Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/15/2016 08:30 AM 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 | |
| SB101 | |
| HB339 | |
| SB69 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 339 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 15, 2016
8:39 a.m.
8:39:13 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:39 a.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 Cathy Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Lance Pruitt
ALSO PRESENT
Ed Fogels, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources; Ben Ellis, Director, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources;
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Sponsor; Kaci Schroeder,
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department
of Law; Brandon Brefcynski, Staff, Senator Bill Stoltze;
Dr. Edward Barrington, Board of Chiropractic Examiners,
Juneau; Janey Hovenden, Director, Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ted Wellman, President, Kenai River Special Management Area
Advisory Board, Sterling.
SUMMARY
HB 339 MOTOR VEHICLE ARSON
HB 339 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM) and FN2
(LAW).
CSSB 69(FIN)
BD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS; PRACTICE
CSSB 69(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal note: FN2 (CED).
CSSB 101(FIN)
STATE PARKS FEES & SALES OF MERCHANDISE
CSSB 101(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with and one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN3 (DNR).
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(FIN)
"An Act relating to merchandise sold and certain fees
charged or collected by the Department of Natural
Resources."
8:40:06 AM
ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, relayed that the bill was extremely important to
the department and the state. Alaska's state park system
was the largest in the nation; it had evolved into a lean
and efficient machine. The Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) was trying hard to reduce the amount of General Funds
required to run state parks and believed they had developed
a strategy to completely get the state park system off of
general funds in the near future. He detailed that the bill
represented a key piece of the department's strategy.
BEN ELLIS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, discussed that
the bill would enable the Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation to sell state park themed merchandise in a
manner that ensured a reasonable monetary return to the
state to help support state park operations, which would
thereby potentially reduce the division's reliance on
General Funds. He communicated that the bill contained two
parts. First, the current statute specified that the
department could collect fees in a "park unit." He detailed
that at present, DNR collected fees online for public use
cabin reservations, annual parking and boat launch passes
at public information centers; there were also other areas
where funds were received that were not in a park unit. The
bill would remove the park unit language. He specified that
the Department of Law (DOL) had looked at the issue. He
elaborated that the department was not in danger of losing
the funds collected outside of a park unit, but the idea
was to clarify the language. He characterized the change as
a housekeeping measure. The second and more important part
of the bill gave DNR another tool in its effort to reduce
dependency on Undesignated General Funds (UGF) that
supported the division.
Mr. Ellis explained that in FY 15 the division had been
allocated $3.5 million in UGF and the division had brought
in $3.3 million in program receipts. The division's
operational budget was a little over $7 million. The
department had taken the steps through the legislation to
try to close the gap. He explained that the division had
increased its program receipts; previously about 31 percent
of its operating expenses came from permits. The number had
increased to 40 percent with a target in the 50 percent
range by the beginning of next year. The division had
looked at park units where the state had not charged fees
and had taken steps to change that. For example, the
division had installed collection stations with restrooms
on Kodiak; it had anticipated bringing in $20,000 as a
result, but it had already reached that amount before the
summer season had begun. He elaborated that Kodiak had been
very supportive of the fee increase to support the parks,
which comported with the overall statewide sentiment. The
division had also reduced its spending by 18 percent in
order to operate without UGF. The bill would enable the
division to maintain park services, reduce dependency on
UGF, and provide a way to support the largest state park
system in the nation.
8:45:32 AM
Mr. Ellis relayed that the idea had come about 4.5 years
earlier when there had been a photo contest as part of the
40th anniversary of Alaska's state parks. He detailed that
the idea had come to create blank notecards with some of
the photos and park information to sell for a profit. The
division had been told it could only sell the item at cost.
He showed the committee a park hat that was given to
advisory board members, but could not be sold. Currently,
the only source for park merchandise was an online retailer
based in Seattle. For example, if a person wanted an Eagle
Beach Alaska State Park sweatshirt they could buy it online
for $40; the state and the division received zero percent
of the profits. The bill would enable people purchasing the
merchandise to support their state parks and to know that
the profit was going back into their state parks. He
relayed that at least six other states had mature park
merchandise programs that generated $1 million or more in
profits for their park systems.
8:47:38 AM
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the division had the ability to
work with commissions. He stated that the Mat-Su visitor's
center and others worked on commission sales where items
could be sold.
Mr. Ellis answered in the affirmative. He detailed that the
bill was broad and specified that it was the division's
responsibility to seek a desirable and appropriate return
on investment, which could occur through a number of
venues. The program would have a strong wholesale component
where a product would be sold to retail stores. The concept
had been put forward by Princess, specifically related to
its lodge at the Denali National Park near the new Kesugi
campground. The division would love to have products to
sell at the lodge, which would make a small profit for the
state and the retailers.
Co-Chair Neuman looked forward to the bill becoming law so
he could purchase a hat.
Representative Gattis asked if there was a preference given
to Alaska businesses when retail items were purchased. She
realized the state was going to try to make a profit and
that the money went back in [to DNR's budget]. She referred
to Mr. Ellis's testimony that currently the products could
only be purchased out of state. She believed there could be
a win-win situation [for the state and its businesses].
Mr. Ellis answered that the bill did address the issue; it
included language that to the extent practicable several
things would occur. First, the products would be made in
the United States. He noted that currently products were
primarily made outside of the U.S. Second, there was an
Alaska bidder preference and the ability to look into the
state's correctional facilities to determine if they had an
opportunity to create a product.
8:50:33 AM
Mr. Ellis continued to provide an explanation of the bill.
He explained that there were states making between $1
million and $4 million in annual profit on the sales of
merchandise (the programs had been in operation between 8
and 10 years in those states). However, he clarified that
if implemented, the program would not bring in that kind of
revenue immediately; it would be necessary to take very
small steps to slowly grow the program. He explained that
the bill had a zero fiscal note and the division would have
to find the ability within its current means to make the
program work. He communicated that states with the most
successful programs had product at all of their state park
areas. The program in Alaska would probably focus initially
on some of the state's most heavily used areas that were
closest to the largest population centers. The department
intended to grow the program over a 5 to 8-year period. He
relayed that the New Hampshire program had earned in the $1
million per year range. He cited the program's deputy
director as saying "We are fairly passionate about our
retail operations here in New Hampshire state parks. When
you change the dialogue from cost control to revenue growth
opportunities all of a sudden new doors open, employees
attitudes shift, and we build a broader customer base of
support, loyalty, and advocacy for our state parks system."
Representative Munoz asked if the division would work with
a wholesale distributor or if the state would act as the
wholesaler.
Mr. Ellis answered that the division had not yet looked at
those details, but it would in the future. The department
would also look at turning artwork generated by artisan
residents in the Rie Munoz-Dorothy Gruening Artist-in-
Residence Program into prints for resale.
Representative Munoz encouraged the division to work with a
wholesaler with a network of businesses instead of taking
the work on itself. She believed the work would be quite
cumbersome for the state to take on itself.
Mr. Ellis agreed.
Representative Munoz suggested working with a graphic
designer on creating a product line. She believed that
investing a little on the front end would create greater
success.
Mr. Ellis emphatically agreed. He acknowledged that the
division did not contain graphic artist or merchandise
sales experts; it would be looking to the private sector
for the expertise in order to develop a product that would
sell and that the state could be proud of.
8:53:55 AM
Co-Chair Neuman stated that a significant number of people
enjoyed state parks for photography. He noted that many
professional photographers had copyrights of their photos.
He wanted to ensure that there was nothing in the bill that
would infringe upon the right of individuals to take
professional photos.
Mr. Ellis replied that the bill would not impact
photographers. He relayed that in the photography contest
held by the division six years earlier, the photographers
had agreed to provide the division with copyright for their
particular submission. However, the bill would not impinge
upon the ability of professional photographers to take
pictures.
TED WELLMAN, PRESIDENT, KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
ADVISORY BOARD, STERLING (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation. The advisory board was
concerned about ensuring adequate monies and funding for
parks in order to have appropriate enforcement and
maintenance of facilities. He shared that the Kenai River
was under "virtual assault" by increased use throughout the
system. The board was in favor of any legislation that
raised funds to allow state parks to more adequately
perform their job. The board believed the bill and
merchandizing was a nice and neat idea that would allow
people visiting the park to identify with the park. He
believed the products would be very popular. He relayed
that the advisory board had submitted a letter of support
in the past.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Neuman addressed the zero fiscal note from DNR for
FY 17 through FY 22. He noted that the department had the
authority to collect fees at locations outside the park
unit and the bill would enable the division to collect
program receipts to allow for a profit to be made outside
the sale of merchandise.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSSB 101(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 101(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with and one previously published
zero fiscal note: FN3 (DNR).
8:57:38 AM
AT EASE
8:59:45 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 339
"An Act relating to arson in the third degree."
8:59:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing her bill. The bill aimed to increase
public safety by expanding the circumstances where the act
of arson may be classified as arson. She explained that
current law provided that damaging a vehicle by fire or
explosion may only be charged as arson in the third degree
if the crime was committed on state or municipal land. An
identical action on private land would be criminal mischief
in the third degree. She explained that both crimes were
Class C felonies. She elaborated that the narrowness of the
arson statute hindered fire and arson investigators'
ability to track repeat offenders. She continued that
serial arsonists were often prime suspects when a new arson
crime was committed, but were difficult to track when they
had only been previously convicted of criminal mischief.
The bill would aid investigators in solving the crimes by
creating a clear criminal history. She urged the committee
to support the bill.
Representative LeDoux relayed that the bill was supported
by the Alaska Fire Chief's Association. Additionally, the
bill had been one of late Representative Max Gruenberg's
priorities. She explained that after Representative
Gruenberg had passed away, the House Judiciary Committee
decided to sponsor the legislation.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed individuals available to
testify.
9:02:54 AM
Co-Chair Thompson asked to hear from the Department of Law
(DOL). He wondered if there were any problems with the
bill.
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, replied that DOL saw no legal
issues with the legislation as currently drafted.
Co-Chair Neuman believed during his time as a House
Representative, Senator Bill Stoltze had worked on
legislation specifying that a crime would be classified as
arson if it was committed on public lands. He asked if
there had ever been an arrest of someone burning a vehicle
(even on public land).
Ms. Schroeder noted that it was a statute the department
was familiar with, but she did not know if there had been
any arrests for the crime.
Representative Wilson stated that the issue had been
brought forward by firefighters in her district. She
clarified that there was currently a different charge on
public lands versus private lands.
Ms. Schroeder answered in the affirmative; if the bill did
not go through the department would continue to charge the
crime on private lands as criminal mischief in the third
degree (a Class C felony).
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the bill
created even ground and allowed fire fighters and public
safety to track offenders who committed the crime on both
public and private property.
Ms. Schroeder replied in the affirmative. The department
would have the ability to charge the crime as arson. The
crime would be tracked as arson, which was an immediate
notification to the public and law enforcement that burning
was involved.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there was current law to force a
person who committed the crime to pay for removing the
vehicle.
Ms. Schroeder answered that the direction would be included
in part of the damages and restitution the department often
sought in resolving the cases.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Vice-Chair Saddler had joined
the meeting.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Neuman addressed the two zero fiscal notes for the
Department of Law and Department of Administration for FY
17 to FY 22. He noted that the departments did not
currently anticipate a fiscal impact from the legislation.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 339 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 339 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM) and FN2 (LAW).
9:07:45 AM
AT EASE
9:09:16 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 69(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners and the practice of chiropractic."
9:09:24 AM
BRANDON BREFCYNSKI, STAFF, SENATOR BILL STOLTZE, explained
that the bill had been brought forward by the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners and the Alaska Chiropractic Society.
State chiropractic laws had not been updated since 1988;
the bill was intended to clarify and modernize the
associated statutes. The bill addressed the training and
utilization of chiropractic clinical assistants, interns,
and preceptors. Additionally, the bill would strengthen and
clarify law allowing chiropractors to perform school
physicals. The legislation would also revise penalties for
fraudulent practices, updated definitions, and modernized
terminology.
Representative Wilson referred to the explanation of bill
changes, which she believed contained an error. She
referred to the explanation that the bill reinstated
provisions requiring chiropractors to perform physical
examinations (Section 2, page 2). She asked for
verification that the bill would allow chiropractors to
perform examinations, but not require it.
Mr. Brefcynski replied in the affirmative. He noted that it
may have been a drafting error.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked who would be covered by the bill.
Mr. Brefcynski deferred the question to a representative
from the Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
9:11:41 AM
DR. EDWARD BARRINGTON, BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS,
JUNEAU, provided information about his professional
background. He relayed that the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners and the Chiropractic Society supported the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how many people were employed in
chiropractic clinical assistants, interns, and preceptors.
Mr. Barrington answered that there were currently no
statistics available because the positions were not
regulated. Typically a person was trained in a chiropractic
office. There were programs in chiropractic colleges and
there was a national board examination for chiropractic
clinical assistants. An intern was a chiropractic student
who had passed all of their graduation requirements and may
have graduated, but was waiting for a board examination in
a particular state and who may want to gain clinical
experience. The preceptor supervised the intern. Currently,
there were chiropractic colleges wanting to place interns
in Alaska, but they required enabling language in Alaska
law. He explained that clinical assistants would be
regulated much like medical assistants. There was public
interest in the endeavor and there had been third-party
inquiries from insurance companies about the qualifications
of people working with their insureds directly.
Representative Munoz asked if chiropractors had
prescriptive authority in Alaska. Mr. Barrington answered
that chiropractors did not have prescriptive authority over
pharmaceutical substances; they did have prescription over
exercise and nutrition.
Co-Chair Thompson noted other individuals available for
questions.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler addressed the fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
The note reflected a cost of $2,500 in FY 17 and no
position changes.
9:16:30 AM
Representative Gattis remarked that she had received
comments from chiropractors in her district who saw the
legislation as a helpful cleanup bill. She hoped the bill
was reported out.
Co-Chair Thompson agreed that the bill was to help
industry.
Representative Wilson asked about the fiscal note. She did
not recall that there was typically a charge to the boards
for rewriting regulation and for printing and postage. She
asked if the practice was normal.
JANEY HOVENDEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, replied that
typically all expenses for a profession were charged back
to licensees. The $2,500 fiscal note would be paid for by
licensees of the chiropractic program.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that every
time the department made changes to any of the boards (even
if the change did not come at the board's request) it was
charged to the board.
Ms. Hovenden replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to REPORT CSSB 69(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSSB 69(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN2 (CED).
9:19:11 AM
AT EASE
9:20:26 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson addressed the schedule for the afternoon
meeting. He recessed the meeting to a call of the chair
[note: the meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
9:21:14 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS SB 101 Summary of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 101 |
| CS SB 101 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 101 |
| SB69 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 69 |
| SB69 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 69 |
| SB69 Summary of Changes ver A to ver S.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 69 |
| SB69 Supporting Documents.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
SB 69 |
| HB 339 - Letter of Support - Alaska Association of Fire & Arson Investigators.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
HB 339 |
| HB 339 - Letter of Support - Alaska Fire Chiefs Association.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
HB 339 |
| HB 339 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 8:30:00 AM |
HB 339 |