Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/01/2018 09:00 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 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB301 | |
| HCR10 || HB168 | |
| HB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 1, 2018
9:06 a.m.
9:06:39 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Adam Wool, Sponsor; David Teal, Director,
Legislative Finance Division; Margaret Brodie, Director,
Division of Health Care Services, Department of Health and
Social Services; Megan Holland, Staff, Representative Andy
Josephson; Marie Marx, Director, Worker's Compensation
Division, Department of Labor and Workforce Development;
Representative Mike Chenault, Sponsor; Tom Wright, Staff
Representative Chenault; Crystal Koeneman, Staff,
Representative Kito; Janey McCullough, Director, Division
of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Erika McConnell, Director, ABC Board; Ed Martin, Self,
Cooper Landing; Dave Edwards-Smith, Chair, Board of
Massage; Volker Ruby, President, American Massage Therapy
Association Alaska Chapter, Anchorage; Jill Motz, Self,
Wasilla.
SUMMARY
HB 38 WORKERS' COMPENSATION: DEATH BENEFITS
CSHB 38(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
an "amend" recommendation and with a new zero
fiscal note by the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, a new fiscal impact note
by the Office of the Governor, and a new fiscal
impact note by Department of Administration.
HB 110 MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING; EXEMPTIONS
CSHB110 (L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
HB 168 REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
HB 168 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note
by the Legislature.
HB 176 GROUND EMER. MEDICAL TRANSPORT PAYMENTS
CSHB 176 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two new
fiscal impact notes by the Department of Health
and Social Services.
HB 301 ALCOHOL LIC.: BEV DISPENSARY/RESTAURANT
CSHB 301(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1(CED).
HCR 10 UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW
HCR 10 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note
by the Legislature.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act relating to medical assistance reimbursement
for ground emergency medical transportation services;
and providing for an effective date."
9:08:03 AM
Co-Chair Foster reported that the committee last heard HB
176 on February 20, 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, indicated that at the
end of the last meeting there was a question regarding a 20
percent administrative fee. He related that after
discussions with the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) it was determined to change the fee to the
actual cost versus a flat rate percentage.
9:09:32 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, pointed
out that the fiscal notes started in FY 20. Technically the
fiscal note was zero through FY 19. He drew attention to
the new DHSS fiscal impact note allocated to Medical
Assistance Administration and explained that the fiscal
note showed its administrative costs [$116.6]. The
allocation for one full-time position was paid for with
Interagency (IA) receipts and was included in the second
DHSS fiscal note. He turned to the second new DHSS fiscal
note allocated to Health Care Medicaid Services and drew
attention to the Services line that contained the funding
[$116.6] for the previous fiscal note. He highlighted that
the total expenditure was approximately $22 million and
noted that state costs were covered. He detailed that when
the municipal fire departments provided services for
Medicaid recipients they were reimbursed for a portion of
their costs and would subsequently receive a supplemental
reimbursement. The department would notify the fire
department that the supplemental payment was available and
the amount of the non-federal share. The fire department
would pay the non-federal share to the state and the state
reimbursed the supplemental funds to the fire department
using federal and non-federal funds. The state costs were
neutral; the department assessed an administrative fee to
the municipalities that were based on actual costs. The
municipalities gained a federal match for some of the
unreimbursed share.
9:15:02 AM
Co-Chair Seaton requested more clarity for the FY 20
portion of the fiscal notes. He wanted to better understand
the effective dates in Sections 3 and 4 of the bill.
MARGARET BRODIE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
reported that the department would need to submit a state
plan amendment to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) that typically took 60 days to 9 months. She
elaborated that the bill was straight forward and guessed
the plan amendment would be approved quickly. As a
precaution, she used a date farther out to allow for the
department to receive the federal approval prior to
implementing the program.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to Section 4 on page 3, lines 23
through 25 of the bill and read the following:
Sec. 4. If AS 47.07.085, enacted by sec. 1 of this
Act, takes effect, it takes effect on the day after
the date the commissioner of health and social
services makes a certification to the revisor of
statutes under sec. 2 of this Act.
Co-Chair Seaton read the corresponding language in Section
3 lines 16 through 22:
Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. AS 47.07.085, enacted by sec. 1 of
this Act, takes effect only if the commissioner of
health and social services certifies to the revisor of
statutes under sec. 2 of this Act, on or before
November 1, 2018, that all of the provisions added by
AS 47.07.085 have been approved by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to coordinate the dates and to fully
understand the implementation process. Ms. Brodie responded
that the bill required regulatory changes and the process
typically took 6 months. The department requested that the
six-month effective date be included in the bill. Co-Chair
Seaton indicated that the issue had been brought up and had
been dealt with in a previously adopted amendment.
Mr. Teal interjected that through a previous Medicaid
program the state had made advance payments and was unable
to recover the costs amounting to $100 million. He noted
that delaying the effective dates for federal and
regulatory approval was in response to the previous
incident and the delays insured that the program had a low
financial risk to the state. He discerned that in addition
to the certification, the state could recoup the costs from
the municipalities if reimbursement was not received.
9:20:14 AM
Representative Wilson asked that if the program was
eliminated the state was not required to back fill with
state funding. Ms. Brodie responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 176 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 176 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes
by the Department of Health and Social Services.
9:21:34 AM
AT EASE
9:22:06 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 301
"An Act relating to the renewal and transfer of
ownership of a beverage dispensary license or
restaurant or eating place license."
9:22:23 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the bill was last heard in
committee on February 20, 2018.
Representative Wilson had asked Legislative Legal Services
whether the grandfathering provision only applied to the
businesses included in the bill. She related that the
attorneys stated that the bill would allow other businesses
to be grandfathered in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, was not aware of the
interpretation. He understood that the bill only applied to
the 34 businesses that operated before the 1985 change in
the law.
Representative Wilson favored the bill. She indicated that
she wanted to bring the broader interpretation to his
attention. She clarified that the bill did not only
grandfather in the specified businesses; if the laws
changed in the future, grandfathering could apply. Under
current law the bill only applied to the 34 businesses
addressed, but if the alcohol laws were rewritten the bill
would pertain to any businesses in a similar situation.
Representative Wool could not speak to a future rewrite of
the law and how it would impact currently operating
businesses. He hoped that a future rewrite would include
grandfathering clauses for businesses that abided by the
law. He thought HB 301 was specific to the time when the
room requirement changed. He thought Ms. McConnell [Erika
McConnell, Director, ABC Board] could provide additional
information. Representative Wilson wanted the legislature
to be cognizant of the effects on businesses when laws were
changed. Representative Wool thought that Representative
Wilson spoke in the "hypothetical". He remembered that when
the drinking age was changed businesses were not
grandfathered in and thought the matter was relative.
Representative Wilson asked if the laws were rewritten
whether the grandfathering clause would apply to businesses
in a similar situation in the future.
ERIKA MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, ABC BOARD (via teleconference),
replied that she agreed with the interpretation. She
believed it was a positive outcome. She pointed to page 4,
lines 14 through 23 of the draft Committee Substitute (CS)
and read from the following:
(2) the renewal or transfer of ownership of a beverage
dispensary or restaurant or eating place license
issued under (1) of this subsection if the
(A) holder of the license operates a hotel, motel,
resort, or similar business relating to the tourist
trade that
(i) has a dining facility on the licensed premises or
kitchen facilities in a majority of its rental rooms;
and (ii) maintains at least the minimum number of
rental rooms that the hotel, motel, resort, or similar
business had at the time of initial licensure or that
were required at the time of initial licensure; or
Ms. McConnell explained that the language was important and
protected businesses in communities that grew overtime and
was now required to have more rooms to obtain the license.
The language in the bill stated that the business only had
to maintain the number of rooms that were required at the
time of initial licensure. Representative Wilson wanted to
protect people's investments and was merely informing the
committee of the broader interpretation of the bill.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Knopp in the
audience.
9:29:33 AM
Vice-Chair Gara read the previously published zero fiscal
note, FN1 (CED) from the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development (DCCED) allocated to the Alcohol
and Marijuana Control Office that did not anticipate fiscal
impact from this legislation.
Representative Kawasaki commented that the committee had
been working with Title 4 and how AMCO worked. He was
contacted by the Riverfront Theatre, Fairbanks Drama
Association and relayed that the theatre was open for 54
hours and paid $2,475. for the license, secured the
signature of the licensees 66 times, and filed 435 pages of
paper work for the 54 hours. He deduced that on a good
night they made $200 and the ABC fees alone were $70. He
acknowledged that the bill was not the vehicle to address
the issue and just wanted to make the statement on record.
He believed the costs and paperwork were a big bureaucratic
burden for a small non-profit organization.
9:31:48 AM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 301(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 301(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1(CED).
9:32:34 AM
AT EASE
9:33:33 AM
RECONVENED
hb38
HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to the calculation and payment of
workers' compensation benefits in the case of
permanent partial impairment; relating to the
calculation and payment of workers' compensation death
benefits payable to a child of an employee where there
is no surviving spouse; relating to the calculation
and payment of workers' compensation death benefits
for an employee without a surviving spouse or child;
relating to notice of workers' compensation death
benefits; and providing for an effective date."
9:33:37 AM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that HB 38 was previously heard in
committee on February 15, 2018.
MEGAN HOLLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
9:34:49 AM
MARIE MARX, DIRECTOR, WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, reviewed
the new zero fiscal note by the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD). She indicated that the bill
would not change the way the division administers workers
compensation; therefore, there is no direct fiscal impact
to the department.
Representative Wilson was assuming the other fiscal notes
were no longer applicable. Ms. Marx relayed that there were
two other fiscal notes: One from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and one from the Department of
Administration (DOA). She elaborated that the benefits and
costs associated with the legislation were paid for by
insurance companies and self-insured employers; the state
was self-insured. Through DOA's Division of Risk Management
the costs would be passed on to state agencies through
increased personal services benefits costs including future
year budget salary and benefit adjustments.
Representative Wilson was concerned, and she was working
diligently on the issue. She believed that a "different
type of punishment" other than financial should apply if
the state had an employer that ignored safety to the point
that someone was permanently injured or killed. She wanted
to find a solution that did not "break the system."
Vice-Chair Gara shared a similar concerned as
Representative Wilson.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 38(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED.
Representative Pruitt spoke to his objection. He believed
that the bill compensated "beyond the dependents" of the
injured worker. He suggested that the state already had
such high costs and altered the longstanding "concept" of
workers compensation and how it worked; compensate the
injured worker and their dependents and was now including
the estate.
Vice-Chair Gara relayed a story from personal work
experience. He thought the level of compensation was so low
it was almost insulting. He believed that the guilty party
should pay for injury or death. He supported the bill.
9:41:09 AM
Representative Pruitt was concerned that the negligent
party was not paying into the system. He agreed that there
was no way to put a price on a life. He thought the fault
of the bill was that it did not hold the person that was
negligent responsible; the system paid for the injury or
loss. He asserted that that was Representative Wilson's
point. He emphasized that the legislation did not address
the concern properly.
Representative Wilson wondered whether changing the law
would inhibit a parent or someone "outside the system" from
suing the responsible party.
9:44:00 AM
Vice-Chair Gara responded to Representative Wilson'
question. He explained that the worker's comp system was
exclusive, and the benefit was solely tied to the worker.
The parent currently lacked any recourse in court. He
responded to Representative Pruitt's remarks and indicated
that if an employer negligently killed a worker in an
accident the parent was not entitled to anything if the
employee had no spouse or children. The bill made the
employer responsible under the workers' compensation system
and corrected the issue.
Co-Chair Seaton voiced that the issues were conflated in
the committee process. He understood that one issue was to
hold the grossly negligent party responsible, which was not
the subject of the bill. The current legislation dealt with
the workers' comp insurance and who was covered. He
summarized that if an 18-year-old lost his life on the job
and had no dependents or spouse the parents would not
receive compensation and that scenario was the issue. He
offered that Worker's Compensation covered funeral costs.
He hoped the two issues could be separated. He thought the
other problems could be solved in future legislation.
Representative Pruitt MAINTAINED OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Pruitt, Thomson, Tilton
Representative Guttenberg was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6/4).
CSHB 38(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with an "amend"
recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, a new fiscal
impact note by the Office of the Governor, and a new fiscal
impact note by Department of Administration.
9:47:14 AM
AT EASE
9:49:08 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to regulation notice and review by
the legislature; and relating to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee."
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature relating to the jurisdiction
of standing committees.
9:49:16 AM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that HB168 and HCR 10 would be
addressed together.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He read from the sponsor statement as follows:
The purpose of House Bill 168 is to repeal the
statutes pertaining to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee (AARC). According to the analysis
provided by Legislative Research, included in your
packets, the ARRC has not overturned any regulations
as a result of these committee hearings. Although AS
24.20.445 provides that the committee can suspend
regulations for a "certain time period," the Alaska
Supreme Court found in a 1980 case, that the
Legislature has no implied power to veto agency
regulations by informal legislative action and such
actions would violate Article II of the state
Constitution. The actions available to the ARRC are to
introduce legislation to supersede or nullify
regulations. However, Legislative Research was not
able to find any effort to do so from 2003 to the
present.
House Bill 168 repeals all references to the ARRC
throughout the statutes. The sectional analysis
references the statutes where the ARRC is repealed.
A uniform rule change, House Concurrent Resolution 10,
is also being proposed that allows the jurisdiction of
a standing committee to oversee proposed or adopted
regulations to replace regulation oversight that are
currently under the jurisdiction of ARRC.
The Administrative Regulation Review Committee has not
been funded for this and the upcoming fiscal years.
9:53:03 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony
9:53:22 AM
ED MARTIN, SELF, COOPER LANDING (via teleconference),
opposed HB 168 and HCR 10. He thought the regulation review
committee was a first line of defense to ensure that the
regulations followed the intent of the law. He hoped that
the ARRC members felt that the review of the regulations of
any new administration was imperative. He pointed to the
regulations by the new Marijuana Control Board not
reflecting the intent of the law and noted that the issue
affected him personally. He argued that the regulations
were not reviewed by the AARC. He continued to provide
testimony as to the importance of a regulation review
committee to ensure the individual liberties of Alaskans.
He offered that the original intent of the committee was to
review regulations within 45 days to ensure that "no
arbitrary and capricious laws" were enacted.
9:57:34 AM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster encouraged anyone to submit their public
testimony in writing.
Representative Wilson wanted to clarify that the
legislature was eliminating the AARC. However, the
regulation review responsibilities would be sent to the
standing committees. She opined that the standing committee
was a more appropriate for review since the committee could
draft a bill to clarify the statute. She declared that
regulatory review was important and ensured that the
legislature was not abandoning review; it was changing the
process.
Co-Chair Seaton related that he previously served as the
Vice-Chair for the Regulation Review Committee and he had
notified all the chairs of the standing committees that it
was the committee aides' responsibilities to review the
regulations. He explained that when an agency completed
drafting regulations it opened a public comment period; the
corresponding standing committee should review the
regulations and participate in the comment period. He
reported that during his tenure several regulations were
withdrawn and changed in that manner. He emphasized that it
was easier to change regulations on the front end rather
than after the regulation was adopted via legislation. He
shared that a Supreme Court decision relating to the
separation of powers eliminated the AARC's power to pass a
resolution to annul a regulation. He believed that it was
the responsibility of the committee of jurisdiction; the
corresponding standing committee that was deeply involved
in the department's matters over which they reside. One
committee charged with reviewing all the regulations was
not efficient. He emphasized that committees of
jurisdiction were more appropriate and effective for the
regulatory review task.
10:02:31 AM
Representative Kawasaki indicated that the AARC only
functions with a motivated chairperson. He voiced that he
was not in favor of the legislation despite the lack of
results by the committee in recent years. He believed that
the committee serve a public purpose. He reminded people
that the legislature was part-time and the AARC committee
was an interim committee. He did not believe a standing
committee should be responsible for regulation review due
to its periodic nature. He relayed that a recent regulation
adopted by the Alcohol Control Board (ABC) was discordant
with a distillery bill he had co-sponsored that passed
several years ago. He thought that the AARC could have
prevented the issue if the committee was utilized to its
fullest extent. He did not want to see the executive branch
over-riding the legislature.
Representative Ortiz asked what the impact of leaving the
AARC intact without funding was. Representative Chenault
answered that statutes should be removed when they are not
needed. He commented that the AARC met 30 times over the
last 14 years. Fifteen meetings occurred over one
legislative session without ever repealing a regulation. He
indicated that as long as there was a committee responsible
for reviewing new regulations he was comfortable with
removing the AARC. He spoke to incidences throughout his
legislative career when he questioned regulations and sent
them to the AARC for review without results. He restated
that the committee had not proposed legislation since 2003.
He advocated for the elimination of the committee.
10:09:19 AM
Representative Ortiz asked whether the potential oversight
ability of the legislature was impaired during interim by
eliminating the committee. He wondered why the committee
should be disbanded if there were no financial impacts to
retain it.
Representative Chenault remembered that approximately
$60,000 was allocated yearly for regulation review. He
noted the committee was governed under the same rules as
standing committees and could not pass legislation during
interim.
10:11:34 AM
Vice-Chair Gara thought the state had much bigger items to
be concerned with. He commented that when an agency adopted
regulations every legislature saw the regulation and was
invited to make comments. A legislator could change or
reverse a regulation through legislation and a committee
was unnecessary. He did not believe that the AARC
accomplished anything and a significant amount of time was
consumed in the process.
Co-Chair Seaton argued that every committee had a full-time
committee-aide and it was that person's responsibility to
review regulations during the interim. He remarked that the
committee staff had the expertise to review regulations. He
agreed that there was a cost to the AARC. He indicated that
a lawyer was hired to review every regulation by the
administration when he was vice-chair of the AARC. He
reiterated that the regulatory review should happen on the
front end during the public comment period. He shared that
he had seen regulations changed many times resulting from
the public comment period.
10:15:15 AM
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT, provided an
example when the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) recently proposed aircraft registration
fees via regulation and a bill was drafted in response to
overwhelmingly negative public comment. He voiced that he
had witnessed legislation by individual legislators
introduced in response to opposition to regulation many
times over the years.
Representative Ortiz asked why the committee had ever been
formed. Representative Chenault was unable to answer the
question.
Vice-Chair Gara recalled that the AARC was instituted by
the "other party" in response to mistrust of the Knowles
administration in the 1990's. He believed that the
committee "diverted" legislator's time for more important
issues. He emphasized that the committee was unnecessary.
Co-Chair Seaton added that at the time the AARC was formed
the legislature believed that it could nullify regulations.
However, the Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the
chief function of the AARC was unconstitutional.
Representative Pruitt thought that the inception of the
AARC went back to the 1970s and the Supreme Court case was
in 1980 which did not allow the review committee to act. He
reminded committee members that the legislature acting
together or either body individually can form a committee
via resolution and if sentiment among lawmakers was in
favor of a special committee action was possible. He agreed
that the committee did not function in the way it was
intended. He opined that the idea of the committee was a
good one, but he thought it was time to "shut the books" on
it in an effort to eliminate unnecessary statute.
10:20:02 AM
Representative Wilson asked about the regulation regarding
the aircraft registration fee. She asked whether the AARC
had met on the issue. Representative Chenault answered that
the committee was currently not in operation.
Representative Wilson opined that the public got involved
in the recent DOT regulation proposal and the regulation
was changed during the public comment period. The standing
committees were inherently involved, had a better
understanding of proposed regulations, and could inform the
public of the regulatory comment period. She agreed with
Co-Chair Seaton that standing committees had the expertise
and were best suited to monitor regulations. She emphasized
the importance of regulation review.
Co-Chair Foster asked whether the will of the committee was
to move the bill out of committee.
Representative Wilson believed the bills should report out.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HB 168 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 168 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Legislature.
Representative Wilson MOVED to report HCR 10 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt spoke to his objection. He wanted to
briefly describe what the resolution accomplished. He
explained that the resolution assigned the jurisdiction
over monitoring regulations to the standing committees. He
opined that the resolution "maintained' the legislature's
"vigilance" in ensuring that regulations would be analyzed.
Representative Chenault commented that Representative
Pruitt was correct about what the resolution did. He added
that the resolution changed Uniform Rules to ensure the
standing committees were aware of their jurisdiction.
Representative Kawasaki maintained his objection to the
legislation. He believed that the AARC had a definitive
purpose as a permanent interim committee. The legislature
was never intended to operate full-time. He felt that the
committee was appropriate and should be enhanced. He
pointed to the state of Idaho that had an active regulatory
review committee. He strongly supported the AARC. He
opposed the bills but was in favor of moving them from
committee.
Co-Chair Seaton appreciated the resolution that would place
the language in the Uniform Rules. The uniform rule would
specify that regulation review was the responsibility of
standing committees "in black and white." The committee
chair would task the committee aide with the review duty
during the interim. He believed the resolution clearly
established that the authority of the duty was assigned by
the legislature. He was supportive of the resolution.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the previous public testimony
period was for both bills.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
HCR 10 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Legislature.
10:30:23 AM
AT EASE
10:33:50 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the practice of massage therapy;
relating to the Board of Massage Therapists; and
providing for an effective date."
10:34:25 AM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KITO, introduced
the bill. She characterized the HB 110 as a "clean-up
bill". The massage board was recently established, and the
bill addressed licensure issues that became apparent over
the few years of board operation. The board had requested
several changes to their statutes to help ease the
licensure process for licensees and the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED). She
explained the provisions in the bill. She spoke to the
difficulty in finding members to serve on the board. The
bill eased the restrictions for those who wish to be public
members of the board by allowing a former member of a board
to become a member of the massage board and removed the
original prohibition. In addition, HB 110 added language
for the board to adopt regulations governing massage
therapy establishments; increased the number of hours of
in-class supervised instruction and clinical work from an
approved massage school from 500 hours to 625 hours;
changes the annual fingerprint requirement to every six (6)
years; and reduces the number of hours of safety education
covering blood-borne pathogens from four hours to two
hours. The effective date was July 1, 2019.
10:37:17 AM
Representative Kawasaki asked why the blood-borne pathogens
hour requirement was decreasing to 2 hours from 4 hours.
DAVE EDWARDS-SMITH, CHAIR, BOARD OF MASSAGE (via
teleconference), replied that there was only two-hour blood
borne pathogen classes available because the national
standard was set at two hours. Currently, to comply with
statute, massage therapists were taking two of the same
classes. He further explained that an entry level analysis
project completed by 7 different national massage agencies
concluded that the educational standard should be 625
hours. He stated that most schools offered the higher
number of hours and he did not anticipate an impact to
schools located within the state or on reciprocity with
other states licensure.
10:40:11 AM
Co-Chair Seaton OPENED Public Testimony.
10:40:26 AM
VOLKER RUBY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MASSAGE THERAPY
ASSOCIATION ALASKA CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported HB 110. He related that he was a practicing
massage therapist for 13 years. He indicated that the added
language for the board to adopt regulations governing
massage therapy establishments granted enforcement
authority to shut down human trafficking operations using
massage therapy as a front. He noted the other
"modifications" in the bill and stated that the proposed
changes from the original statute were discovered through
the initial few years of licensing. He urged members to
move the bill from committee.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the bill contained all the
necessary changes to current statute. Mr. Ruby responded
affirmatively.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Mr. Edwards-Smith if he wanted to
provide further testimony.
Mr. Edwards-Smith indicated the board's support for HB 110.
He elaborated that the board considered the bill necessary
for "statutory house cleaning". He restated the provisions
in the bill. He emphasized that the previous public member
of the board played a "valuable" role and he felt the board
was weakened while the seat was vacant. He strongly favored
loosening the requirements for the public member.
10:44:49 AM
JILL MOTZ, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. She was a licensed massage
therapist and practiced massage since 2003 and sat on the
massage board. She qualified that her testimony was on
behalf of herself. She voiced that state licensure created
a cohesive and stable environment for the profession and
practitioners and HB 110 further enhanced the licensure.
She listed the provisions in the bill. She spoke to issues
of human trafficking and illicit massage businesses and
favored the licensing of establishments to hold the owners
legally accountable. She believed the bill changes were
reasonable and necessary. She thanked the committee for
supporting the legislation.
10:47:34 AM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Representative Wilson asked about a comment in the fiscal
note. She read the specific language on page 2 from the
fiscal note analysis:
The potential number of establishments affected by
this bill is unknown at this time. Future costs for
legal and hearing service expenses in out years are
unknown.
Representative Wilson requested clarity.
10:48:18 AM
JANEY MCCULLOUGH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, explained
that the division was uncertain of the number of massage
therapy establishments.
Representative Wilson asked whether the licenses would be
charged to the establishment. Ms. McCullough responded in
the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki asked about a massage therapist
that travelled to the client to perform the service. He
wondered how the establishment license applied to the
scenario. Ms. McCullough stated that the provision applied
to brick and mortar establishments and the definition would
be clarified in regulation. Representative Kawasaki wanted
to be clear that the bill only applied to brick and mortar
establishments. Ms. McCullough deferred comment to the
board chair. Representative Kawasaki commented that the
committee added a provision lessening the fingerprinting
requirements to once every three renewal cycles to the
board sunset bill HB 275 (Extend: Board of Massage
Therapists). He commented that HB 110 included the language
"once every 6 years". He asked whether there was a
difference between the language in both bills. Ms.
McCullough stated that the more accurate language was in HB
110. The goal was to require fingerprinting for every third
renewal but the language once every 6 years provided more
flexibility.
10:52:16 AM
Co-Chair Seaton did not want to place undue restrictions on
"mobile" massage. He did not want establishment licensure
requirements placed on any place a massage therapist
travelled to perform massage. He emphasized that he wanted
the statement on the record.
Representative Wilson favored moving the bill from
committee. She wondered whether the sponsor supported the
2019 effective date. Ms. Koeneman reported that the sponsor
supported the effective date.
Representative Wilson MOVED to report CSHB 110 (L&C) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB110 (L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
10:55:00 AM
AT EASE
10:55:47 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:59:08 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB110 2.19.18 Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sectional Analysis 2.15.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sponsor Statement 2.15.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110(L&C) Explanation of Changes 2.16.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 168-Sectional Analysis-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| State v ALIVE Voluntary summary and headnotes-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HB 168-Leg Research-Meetings-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HB 168 Sponsor Statement-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HCR 10-Uniform Rule 20-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR 10-Sponsor Statement-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 10 |
| HB110 - Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Support Letter Gibbs.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 301 02.28.2018 DCCED HFIN Followup.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |