Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/13/2018 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 | |
| HB274 | |
| HB275 | |
| HB278 | |
| HB279 | |
| HB280 | |
| HB273 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 274 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 280 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 13, 2018
1:34 p.m.
1:34:53 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jason Grenn
ALSO PRESENT
Caitlyn Ellis, Staff, Representative Sam Kito; Crystal
Koeneman, Staff, Representative Sam Kito; Megan Holland,
Staff, Representative Andy Josephson; Kris Curtis,
Legislative Auditor, Alaska Division of Legislative Audit;
Sara Chambers, Deputy Director, Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
David Edwards-Smith, Chair, Board of Massage Therapy; David
Derry, Chair, Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers,
Kenai; Lydia Larsen, Vice President, Appraisal Institute,
Fairbanks; Tracy Barickman, Real Estate Commission, Palmer;
Dorthea Goddard-Aguero, Chair, Board of Marital Family
Therapy, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 273 EXTEND: MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
HB 273 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 274 EXTEND: BD OF PSYCHOLOGISTS/PSYCH ASSOC.
HB 274 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1(CED).
HB 275 EXTEND: BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
CSHB 275(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
HB 278 EXTEND:CERT. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS BOARD
HB 278 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).
HB 279 EXTEND: REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
HB 279 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 280 EXTEND: BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
HB 280 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He notified
the committee that there would be a ceremony renaming the
House Finance Committee room as the Senator Al Adams Room.
HOUSE BILL NO. 274
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners;
and providing for an effective date."
1:37:19 PM
Co-Chair Foster shared that the committee had previously
heard the bill on February 6, 2018.
CAITLYN ELLIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, relayed that
the bill would implement a full 8-year extension of the
board.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HB 274 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
HB 274 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1(CED).
1:39:35 PM
AT EASE
1:40:16 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Massage Therapists; and providing for an effective
date."
1:40:47 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, reminded
the committee that the bill extended the board for four
years at the recommendation of the Division of Legislative
Audit.
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the cost to a licensed massage
therapist for the licensing fees and fingerprinting costs.
Ms. Koeneman replied that in FY 2018 the non-refundable
application fee was $200, the licensing fee for a biennial
license was $290 and the non-refundable fingerprinting
processing fee was $60.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS1185\D.2
(Radford, 2/6/18) (copy on file).
Page 1, line 1, following "Therapists;":
Insert "relating to license renewal and criminal
history record checks for massage therapists;"
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 08.61.050 is amended to read:
Sec. 08.61.050. Standards for license renewal. The
board shall renew a license issued under this chapter
to a licensee who
(1) pays the required fee;
(2) meets the continuing education requirements
established by the board;
(3) has not been convicted of, or pled guilty or
no contest to, a crime involving moral turpitude,
or has been convicted of, or pled guilty to or no
contest to, a crime involving moral turpitude if
the board finds that the conviction does not
affect the person's ability to practice
competently and safely;
(4) has a current cardiopulmonary resuscitation
certification; and
(5) has been fingerprinted and has provided the
fees required by the Department of Public Safety
under AS 12.62.160 for criminal justice
information and a national criminal history
record check once every three renewals; the
fingerprints and fees shall be forwarded to the
Department of Public Safety to obtain a report of
criminal justice information under AS 12.62 and a
national criminal history record check under AS
12.62.400.
* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. AS 08.61.050, as amended by sec. 2
of this Act, applies to applications for renewal
of a license to practice as a massage therapist
under AS 08.61 filed on or after the effective
date of sec. 2 of this Act."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "This"
Insert "Section 1 of this"
Page 1, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. Sections 2 and 3 of this Act takes
effect July 1, 2018."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment. He voiced that the
amendment changed the fingerprinting and criminal history
requirement to once every six years or three renewal
cycles. He thought that the requirement at every renewal
was a burden on the industry and the department. He noted
that the massage board was the only board currently
requiring repeat fingerprinting and criminal history
checks. In addition to the $60 fingerprinting processing
fee, another fee was charged for the actual fingerprinting,
which varied from $26 to $35 depending on location in the
state.
Co-Chair Foster asked for the sponsor's opinion.
1:44:43 PM
Ms. Koeneman shared that the sponsor was in opposition to
the amendment. She relayed that currently another bill HB
110-Massage Therapy Licensing; Exemptions (CHAPTER 10 SLA
18 - 05/15/2018) that addressed the issue would be referred
to the House Finance Committee in approximately one week
and was currently in the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
Representative Ortiz asked for explanation about the other
bill. Ms. Koeneman answered the House Labor and Commerce
Committee had been working on a bill to address several
issues facing the massage therapy board. Representative
Ortiz asked whether the opposition was due to insufficient
language in the amendment. Ms. Koeneman answered the
sponsor did not oppose the amendment's language but opposed
adding it to a sunset bill. The sponsor favored a "clean"
sunset bill and addressing substantive issues in another
piece of legislation.
Representative Guttenberg was under the impression that the
massage board was the only one being required to retake
fingerprints each licensing renewal. He asked why besides
repeatedly, fingerprints were required at all. Ms. Koeneman
responded that the establishing legislation required
fingerprinting and background checks as a "check and
balance" with every renewal and it had been a policy
decision made by the legislature at the time.
Representative Guttenberg asked about a check and balance
on what and wondered what the point was. He wondered if
there was concern about identity theft. He emphasized that
very few boards required fingerprints and none repeatedly.
Ms. Koeneman deferred to the board.
DAVID EDWARDS-SMITH, CHAIR, BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPY (via
teleconference), replied that there was a transient
population of massage therapists that worked in multiple
states. He elaborated that the purpose of fingerprinting
triggered a background check that provided information
regarding whether a crime of "moral turpitude" was
committed. The board discovered a "few" prostitution
charges from background checks that resulted in license
denials.
1:49:45 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether the prostitution
charges were discovered during the initial background check
or under renewal. Mr. Edwards-Smith answered that at least
one crime of moral turpitude was found under the first
renewal period. Representative Wilson asked for the total
number of licensees. Mr. Edwards-Smith replied that there
were approximately 1,200. Representative Wilson agreed that
the background check renewal requirement was not made of
any other board and felt that one out of 1,200 was a very
low threshold. She thought the requirement was burdensome
and was unaware at the time of initial licensure that the
massage board would be the only board requiring background
checks at every renewal. She favored the amendment.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that fingerprinting was a
"roundabout way" to get a background check on a person. He
noted that one set of fingerprints was already required. He
asked if anyone had ever considered having the state do a
background check without fingerprinting. Mr. Edwards-Smith
replied that the fingerprint card triggered the federal
background check which was more thorough than a state
background only check. The purpose was looking to address a
"significant" transient population of therapists in Alaska.
Representative Wilson thought the debate was not about
whether the issue was right or wrong. She would prefer to
include the amendment in the current bill that had a better
chance of passing than in a separate piece of legislation.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED because the topic was in
another bill. He relayed that he recently withdrew an
amendment regarding the Alaska Public Offices Commission,
(APOC) from consideration because he was informed the
amendment's substance was included in a different bill. He
felt that the process should be consistent.
1:54:22 PM
Co-Chair Seaton provided closing remarks on the amendment.
He was uncertain whether the other bill regarding massage
therapy licensure changes would move out of the committee
it currently sits. He declared that the current bill was a
licensing bill and the issue strictly dealt with licensing
requirements. The amendment was not adding "other
substantive elements" to the licensure program. He urged
member's support for the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Thompson, Tilton,
Wilson, Gara, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt,
The MOTION PASSED (9/1).
1:56:30 PM
AT EASE
1:56:38 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-
LS1185\D.3 (Radford, 2/8/18).
Page 1, Line 5:
Delete "2022"
Insert "2024"
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 275(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 275(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
1:58:01 PM
AT EASE
1:58:28 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 278
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers; and providing for an
effective date."
1:58:47 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
indicated that HB 278 extended the termination date for the
Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers until June 30th,
2026. She shared that the board had received a full 8-year
extension from the Legislative Audit Division. In addition,
in 2005 and 2007 the board received favorable reviews from
federal audits.
2:00:12 PM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, relayed that the audit was dated June
13, 2017. She cited page 3 of the audit and detailed that
the background information section described the regulatory
oversight structure of the appraisal industry established
by the federal government. She summarized that the
structure included private entities that set appraisal
standards and certification licensing requirements, state
licensing boards that certified and licensed appraisers,
and federal entities that regulated and monitored the
industry. She elaborated that a federal subcommittee
monitored state licensing boards that included on-site
reviews of the board and the Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing (CBPL). She emphasized
that the board was subject to external oversight outside of
the sunset review process, which did factor into the
audit's recommended term of extension. She highlighted the
audits conclusions on page 7 and read the following:
Overall, the audit concludes the board is serving the
public's interest by certifying and licensing real
estate appraisers. The board monitored certificate
holders and licensees and worked to ensure only
qualified individuals were issued certificates and
licenses in Alaska. Furthermore, the board developed
and adopted regulations to comply with federal
requirements, improve the real estate appraisal
industry, and better protect the public.
Ms. Curtis noted that the audit contained two
recommendations that began on page 16 of the report. She
read recommendation 1:
DCBPL's director should continue to improve
administrative support to the board.
Ms. Curtis reported that improvements were necessary in 3
areas:
1. Due to general oversight, three certificate
holders were incorrectly reported in the
Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) national registry,
which is required by federal and state laws. Upon
identification by auditors, the errors were
promptly corrected by DCBPL staff.
2. Auditors reviewed five investigative cases over
180 days old and identified three cases with
periods of inactivity without justification
ranging from 130 to 203 days.
3. Due to staff turnover, DCBPL management could not
provide evidence that three of 11 board meetings
held between July 1, 2014, and March 31, 2017,
were public noticed.
Ms. Curtis offered that individually the issues were not
significant but indicated that improvements were necessary
when considered together. She turned to Recommendation 2:
DCBPL's director, in consultation with the board,
should reduce fees to address the surplus.
She relayed the following:
DCBPL management did not conduct a fee analysis after
four requests by board members. The board had a
surplus of $165,609 at the end of March 2017, which is
expected to be higher after the June 2017 renewal
period. DCBPL management reported that the fee
analysis was not completed due to other priorities.
Ms. Curtis related that the licensees were paying higher
than justified fees as a result.
2:03:28 PM
Ms. Curtis provided further detail. She pointed to page 11
of the audit that included the table titled "Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers Licensing and Certifi-
cation Activity FY 14 through March 31, 2017" as Exhibit 2.
She noted that 261 licenses were active as of March 31,
2017. The schedule of revenues and expenditures were on
page 12 and the Summary of License and Registration Fees
were included on page 13. She related that the board
planned to move forward with regulating appraisal
management companies, which extended the board's duties.
Despite the increased duties, the audit recommended an
eight-year extension due to the on-site external oversight
the board received every other year. The department's
response to the audit was on page 27. She noted that the
department concurred with the findings and recommendations.
She pointed out that the board's response was on page 29
who also concurred with the findings and recommendations.
The board received an attorney general's opinion that a
statute was necessary to regulate appraisal management
companies. However, the Division of Legislative Audit did
not agree with the interpretation. The audit included a
letter on page 33 stating they believed the authority was
already in federal and state law and detailed the reasons
why.
Representative Wilson pointed to page 15 of the audit and
pointed out that the prior 2013 sunset audit made two
recommendations that had been only partially addressed. She
asked what assurance Ms. Curtis had that the prior
recommendations would be fully addressed by the current
sunset date. Ms. Curtis answered that every audit addressed
the prior audit report. The prior audit recommendation to
improve administrative support to the board had been
partially addressed but additional improvements were
necessary and were addressed in the current audits
Recommendation 1. The management system's prior
recommendation was also partially addressed, DCBPL was
aware of the risk, and understood the cost and believed the
risk was justified. Representative Wilson asked if the
recommendations were current. Representative Wilson did not
understand who was taking the risk. She asked for
clarification. Ms. Curtis answered that the division had an
investigative case management system that the auditors
evaluated. She elaborated that the issues had been
partially addressed in the past however, all investigators
continue to have the ability to view and update all case
information besides their own regardless of the need. There
were no controls for limited reviews. A business need
should drive someone's ability to access the system. She
indicated that "risk" was an audit term. The division
informed the legislature of the issue, but the auditors did
not feel it was significant enough to reiterate in the
current audit.
2:08:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg appreciated the audit report. He
mentioned the board's federal oversight. He asked about the
overlap between the federal oversight and the state's
audit. He wondered whether the auditors read the federal
report and if the federal government considered the state
audits. Ms. Curtis answered that the legislative auditors
looked at the federal report, but she found it unlikely the
federal government would look at the state report. The
federal government was ensuring that the board was
complying with federal law. She relayed that historically
the division was under federal review each year because
improvements were necessary. Recently, the division
implemented regulations to address the federal requirements
and were now being reviewed every other year. The state
auditors examined the federal reviews to ensure the
division was meeting federal requirements. Representative
Guttenberg asked if there was any redundancy between the
two reviews.
2:10:06 PM
Ms. Curtis answered that both audit functions used a
similar process but with different criteria.
SARA CHAMBERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, spoke to the
agency's fiscal note FN1 (CED). She explained that the
fiscal note reflected the finite costs of operating the 5
member board. The fiscal note totaled $21. 4 thousand that
covered travel for board members to attend four board
meetings per year, public notice of board meetings,
training and conference fees, and per diem.
2:11:25 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
DAVID DERRY, CHAIR, BOARD OF CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE
APPRAISERES, KENAI (via teleconference), favored the bill
and asked for support to extend the board until 2026.
2:12:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
2:12:53 PM
AT EASE
2:13:02 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HB 278 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
HB 278 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (CED).
2:13:37 PM
AT EASE
2:13:58 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 279
"An Act extending the termination date of the Real Estate
Commission; and providing for an effective date."
2:14:19 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
briefly explained the bill. She relayed that HB 279
extended the termination date of the Real Estate Commission
until June 30th, 2026; a full 8 years as recommended by the
Legislative Audit Division. The commission oversees
brokers, associate brokers, and sales licenses. In
addition, the commission regulated supervisors and
licensees. The current total of licensees across the state
was 567.
Representative Wilson noted that members' packets included
a letter of opposition (Deborah Brollini, January 29, 2018)
(copy on file). She asked for details. Ms. Holland answered
that the letter had been addressed the previous week in the
House Labor and Commerce Committee. Ms. Holland had given
the letter to Tracy Barickman, Chair, Real Estate
Commission, who reviewed the letter and discovered that
the complaint had been previously processed and concluded
that the substance of the complaint was not under the
commission's purview.
2:16:29 PM
Representative Wilson asked if any information or response
had been sent back to the author of the letter. Ms. Holland
deferred the question to the Real Estate Commission.
TRACY BARICKMAN, REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, PALMER (via
teleconference), answered that the complaint had been
addressed via an investigative process and the individual
had been notified of the findings.
2:17:51 PM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, referenced a copy of the audit report
dated June 2017. She cited the "Report Conclusions" found
on page 7 and read the following:
Overall, the audit concludes the commission is
serving the public's interest by effectively
licensing and regulating real estate licensees
and offices. The commission monitored licensees
and worked to ensure only qualified individuals
practice in Alaska. Furthermore, the commission
developed and adopted regulations to improve the
real estate industry and better protect the
public.
In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(19), the
commission is scheduled to terminate on June 30,
2018. We recommend that the legislature extend
the commission's termination date to June 30,
2026.
Ms. Curtis delineated that the prior sunset audit was in
July 2015 and only extended the commission through June
2017. The prior audit concluded that the commission was not
serving the public's interest because it failed to procure
a master errors and omissions insurance policy. The
commission had been required in statue in 2008 to obtain
the master errors and omissions insurance policy for the
real estate licensees and required the licensees to obtain
an error and omissions policy either through their
independent policy or through the board's master policy.
However, if the board was unable to provide the master
policy, the statute absolved the licensees from their
requirement to obtain the insurance. The audit discovered
that no suitable reason had been given by the division or
board why the insurance was not procured. During the prior
sunset period statutes were changed requiring all licensees
to carry the errors and omissions insurance policy
regardless whether the board obtained a master copy.
However, the division awarded the contract for the policy
in June 2017, and the current audit recommended an 8-year
extension. She moved to page 17 of the audit that contained
Recommendation 1:
DCBPL's chief investigator should continue to improve
oversight to ensure cases are actively investigated
and completed timely.
She explained that the recommendation was a repeat from the
prior audit that discovered 29 out of 36 investigative
cases had unjustified periods of inactivity ranging from
124 days to 4.5 years. The audit found that the division
had made progress in decreasing the period of inactivity.
An electronic dashboard was created to monitor the case
resolution progress, and internal benchmarks were designed
to establish timeliness and performance goals for
investigators. The current audit identified three cases in
a judgmental sample of seven cases with periods of
inactivity without justification, ranging from 72 to 194
days. The testing found improvements were still needed.
Therefore, the audit recommended that the chief
investigator should continue to improve oversight to ensure
cases were actively investigated. She reported that page 29
included the department's response to the audit and page 31
contained the board's response. The governor's response to
the audit was on page 27. All the responses concurred with
the audit findings and recommendation.
2:21:24 PM
Representative Kawasaki had a question about the fund
balance surplus. He noted that the balance was over $600
thousand. He wondered how the board would reduce the
surplus.
SARA CHAMBERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, answered that
the board had recently completed a renewal period. The
division and board were working together to ensure the
surplus did not remain.
Representative Kawasaki asked if Ms. Chambers had worked
for the department in 2011 when the fees were doubled. Ms.
Chambers answered in the affirmative. Representative
Kawasaki surmised that the commission had made vast
improvements. He asked whether there was reason to believe
the fee spike would occur again in the future. Ms. Chambers
explained that the reason the fee spike occurred was the
failure of the division to adequately communicate with the
commission and licensees, which came as a surprise. In
addition, the division had made major improvements to the
fee analysis that was used in tandem with boards and
commissions. She voiced that it was difficult to use the
past to predict the future. She related that spikes could
be anticipated in the future because there were unknown
quantities that needed to be factored in for statutory
requirements. The primary variables were investigations and
appeals of board decisions. At times, investigations cost
upwards of $100 thousand. A similar scenario could
unpredictably swing the fees higher. State law required
licensees to cover the costs; the division attempted to
provide a cushion but not one as large as the commissions.
2:24:50 PM
Representative Kawasaki mentioned the fiscal note costs. He
noted that the fiscal note for a 7 member commission was
the same as the previous fiscal notes for a 5 member
commission. He wondered why. Ms. Chambers believed the
fiscal note contained an error and would address it with
the division director. She stated that all the boards and
the real estate commission specifically, were doing an
excellent job in cutting costs using video and
teleconferencing for meetings.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to periods of investigative
inactivity in cases referenced in the audit. He noted the
improvement but wondered what the expectation should be. He
thought that the current period of inactivity was still
long. He wondered if there was a conflict between the full
extension and the recommendation. Ms. Curtis answered it
was a division function and not a board function.
Therefore, the auditors did not weigh the issue heavily in
the audit recommendation pertaining to the sunset
extension.
2:27:01 PM
Representative Thompson spoke to the fiscal note error and
deduced that the fiscal note missed two members. He asked
if it was necessary to fix the fiscal note before the bill
moved out of committee.
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether the committee could count on
a revised fiscal note. Ms. Chambers replied that it was
necessary to discuss the matter with the division director.
2:27:57 PM
AT EASE
2:28:24 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Chambers to address the fiscal
note.
Ms. Chambers explained that commission was structured
similarly to other boards and commissions. The fiscal note
FN1 (CED), represented the additional expenses to operate
the commission. The fiscal note provided the spending
authority of $21 thousand for board members to attend four
meetings per year, travel, advertising of public notice,
per diem, and training and conference fees.
2:29:29 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
2:30:06 PM
AT EASE
2:30:38 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed the bill would be held.
HB 279 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 280
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Marital and Family Therapy; and providing for an
effective date."
2:31:08 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
explained that the legislation would extend the termination
date of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy for eight
years. She provided details about the board. The board
regulated and licensed therapists and approved supervisors
throughout the state. Currently, 85 therapists were
licensed through the board.
Representative Wilson relayed that one of the audit's
recommendations in the previous 2013 audit was related to
implementing regulations for telehealth. She asked when the
board would complete the regulation writing process.
DORTHEA GODDARD-AGUERO, CHAIR, BOARD OF MARITAL FAMILY
THERAPY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), replied that a
draft of the regulations was submitted to the Department of
Law (DOL) and the board was waiting for comments. She
believed it was too early in the process to determine a
completion date.
2:33:49 PM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, addressed the audit dated May 2017. She
cited the "Report Conclusions" section on page 3 of the
audit report. She read the following:
Overall, the audit concludes the board generally
serves the public's interest by effectively licensing
and regulating marital and family therapists and
approving marital and family therapy supervisors. The
board monitors licensees and works to ensure only
qualified individuals practice in Alaska. Furthermore,
the board develops and adopts regulations to improve
the marital and family therapy occupation.
In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(11), the board is
scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend
that the legislature extend the board's termination
date to June 30, 2026.
Ms. Curtis offered that the audit contained no
recommendations. She reported that the schedule of "Board
of Marital and Family Therapy License Activity, FY 14
through January 31, 2017" was on page 6. She reiterated
that 85 active licenses were reported. The "Schedule of
License Revenues and Expenditures" were found on page 8 and
showed a surplus of over $68 thousand as of March 31, 2017.
She noted that the board was able to maintain a surplus
despite the small number of licensees. The schedule of
license fees was found on page 7. The governor's response
was on page 19, the response from DCCED was found on page
21, and the board's response was found on page 23. All
entities agreed with the audit conclusions. She addressed
Representative Wilson's question. She explained that
Legislative Audit decided to examine how the 4 mental
health boards were addressing telehealth and felt that the
issue was important. All the audits for the 4 boards
described each boards progress in developing regulations
required with the passage of SB 74 - Medicaid
Reform;Telemedicine;Drug Database (CHAPTER 25 SLA 16 -
06/21/2016). The Marital and Family Therapy Board had been
interested in drafting telehealth regulations prior to the
passage of SB 74 and the bill provided the incentive to
delve into the process. The department was currently
experiencing a regulation backlog due to SB 74. The
auditors investigated how DCCED was handling the situation
and found that it was appropriately prioritizing the
backlog.
2:36:54 PM
Representative Wilson cited page 9, of the audit and noted
the same case confidentiality security issues remained. Ms.
Curtis replied in the affirmative.
2:37:19 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, addressed the
department's fiscal note FN1 (CED). She related that the
fiscal note for the five member board amounted to $21.4
thousand for board members to attend four board meetings
per year, advertising of public notice of board meetings,
training and conference fees, and per diem. She stated that
the department would absorb the board functions if the
board sunset was not renewed.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
MOVED to REPORT HB 280 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 280 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (CED).
2:39:03 PM
AT EASE
2:39:24 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act extending the termination date of the
Marijuana Control Board; and providing for an
effective date."
2:39:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the bill had last been heard on
February 6, 2018 and had closed public testimony on the
same date.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, provided
a brief description of the legislation. The bill would
extend the board six years. She believed the members' bill
files contained a letter from Erika McConnell, Executive
Director, Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO) with
answers to committee members questions from the prior
meeting.
Representative Wilson had been disappointed the committee
had not heard from the Alcohol Beverage Control Board
(ABC). She asked to delay the bill to allow for a
discussion with both boards to understand how they worked
under AMCO. She stated the information had been confusing.
Co-Chair Foster asked if there were any other comments from
committee members on the issue.
Representative Kawasaki agreed there were lingering
questions. He recounted that AMCO had been created to
create efficiencies. He thought that there were some issues
that needed to be examined further.
2:42:32 PM
Ms. Koeneman did not believe there would be an objection
from the sponsor. She understood that the ABC board
extension bill was set to report out of the House Labor and
Commerce Committee shortly.
Representative Kawasaki requested the following information
be addressed the next time the bill was heard. He asked
about the startup general fund (GF) money for the marijuana
board and how the funds would be recovered through fees. He
requested further analysis on the marijuana board's
application process. Finally, he wondered how AMCO split
enforcement between both boards and who made the staffing
decisions regarding enforcement duties.
2:45:09 PM
Representative Wilson asked to hear from the department on
whether it was able to recoup the costs from all the boards
in general.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to know why it would be another two
years before fees would cover the costs of operating the
marijuana board.
Representative Wilson asked why audits were covered by the
legislature. She thought boards would be more serious about
addressing the recommendations if they covered the audit's
cost. She noted that the cost of one particular audit was
$40,000. She wanted to know why the legislature did not
charge the audit costs back to the boards.
2:48:01 PM
Ms. Curtis answered that she had put some thought into a
memorandum she had sent regarding the cost of a particular
audit. She further explained that main purpose of the audit
staff was to complete the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) and the single audit each year. When the
division was not doing the specific CAFR work auditors
turned to other statutorily required audits and the audit
requests approved by the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee (LBA). She maintained that there were no
additional costs to the agency for other audits; the
division still needed the same number of auditors to
perform the single and CAFR audits. She added that the
sunset audits were done with excess resources during slower
months. She characterized it as an opportunity costs
because there were other special audits that also could be
done outside the sunset process like performance or LBA
audits.
Representative Wilson clarified that she was not looking to
cut the division's budget. She was merely trying to
determine why the audits had been paid for by the
legislature.
HB 273 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:51:28 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:51 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 278 Audit Real-Estate-Appraisers-Final-Report-WEB.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB278 Sponsor Statement 1.25.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 279 Audit REC-Final-Report-WEB.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 279 |
| HB279 Opposition Letter 1.30.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 279 |
| HB279 Sponsor Statement 1.25.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 279 |
| HB279 Supporting Document - REC Letter of Support 2.10.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 279 |
| HB 280 Audit MFT-Final-Report-WEB.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB280 Sponsor Statement 1.25.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB 275 - Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB 273 HFIN Followup02.13.2018 .pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 273 |