at hand. She suggested that boards were mandated to cover
their costs with no costs to the state. She thought the
question the legislature should be addressing was whether
the state should allow boards to continue if they were not
self-sufficient. Boards having the ability to reject fee
increases was an issue unto itself. Mr. Parady agreed that
it was in statute that the fee balance in each profession
had to be self-supporting. The art of the mathematical
calculation was in the allocation of costs: the compilation
of all of the detail. It was currently changing with the
state's new accounting system and the department would be
adapting further.
Representative Wilson was not interested in moving the bill
forward because of her concerns with the legislature
breaking its own statute. She believed that because the
board had a deficit it was not in compliance with the law.
Mr. Parady offered that it was not the only board or
profession in the same circumstance. He conveyed that in
the audit report a revenue cycle was a 2-year period. For
example, in the first year the revenue might be $350
thousand or $400 thousand. In the second year it might be
$150 thousand. The department was trying not to send shock
waves into the system in terms of correcting the deficit.
The department was mindful of the statute and the statutory
requirements.
Representative Pruitt conveyed that the Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing had been
a giant mess for a while. It was not just the BGCSB.
However, the BGCSB was the most expensive board due to
investigations. As a result, it had the largest deficit. He
reminded members that the legislature placed intent
language in the bill directing the division to ensure that
the state covered its costs. He recalled the Board of Real
Estate raising its fees to cover costs and people were
outraged. Subsequently, the costs were dropped down
substantially. The legislation gave boards the ability to
ensure their costs were covered relieving the department
from having to do so. He thought boards would be in a
better position going forward. Lastly, there was one board
not covered by the statute being discussed: the Marijuana
Board. He thought it would be a problem in the future.
Co-Chair Thompson thought a future bill might be in order.
2:55:12 PM
Representative Gattis noted that part of the problem for
the BGCSB was that the fee structure was not increased when
it should have been. She thought there also needed to be a
change regarding investigations. She referred to a previous
testimony in the meeting and offered that she might
initiate a bill for consideration in the future.
Vice-Chair Saddler reviewed one fiscal impact note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
The appropriation was from the Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing. The Office of
Management and Budget Component number was 2360, dated
March 24, 2016 in the amount of $22.3 thousand for FY 17.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the fiscal note he had was
dated, April 1, 2016.
Vice-Chair Saddler stood corrected.
Representative Wilson asked why the deficits for the board
were not reflected in a fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson explained that the fiscal note reflected
the amount of revenue that would be brought in, and the
source from which it was being paid. It did not have
deficits listed. However, there were reports from the DCCED
that showed all of the boards and their deficits and
overages. He would provide the information from the DCCED.
Representative Wilson thought there should be a fiscal note
that included an explanation of what the members had heard
in the meeting. She thought it should reflect the fiscal
impact.
Representative Pruitt commented that the issue should be
reflect on paper and was an accounting situation. He
furthered that boards had borrowed from other boards to be
able to pay the deficits previously. That was the reason
the division was not in a deficit. He mentioned the Board
of Nurses that brought in a substantial surplus. The
surplus had been borrowed to pay for some of the deficit
costs. He did not believe including it in a fiscal note was
the proper way to address the issue. He asserted that it
was a clustered problem triggering two audits. Many
legislators had expressed frustration.
3:00:02 PM
Representative Wilson thought there should still be a
fiscal note from the Boards and Commissions that reflected
the accounting of each board. The fiscal note was not
reflective of the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson mentioned that Mr. Parady and Ms. Curtis
had reported the deficit of the board and explained that
the amount of fees resulting from licensure would catch
them up by FY 17 bringing the board into the black.
Representative Pruitt indicated there was a difference
between a board and the programs. All the bill was doing
was extending the board. He asserted that the board had a
$22.3 thousand cost. He suggested separating the two.
Vice-Chair Saddler suggested that when the House Finance
Committee was considering a board extension it should
request that a statement of the balance of the deficit or
credit for their investigations be included in the
information packets for members. He referred to a comment
Mr. Richards had made a comment about a pending legal
decision regarding transporters. He wanted to know more
about it.
Co-Chair Thompson wondered if it was something that could
be discussed because it was currently a pending court case.
Vice-Chair Saddler was unsure.
Co-Chair Thompson did not want to bring the issue up again
but suggested addressing it on the House Floor.
Vice-Chair Saddler withdrew his question.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 254 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
impact note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 254 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
3:03:50 PM
AT EASE
3:07:26 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act relating to compliance with federal education
laws; relating to public school accountability; and
providing for an effective date."
3:07:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, explained that he would
be happy to provide a general overview of the bill and
answer any questions members might have. However, he wanted
to first address the issue of the bill's fiscal note.
Representative Keller began by asking for serious
consideration of and action on the bill. The bill addressed
three sections of law. The first had to do with the
reporting requirements for school districts. The second was
the accountability section which laid out the assessments
and different issues related to the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and the
duties of the commissioner. He explained that much of the
bill addressed housekeeping issues. For example, with the
ESSA there was a new emphasis on local control and local
input. He referred to Section 6, page 3, line 26 where it
talked about the assessment process. It required the local
input of the local school district and the teachers. The
most colorful part of the bill was in the last section
where it pushed the pause button on standards based
assessments until the Department of Education and Early
Development and the school board could come back with a
report on the totality of the state's section of law, Title
14, as it related to accountability and assessments and with
recommendations for any changes. Most importantly the group
would come back with an assessment plan that could be
implemented. He pointed to page 6 of the bill.
Representative Keller next wanted to address the question as
to whether the bill would cost the state money. He contended
that it would not. However, he was not confident enough in
bringing a zero fiscal note from the DEED. He had supporting
opinions from various entities. He had a memo from the U.S.
Department of Education that he would be passing out to
members (Copy on file). He relayed that he and Senator
Dunleavy had met telephonically with Adam Honeysett
[Managing Director of state and local outreach for the U.S.
Department of Education] and Ann Whalen [Senior Advisor to
the Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education of the
U.S. Department of Education]. They subsequently sent a
memo that was forwarded to the State of Utah. He wondered
what would happen if the state did not fulfill the
requirements laid out in NCLB and ESSA. He mentioned a
handout that members had in their packets (Letter dated
February 3, 2016 from Assistant Secretary Deborah Delisle
to Commissioner Mike Hanley: copy on file). He pointed to
number 3 on page 3. He read the question about the
consequences of a state or district that failed to adhere
to the federal assessment requirements.
Representative Keller explained that in order to have a
fiscal note, there had to be a decision somewhere that the
state failed to comply. He contended that it would be a
difficult step for the U.S. Department of Education to get
over because the intent of the bill was to take a break and
do a better job of complying in terms of accountability and
assessment issues. In other words, if there was a failure
to comply enforcement actions could be taken. There were 7
things that could be done if the state refused to comply
with the requirements. He argued again that it was not the
case.
3:13:36 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked Representative Keller to
identify the full document. Representative Keller responded
that the full document was a memo from Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
The memo was addressed to Commissioner Mike Hanley. He
thought it was the best response to the question about what
happened to states that did not comply. He was happy to
supply the letter to the committee.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that he would have the letter
dispersed.
Representative Keller continued to explain that taking a
break would not be a new precedence. The State of
California took a 3-year break to review its laws and was
receiving reports. The difference for California was that
it negotiated the process as it went along. The State of
Alaska was in a situation where there were failed tests and
angry parents. He relayed that the ESSA would go into
effect in August 2016. He referred back to the U.S.
Department's letter indicating that it was early in the
process of implementing the ESSA and many decisions had not
been made yet. He thought that it was logical for the
State of Alaska to take a break to develop an assessment
plan and to conduct a review of the state's laws and
regulations having to do with ESSA. He reported that ESSA
afforded more local control.
Representative Keller next referred to page 4 of Ms.
Delisle's letter that addressed the specific enforcement
actions. He read directly from the letter:
"The specific enforcement action (s) the Department of
Education would take depends on the severity of non-
compliance."
Representative Keller surmised that Alaska would unlikely
experience severe enforcement actions based on the
intention of taking a break to get things accurate. He
noted that the state would not be refusing to do anything.
Rather, the state was taking a break. He also informed the
committee that the money was Title "A" money: federal money
designated to be dispersed to states with the attempt to
make things equitable for disadvantaged students. In the
act of applying for Title A money the state promised that
it would follow all of the rules. One of the rules was that
Alaska had to test grades 3 to 8 and a grade in high
school. He thought Alaska was in an uncomfortable position
because The Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP) failed. He
noted that in the previous week in Education Weekly there
was a report on different states and it discussed state
school boards across the nation feeling the urgency to flex
muscle. He claimed that what Alaska was trying to do was to
reinsert itself back into the education policy business. He
continued that the money had gone directly into the
department and, in turn, the department had given it to the
districts. He believed that having input in the education
process was critical.
3:18:42 PM
Representative Keller continued to discuss the issue of the
assessment. He talked about dealing with the parents of
students. He thought it was a mistake to choose the wrong
people to handle the subject. He believed people working
for the state wanted a good assessment plan. He had also
had the opportunity to get to know some of the new members
of the State Board of Education and was impressed. He urged
the committee to proceed with the legislation. He had no
problem with the indeterminate fiscal note.
Representative Gattis thanked Representative Keller for
bringing the legislation forward. She thought it was an
ideal time to be looking at the state's assessment. She
thought it was a good idea to think about pushing the pause
or reset button and mentioned the state might be eligible
for a waiver. She liked the option of applying hind sight.
Other states had been able to do so. She thought the timing
was perfect.
Representative Keller responded that the worst case would
be that the legislature would pass the law and the U.S.
Department of Education would not approve of it. It would
take some time before the state received any notice of
disapproval. He supposed that by such time the state would
be able to complete its own assessment.
3:23:14 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the letter that was
handed out during the meeting. The letter indicated that
the U.S. Department of Education could withhold a portion
of the state's Title 1 Part A administrative funds and
programmatic funds. He wondered what the value equated to.
Representative Keller suggested Representative Kawasaki
direct his question to the DEED. He pointed out that the
letter specifically stated "administrative funds" would be
at risk. He relayed that administrative funds would be
withheld before program funding was revoked. He had been
told by the Department of Education that 70 percent of the
revenue for the department was federal money. He did not
know what portion was Title 1A.
Representative Gara asked about the implementation of the
ESSA adopted in the prior year. He wondered if the bill
reestablished the designation of schools. Representative
Keller responded that the legislation did not change the
state's law regarding the designation process. One of the
requirements was for the school system to give a grade to
schools and to assign a designation and a grade to the
state education system. However, the state had never set
any guidelines for grading. There was one slight change in
the bill that required the DEED to assign a designation for
the state public school system based on the proficiency of
students compared to other states.
Representative Gara wondered if the designations under
state law were adopted because of the passage of the NCLB
Act. Representative Keller responded in the affirmative and
added there was not a lack of interest in knowing how the
state's school system was performing.
3:26:51 PM
Representative Gara remembered one of the largest flaws of
the federal designation system was that although teachers
and a school's administration were doing a good job and
students were making improvements, given where the students
were starting or their home life, some of them were still
failing. The designation was influenced. He wondered if the
state still maintained the same grading system.
Representative Keller admitted that in some ways the bill
kicked the can down the road. However, it called for a
review process.
Representative Gara asked if it was more feasible to come
up with a better school ranking system rather than the one
from the NCLB Act. Representative Keller indicated that it
would be a monumental task. The bill was an attempt to look
at things more closely and get further input from local
school districts, parents, and students. There were many
people in the state that had a lot invested in the current
system. He suggested that the bill provided a step forward
to get collaborative input on how to proceed, but it would
not fix all of the problems.
Representative Wilson relayed the state did not currently
use the same system to grade the state's schools as was
used when the NCLB Act was in place. She reported that the
state changed it with a waiver, imposed more teacher
accountability, and switched to a star rating system for
school performance. She had just read an article that
stated that the new testing that was most recently imposed
was a failure because of technical and computer issues. She
wanted Representative Keller's take on classroom time and
teaching versus continuing tests.
Representative Keller restated that it was a time of crisis
with several loose ends needing resolution. He believed
testing was critical and important in education in order to
better understand the educational needs of each student.
From a teacher's perspective student learning was extremely
important, and from the state's perspective in spending
money, accountability was very important. He felt that the
legislation provided an opportunity to come together.
3:31:58 PM
Representative Gattis responded to Representative Gara's
comment. She asserted that there were several things the
state placed into statute that dealt with the NCLB Act. She
thought the state would definitely have to conduct another
review. She added that with the signing of the ESSA in
December 2015 states were still trying to figure out their
options and what was allowed. She believed there were
several things at play and that the state should not get
ahead of itself. She thought the bill helped press the
pause button and to come together. There would be huge
changes in reporting, the statute, how the state graded its
schools, and how it held its teachers and students
accountable. She agreed with Representative Gara that there
was a flaw in the system. There were folks that were not
graded on their progress. Teachers that could help to
advance a student from a second grade proficiency to a
third or fourth grade proficiency were not given due credit
because of the student not being proficient in an expected
grade. There were huge challenges for the state. She
thought in going through the process and slowing down, the
state would have an advantage.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to Section 2, page 2, lines 9-
10 of the bill. It described that the department would
inform the governing body of the designations assigned to
the district and to the state public school system. He
wondered who applied the designation to the state public
school system. Representative Keller clarified that there
was a section of the law that drove the designation that
was not in the legislation. He referred to AS 14.03.123a.
Vice-Chair Saddler read from statute AS 14.03.123a:
(a) By September 1 of each year, the department shall
assign a performance designation to each public school
and school district and to the state public school
system in accordance with (f) of this section.
Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that later on in (g) it defined
"state public school system." He asked for the
representative to provide a couple examples of the elements
of a public school system by which Alaska's system could be
compared to those of other states.
Representative Keller responded that in drafting the
legislation he did not want to get specific about what
would be used. It stated that the state board would make
the regulations for the determination. He relayed that the
only tool that did a proficiency comparison was National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The bill did
not designate what was to be used other than it had to be
based on proficiency. There were tests that were comparable
that the board could look at using. He left the language
broad on purpose.
3:36:49 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the indeterminate fiscal
note. He highlighted a couple of places in the analysis
section of the fiscal note that stated that the fiscal
impact could not be determined because of a lack of
measures necessary to estimate costs. He expressed his
concerns about going ahead with an assessment without
knowing the designations or measures or the price of the
assessment.
Representative Keller highlighted that the bill placed a
tool in the tool box for the commissioner and the state
board in interpreting and figuring out how the state would
respond to forthcoming regulations. It was not that the
state would be incurring a cost by some federal enforcement
act that worried him. It was more that the state would be
at the table with the federal government trying to figure
out what was going on.
Vice-Chair Saddler did not want to lose the $200 million of
federal money in impact aid. Representative Keller
responded that it happened one year at a time. If there was
a threat of losing millions of dollars of federal money
legislation would be before the committee again. He was not
particularly worried about the federal money but he wanted
it to show up on the fiscal note as indeterminate rather
than zero. However, at present he would be comfortable with
a zero fiscal note.
Representative Guttenberg referred to Section 8, page 6, on
line 16. He wondered if the bill placed the standards -
based assessment on hold between July 1, 2016 and July 1,
2018. The bill would not allow the first administration of
whatever plan that was developed until the school year of
2020. There was always a contradiction between having
assessments and not having assessments and standards when
speaking with teachers. He wondered if students fall
between the seams by not having something when they were
applying for college. He was concerned that colleges would
reject Alaskan students because they did not have testing
or grades to compare with those of students from other
states. He thought the change being proposed in the
legislation was significant. He asked if Alaska's students
would fall through the cracks. Representative Keller
responded that members of the committee understood the
dynamics of what happened in the districts better than he
did. He mentioned the most recent education chairman and
deferred to a district expert.
3:41:32 PM
Representative Munoz asked if school districts were
supportive of the bill. Representative Keller stated that
districts were concerned with anything that might threaten
federal money. However, he received positive responses from
many districts about a possible change. He thought that
districts' fears were over-rated.
Representative Munoz asked if there was enough flexibility
for states to figure things out by 2020 with the new ESSA
law.
Representative Keller responded that in his opinion he
thought yes. He added that the state did not know what the
response of the federal government would be. The state was
not simply refusing to comply. Rather, the state was
wanting to do it correctly with some time to do so.
Representative Munoz clarified that all testing would be
discontinued from third grade when testing began.
Representative Keller responded that she was incorrect. The
department would not be able to require assessment-based
testing. He elaborated that when a school took Title 1
monies it was a promise to conduct testing. The requirement
did not go away. The state was halting the state department
from using the sanction on the mandate on local districts
to administer the assessment-based test.
Representative Munoz asked whether the district would
continue with the testing if it received federal funding.
She wondered if the state department could not require the
testing. Representative Keller responded affirmatively. He
indicated that the Department of Education and Early
Development agreed to require the testing. The federal
government required the state to offer the test to
everyone. It required districts to administer the tests. It
did not require parents to take the test. The requirement
stated that the test had to be administered to everyone
fairly. No group of people could not be excluded. It was
part of the NCLB Act which was in effect until August 2016.
3:45:11 PM
Representative Gattis wondered if she had heard
Representative Keller correctly that the schools would be
able to continue their testing. She recognized that other
states had applied for waivers or the opportunity to slow
the process down to get things right. She wanted to confirm
that Alaska would not be jumping "out of the box" in
comparison to other states. She thought the Title 1
dollars were a huge concern. She asked if it was his intent
to decline the federal dollars or to just slow the process
down to get things correct using the federal dollars while
going through the process. She opined that the new ESSA was
a moving target that needed to be better understood in
terms of what it allowed.
Representative Keller responded that by taking federal
dollars the state was obligated to operate as it was
currently operating - basically operating as an outpost for
policy from the U.S. Department of Education. The
legislation would allow the commissioner to have another
tool in the toolbox to negotiate.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated that the meeting would be
recessed for 10 minutes. Upon reconvening representatives
from the DEED would be testifying on HB 156.
3:48:08 PM
AT EASE
3:57:26 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Ms. MacKinnon and Deputy
Commissioner Walter available from the DEED.
BETTY WALTERS, INTERIM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
MARGARET MACKINNON, DIRECTOR, ASSESSMENT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the question he had
asked the sponsor of the bill dealing with funding. In the
memo members received written to Commissioner Hanley stated
that failure to comply with the assessment requirements
could place Title 1, Part A funds in jeopardy. He wondered
how much funding could be at risk. Ms. MacKinnon replied
that Title 1a funding was approximately $40 million which
included money that went out to each of the districts in
the state.
Representative Kawasaki continued to reference portions of
the memo to Commissioner Hanley that went on to say that
the state could find itself out of compliance with a wide
range of other programs that required the state assessment
results. One of them was school improvement grants, ESSA
Title III, Part B, which dealt with the Individuals with
Disabilities Act. Another was programs for rural schools
under ESSA Title IV. Additionally it could affect migrant
education under ESSA Title 1, Part C. He wondered if she
had a value for each listed. Ms. MacKinnon responded in the
affirmative. She stated that based on the information in
the letter, the total amount of funds that were represented
would be over $99 million for FY 2017.
3:59:55 PM
Representative Wilson asked if it was an opportunity to be
able to reevaluate what kind of testing the state wanted to
conduct. She wondered if it would provide more opportunity
and flexibility to utilize the testing that school
districts were already doing such as the Measures of
Academic Progress (MAP) testing. She suggested that it was
a reset of sorts. She believed the bill's intent was to
utilize the opportunity to do what was best for Alaskans.
The most recent testing was not very successful.
Ms. MacKinnon reported that she had had a recent
conversation with Anne Whalen, the assistant secretary at
the U.S. Department of Education to clarify some of the
requirements under the ESSA. She had provided Dr. McCauley,
the department's interim commissioner, a letter. She
continued that the passage of the ESSA did provide the
state more flexibility in certain areas. Those areas
primarily related to the design of the school
accountability system that had some required indicators,
including achievement on the state assessments, and also a
measure of growth. In other words, not everything would be
based only on the assessment. There was some flexibility in
the assessment and a couple of new options. However, the
state was still required to give the same statewide
assessment to measure the state's standards to all students
in grades 3 through 8 annually and at least once in school.
There was an option allowing a state to approve districts
to request a local choice of a nationally recognized high
school assessment comparable to and reported similarly to
the results on the state's assessment. The option only
applies to high school and not to grades 3 through 8.
Representative Wilson asked if other states had obtained
waivers. She supposed other states were taking a slower
approach to making the necessary changes and doing it
correctly. Ms. MacKinnon reported having talked with people
who had worked with the state department in California and
also asked Anne Whalen at the U.S. Department of Education.
The situation in California was that they were in the
process of implementing the smarter balanced assessment. In
the year in which the assessments were field tested,
California used those assessments in a field test mode then
transitioned into the regular assessment in the following
year. Some of the transition might have had to do with when
the assessments were used or growth from the assessments in
California's accountability system. She thought having the
assessment was different. Assistant Secretary Whalen had
indicated that no state had been able to receive a waiver
of the assessment requirements.
4:03:35 PM
Representative Wilson noted that she had requested
previously that the state would not make up its own test or
cut scores. She did not believe it was fair to Alaska's
children. The State had not been successful again. She
hoped that the state had learned that there were great
assessments available. She contended that it was time to
stop trying to reinvent the wheel and to start looking at
assessments that were already available for less money and
allowed for comparison of Alaska's kids to kids in other
states.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the department's
evaluation of the bill. He also asked how difficult it
would be to align assessment tests if they were different
from school district to school district. Ms. MacKinnon
responded that the state would have a high school
assessment. The state could opt to allow individual
districts to choose a nationally recognized high school
assessment such as the ACT (American College Testing) or
the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test). The U.S. Department of
Education was clear that the ACT and the SAT were not the
only examples and that it would be up to the states to
determine whether to allow a district to choose to give an
alternate assessment. The test would have to be
administered to all students in a district and would have
to measure and be able to be reported comparably to the
state's assessment (designed to measure the state's
standards). It was a process of determining other
assessments that could also be shown to measure the state's
standards.
Representative Guttenberg assumed that it was feasible and
not as difficult as it could be. He asked about the
department's consideration of the bill in terms of what it
did, its implementation, and the risk of losing federal
funding if it passed. Ms. MacKinnon responded that the way
in which the bill was written would prohibit the department
from requiring districts to take a test within the
following 2 school years. She thought that it potentially
put the state at risk for losing Title 1 federal funds. She
reported receiving a letter that indicated the state would
be out of compliance. She was working with district
superintendents and stake holders to look at what kind of
assessment the state would want to implement over the
following 2 years. Alaska had choices and did not have to
have a custom assessment, only one that measured the
state's standards. She suggested that the state might end
up with a system of assessments. There was some
flexibility. She reiterated that the state would be out of
compliance if it did not administer an assessment.
Representative Guttenberg thought it would be a
considerable risk. He wanted to weigh and measure the
state's ability to do its own assessment and the risk of
lost funding which would affect Alaska immediately.
4:08:34 PM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED HB 156 to public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
4:09:24 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler reviewed the indeterminate fiscal note
from DEED. The appropriation was Teaching and Learning
Support and the allocation was Student and School
Achievement. The Office of Budget and Management component
number was 2796. The amount was zero for FY 17 and in the
future it was indeterminate.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to REPORT CHHB 156 (EDC) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki relayed having a discussion about
the previous bill dealing with the BGCSB with a fiscal note
indicating a cost of about $20 thousand for travel. He
thought that there was a larger picture to look at.
Although the fiscal note detailed potential loses of
federal education funds and impact aide that could equate
to $200.2 million. He had not seen an updated letter other
than the one dated February 3, 2014 to Commissioner Hanley.
It seemed like there might be more information from the
department that they had received a subsequent letter
stating that if, in fact, the state did not have a
standardized test in 2017 and 2018 it could cost Alaska a
large amount of money. He did not feel comfortable letting
the bill out of committee without fully understanding its
impact. He thought it was bad business to push legislation
forward without knowing the consequences to the state.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson thought the state had a unique
opportunity. She thought that the letter to Commissioner
Hanley from the U.S. Department of Education conveyed that
each school district could design a test to be used for the
purpose of assessing state standards. She favored moving
the bill forward.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. He
indicated that without having a better understanding of the
true risk or implications of losing about $90 million per
year in federal funding, he could not support the
legislation. The bill sponsor had mentioned coming back in
the following year to fix any issues. However, he mentioned
that even a brief simple bill took months to travel through
the legislature. He did not want to risk losing federal
funding.
Representative Gattis believed the state was in a "Catch
22" position and thought moving forward would be the right
thing to do currently. She would be supporting the bill.
4:14:53 PM
AT EASE
4:21:34 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki discussed the letter from the
United States Department of Education dated, April 1, 2016
(copy on file). He believed the letter conveyed that
federal funds and impact aid could potentially be
jeopardized and opposed the legislation.
4:22:24 PM
Representative Gattis remarked that although she understood
Representative Kawasaki's point of view, she hoped that
prior to the bill getting to the floor there would be more
of an opportunity to take a harder look at the legislation
and some of the options other states had executed. She
would be a "yes" vote.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
Representative Neuman and Representative Gara were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7/2).
CSHB 156 (EDC) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously publish
indeterminate fiscal note: FN1 (EED).
4:23:42 PM
AT EASE
4:25:11 PM
RECONVENED
4:25:24 PM
Co-Chair Thompson called the meeting back to order and
indicated that there was a committee substitute.
HOUSE BILL NO. 209
"An Act relating to an Alaska Water and Sewer Advisory
Committee; and providing for an effective date."
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 209 (FIN), Work Draft (29-LS0306\P).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
spoke to two changes in the bill. The first change was in
Section 2, page 2, line 3. It deleted the number 9 and
replaced it with 10. The second change was in Section 2,
page 2, line 16. It added the following:
"A senior employee with expertise in environmental
health and engineering from a large nonprofit tribal
health organization operating in the stat appointed by
the members of the bush caucus; and"
Mr. Anderson relayed that Representative Edgmon was
available to speak about the impacts of the changes.
Representative Edgmon explained that the change would bring
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium into the
advisory committee. He thought it was a change that rounded
out the make-up of the advisory committee and it was a
worth-while addition to the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler had no objection to the addition but
wanted to see a definition of the bush caucus and a
membership list before he could support the committee
substitute.
Mr. Anderson believed the sponsor might be able to better
address the full definition. He pointed to the bill in
Section 2, page 4, line 2-7, provided the definition of
"bush caucus."
Vice-Chair Saddler still wanted to see a list of current
members. He supposed in reading the language of the
committee substitute in Section 2, page 4 it would mean
whomever happened to be representing the communities into
the future. He wanted to see a list of current members
before the bill went to the floor.
Co-Chair Thompson would have the list produced.
Representative Guttenberg referred to Page 4, line 2. He
hoped that it included legislators that represented any of
the communities rather than all of the communities. The
communities listed represent villages that did not have
sewer and water at present. He asked if he was correct.
4:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEIL FOSTER, SPONSOR, DISTRICT 39,
introduced himself. The villages listed in the bill were
communities currently unserved. Bush Caucus members
currently included were Representatives Foster, Nageak,
Edgmon, Talerico, and Herron and Senators Olson, Hoffmann,
and Bishop.
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEIL FOSTER, stated
that the list of villages in question was the list provided
by Village Safe Water.
Representative Foster emphasized that the bill had a zero
fiscal note.
Mr. Labolle stated that the bill essentially established an
advisory committee to look at the gap between the
established need for water and sewer infrastructure and
available funding. He thought everyone was in agreement
that it was unlikely to see any increase in funding in the
near future. The main focus of the committee would be how
to do the job better, faster, and cheaper. Members would be
asked to work telephonically, as there would be no travel
budget, and there would be no compensation for members. It
required that the committee issue a report on December 1,
2017 due to the legislature. He was happy to review
committee appointment and members or be available for
questions.
Co-Chair Thompson encouraged Mr. Labolle to continue.
Mr. Labolle referred to Section 2, page 2, line 4. A member
of the senate would be appointed by members of the bush
caucus. He reported working with the staff of the Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Committee to derive a good
definition for bush caucus.
Representative Gattis asked if there were any communities
that were served by another legislator outside of the bush
caucus that was not included. Mr. Labolle responded in the
negative. He indicated that the comprehensive list was
reflective in the bill. Additional people were desired.
However, in trying to develop a good definition for
statute, the list was as it stood.
Representative Gattis specified that her question had been
answered.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that he had no sewer
and water systems in villages within his district.
4:35:08 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the selected
communities and whether they were unserved. Mr. Labolle
responded affirmatively. He clarified that there were three
types of services that Village Safe Water worked under
including unserved communities, underserved communities,
and communities with upgrades that did not have a
substantial threat.
Representative Kawasaki was not concerned about the way the
bill was constructed. He commented that there were
underserved rural communities. He wondered why they would
not be included and, thus, a larger list of bush caucus
members. Mr. Labolle relayed that it had been discussed
with staff in Community and Regional Affairs. The reason
was to save paper because according to Legislative Legal
every community had to be cited by name, rather than
referencing a list. The bill would have been physically
much larger.
Representative Wilson asked about what distinguished
qualifying communities from other communities. Mr. Labolle
deferred to Mr. Griffith from Alaska Native Health
Consortium [Department of Environmental Conservation].
Representative Wilson explained that her question was posed
in order to better understand the difference between
communities that did and did not have septic systems.
Individual septic systems were prominent in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough. She wondered if the designation for the
qualifying communities was based on the Clean Water Act.
BILL GRIFFITH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
(via teleconference), answered that the list included
communities in which there was no community or individual
water and sewer services to individual homes. It meant that
the community did not have a pipe system, or wells and
septic systems that could be installed. There also was no
community haul system. The homes were without service in
the communities on the list.
4:38:47 PM
Representative Wilson asked if they were unable to have a
system installed. She wanted to make a distinction. Mr.
Griffith responded in the affirmative. The department had
been providing water and sewer services to rural Alaska
villages. Generally, the villages that remained were the
ones where the easier options were not available. The
preferred option was to install wells and septic systems
anywhere possible. In these particular communities either
there was no ground water for wells or there was no way to
put individual septic systems in because of permafrost or
ground water.
4:39:49 PM
Representative Edgmon asked Mr. Griffith to list the myriad
of state and federal funding sources that generally went
into funding water and sewer projects. He also asked him to
describe the larger picture of water and sewer systems in
rural Alaska. Some communities, although had systems in
place, were old and aging and would be in need of
maintenance at some point soon. He opined that down the
road without proper maintenance and upkeep of the systems
their efficacy would be in question.
Mr. Griffith reported that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) received about $60 million in federal
funds to make improvements in rural water and sewer
systems. He explained that the federal funding came to
Alaska from 3 different federal agencies. The first was
Indian Health Service (IHS) which did not require any state
match. The second was the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) which provided a grant award through the State
of Alaska that required some state match. The third agency
was the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the rural
development program which required some state match. The
largest single funder was the EPA. There were a couple of
different ways that the funding was allocated. The funding
that came through the State of Alaska and required a state
match was allocated by the Village Safe Water Program and
the DEC. The Indian Health Service funding was allocated by
a national Indian health service prioritization system
called the Sanitation Deficiency System. Both pots of money
used the same data base of project needs. The data base of
water and sewer project needs was updated yearly. There
were three types of projects listed in the database. The
first type was the first-time service project, a project
that provided water and sewer to homes for the first time.
He furthered that the total project need associated with
these types of projects was slightly over $521 million.
Mr. Griffith continued with the second category of project
need, upgrades to address substantial health threats. The
upgrades were significant improvements needed to keep
existing systems operational to provide adequate water or
to meet current regulations. The funding needed for
upgrades was about $300 million.
Mr. Griffith discussed the third category of need, upgrades
to benefit system operation and address minor health
threats. The amount was about $400 million. The state did
not match these funds. The total funding need for the types
of projects DEC provided funding for was just over $800
million. He reported that typically every year the state
received about $60 million to address the state's needs.
There was a significant gap between the amount of state
project need and the amount of funding it received each
year.
4:44:49 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if an advisory group would be
useful. He was thinking about the focus on the Arctic and
the U.S. having the chairmanship of the Arctic Council for
a couple more years. Many of the underserved communities
were in the Arctic. He thought it could not hurt the cause
to get additional federal funding at a time when state
funding had plateaued.
Mr. Griffith thought the advisory committee could be useful
in raising awareness and understanding about some of these
challenges in Alaska and nationally. The Department of
Environmental Conservation had several things going on in
relation to the Arctic Council. There was an international
conference planned for September 2016 to be held in
Anchorage at which DEC would be focusing on some of the
challenges at the conference. An advisory committee could
be tied in with the conference and other things going on.
Mr. Griffith informed members that a lot of the things
called for in the bill were already going on. However,
there were other things on the list of deliverables that
might benefit from having an advisory committee to work
with. The committee would be able to keep the legislature
more informed about things happening and some of the
challenges that were being faced. He thought it could help
the overall effort.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to Section 1, page 1, line 12.
He asked about the word "sewer" system and what it
encompassed. Mr. Griffith stated that it applied to
whatever means an individual community had for collecting
sewage from individual homes and other buildings - the
collection system overall and the treatment and disposal
system the community used. In some cases it could be pipes
and a community lagoon and in other cases it could be
referring to individual septic systems.
Co-Chair Thompson thanked Mr. Griffith for his testimony.
4:48:47 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the same line that stated it
was the legislature's responsibility to ensure safe and
sustainable water and sewer systems to all communities of
the state. He thought it was a fairly broad, encompassing,
and generous statement. He wondered if he meant all
communities. He asked about the standards. Mr. Labolle
explained that the same issue came up in the previous
committee in House Community and Regional Affairs. As a
result, the change was made from "individuals" in the state
to "communities" in the state. The state would not have to
provide for a single person at a mining camp, for example.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about a standard or a definition
of what the threshold was for communities. Mr. Labolle
stated that the intent of the bill was to address
communities on the Village Safe Water list.
Representative Guttenberg commented that in Section 2, page
3, line 19, he felt that his issue was addressed. Many of
the villages he represented had water or sewer. However the
only thing worse than having a sewer was having one that
could not be maintained and remained broken. He appreciated
hearing about maintaining the state's investments. He
believed that building modern systems that were low in cost
and sustainable was very important to discuss. Mr. Labolle
stated that one of the main focuses was to address the fact
that previous systems had been built to a standard that was
not really maintainable. The state was trying to get away
from systems that could not be maintained.
Representative Edgmon made a humorous remark.
4:51:28 PM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
4:51:56 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler reviewed the zero fiscal note from the
Alaska Legislature. The appropriation was the Legislative
council and the allocation was Council and Subcommittees.
The component number from the Office of Management and
Budget was 783, and the fiscal note was dated March 25,
2016.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to report CSHB 209 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note(s). There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CSHB 209 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1 (CRA).
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
4:53:03 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.