Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/13/2021 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 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| SB22 | |
| HB126 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 2021
1:33 p.m.
1:33:25 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Josh Revak, Sponsor; Emma Torkelson, Staff, Senator
Josh Revak; Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor, Alaska
Division of Legislative Audit; Representative Mike Cronk;
Representative John McCabe; Representative George Rauscher.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dick Rohrer, Self, Kodiak; Ron Carmon, Self, Kenai; Ben
Mohr, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association, Soldotna; Ron Somerville, Territorial
Sportsmen, Juneau; David Landis, General Manager, Southern
Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Ketchikan;
Susanne Doherty, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska
Seiners Association, Ketchikan; Rod Arno, Policy Director,
Alaska Outdoor Council, Palmer; Katie Harms, Douglas Island
Pink and Chum(DIPAC), Juneau; Doug Vincent-Lang,
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game; Mark Richards,
Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska, Fairbanks;
John Sturgeon, Director, Safari Club International, Alaska
Chapter, Anchorage; Rachel Hanke, Legislative Liaison,
Department of Fish and Game; Sara Chambers, Director,
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; Leslie Schmitz, Chair, Alaska Board of Public
Accountancy, Anchorage; Don Rulien, Past Member, State
Board of Public Accountancy and Current Member, Alaska
Society Of CPAs, Anchorage; Crista Burson, President and
CEO, Alaska Society of CPAs, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 79 SALTWATER SPORTFISHING OPERATORS/GUIDES
HB 79 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 80 SPT FSH HATCHERY FACIL ACCT; SURCHARGE
HB 80 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 126 EXTEND BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY
HB 126 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 22 INTENSIVE MGMT SURCHARGE/REPEAL TERM DATE
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to salt water sport fishing operators
and salt water sport fishing guides; and providing for
an effective date."
1:34:21 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
DICK ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), thanked the
committee for the opportunity to testify. He remarked on
the financing portion of the legislation. He found it
interesting there was not a higher fee on nonresidents;
there was precedent for it related to big game. He shared
that he was a big game and a sport fish guide. He pointed
out that a resident license for big game was $850 and a
nonresident license was $1,700. The assistant big game
license fee was $410 for residents and $820 for
nonresidents. He noted the fees were biennial. He pointed
out that an annual commercial fishing crew member license
fee was $60 for residents and $280 for nonresidents. He
considered how to fund the saltwater logbook program and
thought it would be appropriate to charge the nonresident
operator and guide at least twice the amount of the
resident guide license. He was supportive of the license
fee to help with the saltwater logbook program. He
understood the program's importance. He noted his concern
that the license fee for freshwater would be a segue back
into a freshwater logbook system, which he opposed. He
noted concern with the penalty section where the court may
revoke a guide's license if the guide had two violations in
a three-year period. He thought that was a severe
consequence. He was primarily concerned about the fees.
1:37:52 PM
RON CARMON, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), was concerned
with number 4 which required guides to satisfy the rules
adopted by the Board of Fish. He thought it should read
that guides adopt the rules of the constitution. He thought
the commissioner of Department of Fish and Game was
dictating over the Board of Fish rules. He remarked that
the commissioner could only rule on licensed people. He
pointed out that guides and charter boats were not
licensed; however, commercial fishery was licensed. He
pointed out that current guides and charter boats fished
for free and provided almost zero income to the General
Fund. He reminded the committee that 6.4 million guides
frequented Alaska and took 3 million fish out of the Kenai
River and 3 million fish out of the Kasilof River. He
stated that catch and release fishing was a blood sport. He
highlighted that charter boats fished for free and had
taken $44.3 billion in fish over the last 20 years from the
Kenai Peninsula. The dip net fisheries took 543 million
fish per year from the Kenai Peninsula, which brought zero
income to the General Fund. He referenced the money the
federal government brought in from marijuana growers. He
felt legislators were giving revenue away for free. He had
asked the Department of Fish and Game why some guides were
licensed, and others were not. He suggested that it was a
commerce problem started by Representative Don Young in
1975. He wanted the legislature to change the law to suit
Alaska's needs. He thought the Board of Fisheries should be
eliminated.
Representative Wool clarified that the marijuana tax was
paid to the state, not the federal government.
1:43:36 PM
BEN MOHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KENAI RIVER SPORT FISHING
ASSOCIATION, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), supported HB 79
in its original form. He explained that the saltwater
logbook program met an obligation for reporting on
activities related to the Halibut Treaty and Salmon Treaty.
He shared that the data generated and reported was not
optional. He relayed that hunters and sport fishermen had
long supported the user pays model for fish and game
conservation. He stated that accurate information coming
into managers and treaty negotiators was essential to
making good calls in Alaska's fisheries. As beneficiaries
of those management calls and treaty positions, it was
fitting for the user to cover the costs.
Mr. Mohr thought freshwater issues should remain out of the
bill. He stated there was no reason a pike guide in
Fairbanks should be paying for a program required for a
charter guide in Ketchikan. He stated that establishing
guide registration fees under the guise of programs
necessary for treaty obligations like the saltwater
logbook, looked to be somewhat inappropriate. He suggested
that if the legislature wanted to create a new fee for
small businesses it should be taken up under separate
legislation. He stated that the reporting requirements
under the salmon and halibut treaties were unlikely to
change and managers would continue to need data. Alaska
sport fishing communities could continue being self-
supporting. He reiterated his support for the governor's
version of the bill.
Representative Wool asked if association believed
nonresident and resident guiding fees should be different.
He asked if a nonresident guide should pay more than a
resident guide.
Mr. Mohr responded that the guide sector had been looking
at the topic on the Kenai River recently. He relayed that
the costs for a guide license on the Kenai had changed. In
the past there had been a difference in the fees for
resident versus nonresident guides; however, the fees were
currently the same. He suggested asking parks why the fees
were now equal. He suspected the reason had something to do
with obligations under the Commerce Clause of the
constitution related to operating businesses and where they
are based. He noted it was just a guess.
1:46:55 PM
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Mohr supported different
rates for resident and nonresident guides.
Mr. Mohr replied that he had not given the issue much
thought. He had given much more thought to the difference
on licensing between instate and out-of-state anglers. He
noted it was a different question for businesses.
1:47:40 PM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due in her
office by the end of Saturday, April 17, 2021.
HB 79 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act establishing the sport fishing hatchery
facilities account; establishing the sport fishing
facility surcharge; and providing for an effective
date."
1:47:59 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
1:48:23 PM
RON SOMERVILLE, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMEN, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), spoke in strong support of HB 80. He
shared that the Territorial Sportsmen had supported the
surcharge in the past, which greatly helped the local
fishery. He stated it was a situation where the users were
willing to pay for the extra benefits. He noted that the
king salmon fisheries had been abysmal in recent years,
except for fish from the hatchery program supported by
funds from the surcharge. He highlighted there had been
virtually no complaints about the surcharge over the years.
He mentioned the original reason for the surcharge. He
stated the surcharge was a win-win for everyone; it did not
take anything out of the General Fund and was user
supported.
1:50:30 PM
DAVID LANDIS, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST REGIONAL
AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION (SSRAA), KETCHIKAN (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 80. He understood
the bulk of the projected revenue would go to the William
Jack Hernandez hatchery in Anchorage and the Ruth Burnett
hatchery in Fairbanks. He pointed out that the Crystal Lake
hatchery in Petersburg was also owned by the state and
operated by SSRAA. He relayed that a portion of the
operational funding for Crystal Lake was funded through the
surcharge and the funding was critical to the continued
operation of the hatchery. He relayed that fish produced at
Crystal Lake with the funding were primarily king salmon.
The fish were paid for by the surcharge in combination with
Dingle Johnson funds. He highlighted that SSRAA also
produced an equivalent number of kings transported and
released in other Southeast locations. The fish were caught
in large numbers by sport fishers. He stressed the
importance of the operational and maintenance funding for
Crystal Lake. He read from a fact sheet generated by the
Department of Fish and Game. He stated that the user pays
system was fair and appropriate. The organization supported
the passage of the bill.
1:53:10 PM
SUSANNE DOHERTY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA
SEINERS ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the legislation. She stated that the hundreds
of millions of dollars in the sportfish hatchery
infrastructure needed to be maintained and upgraded as
appropriate. She stressed the importance of additional
revenues to Southeast Alaska to support king salmon. She
stated a revenue source was needed and reenacting the
surcharge in some form had been a proven method of
generating capital.
1:54:30 PM
BEN MOHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KENAI RIVER SPORT FISHING
ASSOCIATION, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the governor's version of HB 80. The association
did not support the changes made in the House Fisheries
Committee that added an additional $2.50 to the surcharge.
He explained that the surcharge had fallen off the previous
year because bonds issued for sportfish hatcheries had been
repaid early. He stated that the hunting and fishing
communities had supported the user pays model for fish and
game conservation and management. He relayed that the sport
fishery directly benefitted from Alaska's sportfish
hatcheries. The governor's bill introduced a surcharge on
sportfish licenses and dedicated the funds to supporting
sportfish activities.
Mr. Mohr stated it was critical for the funds generated
from sportfish licenses to stay with the users. The
organization opposed some of the language in amendments
that essentially poured money into the department and were
fairly vague in terms of how the money would be used. He
requested for the excess money to go towards access and
opportunity, specifically to the construction or
maintenance of capital improvements that directly supported
sportfishing access or activities that were not authorized
under the hatchery program. Under the governor's proposal,
the average Alaska fisherman would see a net $5 reduction
in licenses between last year and the coming year, while
maintaining services provided by the department. He thanked
the committee for considering the bill.
1:56:58 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought there had been testimony that the
added surcharge was to partially help address the invasive
species issue. He asked if the organization saw any benefit
from trying to address invasive species.
Mr. Mohr responded that the organization saw the benefit of
managing Alaska's invasive species problem. The issue the
association had with the bill was the $2.50 surcharge. He
stated the organization had been supportive of legislative
efforts to take care of invasive species in Alaska. He
stated that the organization's issue with the $2.50
surcharge, which included invasive species management, was
not specific about how it would impact invasive species
within the sportfishing community. He highlighted that
invasives impacted all users of the resource, not just
sport fishermen.
1:58:16 PM
ROD ARNO, POLICY DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, PALMER
(via teleconference), supported the governor's proposal of
HB 80. He stated that the Outdoor Council had been present
when a Fairbanks Senator got the bond package together to
get the two sportfish hatcheries in operation. There had
been a number of people concerned that when the bonds were
paid off, the fees would go away. He shared that the
membership was supportive of changing the Sportfish
Enterprise Account (primarily about constructing the two
hatcheries) to the Sportfish Enhancement Account. The
outdoor community was supportive of helping to pay for
management of resources they personally benefit from.
2:00:38 PM
KATIE HARMS, DOUGLAS ISLAND PINK AND CHUM (DIPAC), JUNEAU
(via teleconference), supported HB 80. She provided details
about the DIPAC hatchery and its mission. She provided a
brief history of the sportfishing programs operating
through funds from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
that were currently almost 90 percent supported by the
sportfish license fee surcharge. She shared that DIPAC had
received just over $300,000 annually for the sportfish
enhancement program. She shared that without the outside
funds, the chinook program would never have started at
DIPAC. The program had become a staple sport fishery in
Juneau for residents and nonresidents. She highlighted that
with the decline in wild chinook stocks in Southeast
Alaska, the opportunity to catch hatchery raised chinook
salmon was more important than ever. She shared that due to
financial uncertainty associated with poor salmon returns
in Southeast Alaska, the DIPAC chinook program would likely
be greatly reduced in the upcoming year if no surcharge
license state revenues were established in the current
session.
2:02:41 PM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Amendments were due in her
office by the end of Saturday, April 17, 2021.
HB 80 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 22
"An Act repealing the termination date for the
intensive management hunting license surcharge."
2:03:02 PM
SENATOR JOSH REVAK, SPONSOR, introduced himself. He was
honored to present SB 22. The bill was an act repealing the
termination date of the intensive management hunting
license surcharge. He shared that the bill was asked for by
the sportsman community. He thought it meant a lot when a
group indicated they wanted to pay their own way. He stated
the bill would bring in matching funds for the state. The
bill would mean intensive management would continue to be
directly sourced from the surcharge as opposed to general
fund appropriations. He noted the state had an obligation
to conduct intensive management in Alaska. The bill would
be used to leverage Pittman Robertson's 75/25 matching
funds. He detailed that $1 million from the surcharge would
bring in $3 million [in federal funds]. Given tourism, he
believed it was more important at present than ever before
for the Department of Fish and Game.
Senator Revak reported that the program had been working
well and the bill would merely eliminate the sunset for the
program. He relayed that he had not heard any opposition to
the bill. He stated that most importantly, the program
helped support healthy game populations for moose, caribou,
and deer in the state so Alaskans could continue to harvest
the animals to feed their families.
2:05:19 PM
EMMA TORKELSON, STAFF, SENATOR REVAK, stated that SB 22
removed the sunset date of the intensive management
surcharge placed on hunting licenses. She explained that
the program identified when a moose, caribou, or deer
population became at risk of falling below a sustainable
level to allow for hunting of the particular population.
She elaborated that the program identified the root cause
of the population decrease and developed and implemented a
plan for rectifying the issue. She stated that most often
the plans were focused on research and could also include
management such as habitat enhancement. Prior to 2016 the
program was funded by capital project appropriations;
however, since 2016, the surcharge on hunting licenses plus
the matched federal dollars, completely covered the cost.
In total, the surcharge brought in $1 million in user fees
that were leveraged to receive an additional $3 million in
Pittman Robertson funds.
Ms. Torkelson relayed that the $4 million paid for all of
the work of intensive management; however, the state would
have to assume the cost if the surcharge sunset. She
highlighted that the program protected the state's wildlife
populations and promoted food security across the state by
allowing hunters to access healthy herds. She stated that
the bill ensured the program could continue to be self-
sustainable and user funded. She asked for the committee's
support.
2:07:10 PM
Representative Josephson stated that he had been told
repeatedly that Pittman-Robertson funds could not be used
to match predator control and could only be used for other
parts of the program. He asked if the information was
accurate.
Senator Revak deferred to the department.
2:07:44 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), responded that in certain
instances federal funds could be used for predator control;
however, the natural diversity guidelines driving much of
federal management in the State of Alaska, precluded the
use of federal funds to do predator control on federal
lands. He explained that doing predator control on state
lands using federal dollars fell under federal review,
which could be cumbersome. The department leveraged federal
dollars to conduct much of the science associated with
predator control activities on state lands; however, the
removal of predators was done with state dollars to avoid
interference and oversight from the federal government.
2:08:47 PM
Representative Josephson noted he had heard the
commissioner mention that intensive management (IM) was not
done on federal land. He was puzzled by the statement
because intensive management was done on federal lands,
frequently over the objection of the federal government. He
asked for the accuracy of his understanding. He remarked
that the issue was in the newspaper monthly.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that the department was
not currently doing any intensive management on federal
land. He relayed that DFG had approached the federal
government the previous year about doing intensive
management on federal land near the Mulchatna caribou herd
because the herd was in a predator pit and not providing
for any subsistence uses; however, the department had not
heard back on whether it could enter into a cooperative
agreement to do predator control on federal lands. He
reiterated that the department was doing predator control
on state lands, but not on federal lands.
Representative Josephson highlighted that the National Park
Service had noted the shooting of its collared wolves in
research programs. He remarked that wolves did not know the
boundaries [between state and federal lands]. He asked for
verification that there had been huge disputes about the
topic between the two governments.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that there were wolves
the National Park Service had collared on federal land in
Tetlin Park that had been shot on state land in predator
control areas. He confirmed there had been conflict between
the state and federal governments over predator control
programs. He relayed that DFG was operating under the state
intensive management law and the federal government was
managing under natural diversity guidelines. The federal
guidelines did not endorse predator control on their
landscapes. He emphasized that the state was not doing
predator control on federal lands, some of the state
predator control areas were adjacent to federal lands.
2:10:54 PM
Representative Josephson asked the commissioner to explain
the difference between intensive management and predator
control. He assumed predator control was a subset of
intensive management.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang explained that intensive
management was anything the state did to intensively manage
populations to increase productivity for human use. He
stated that in some cases, the state was doing intensive
management on federal lands, but not predator control. For
example, the department was conducting habitat restoration
programs on the Kenai Peninsula in cooperation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aimed at fire breaks and a
variety of other habitat improvements that would hopefully
result in greater moose populations over the long-term. He
stated that DFG was not doing any wolf population control
on federal lands on the Kenai Peninsula. He relayed that
intensive management was a broader spectrum that could
include habitat manipulation, fire controls, and the
removal of predators. He stated that predator removal was
one subset of intensive management.
2:12:01 PM
Representative Josephson asked at what point the
liberalizing of brown bear baiting on the Kenai became de
facto predator control.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that he had been part
of the discussions regarding brown bear baiting on the
Kenai Peninsula and it was a more complex discussion than
intensive management of bears. He stated it had been more
focused on trying to deal with the number of bears on state
land that were causing human-bear interactions on the Kenai
Peninsula. There had been a large outcry from citizens on
the peninsula with the number of bears around. He relayed
that the Board of Game had decided to do some bear removal
to try to reduce the human-bear interactions. He stated
that the board recognized the action would potentially
benefit the moose population on the Kenai Peninsula due to
the reduction in bears. He believed the board's primary
driver was to remove the number of bears to reduce human-
bear interactions, given that the state could not do
intensive management across the entire peninsula on federal
lands.
2:13:26 PM
Representative Josephson was concerned that when people
paid the surcharge, they may not be aware of the variety of
ways invented and enhanced since 1994 to undergo predator
control. He asked if the commissioner believed hunters were
aware of all of the liberal practices as legalized hunting
and predator control.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang believed there was a relatively
good awareness on the subject based on the number of emails
and calls he received about it. He noted that the topic was
in the newspapers quite a bit. He provided background on
intensive management. He explained that the department had
a statutory obligation to report back to the Board of Game
when a population was not meeting its population or harvest
objectives. The department reported to the board when
[population or harvest] objectives set by the board were
underachieving. He explained that the board then tasked the
department with coming up with an intensive management
plan. He detailed that DFG evaluated the population and the
intensive management strategies at the department's
disposal. He relayed that if the land was mostly federal
and there was little chance to improve habitat, the
department likely reported back to the Board of Game that
intensive management was not feasible in the area. He
stated that at that point "it moves off and they deal with
it through other levels of means to get the population back
up." In other cases, when the department determined
predator control may work, it put together a proposal for
review by the Board of Game and advisory committees across
the state were given an opportunity to weigh in.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang stated that the department moved
into the implementation phase of an intensive management
program after it was approved by the board. He stated that
if the plan included reducing the number of wolves or bears
on a landscape, the department moved to implement the plan.
The department had an obligation to report back annually on
progress on the plan. He relayed that if the plan was not
working, the board could reverse the plan as it had in Unit
16 about eight to ten years back. He summarized that a plan
was initiated by the Board of Game, and it was constantly
reviewed by DFG and the board to ensure it was meeting the
objectives. He stated that if a plan was not working, the
department walked away from it and moved on to the next
area. He added that the public had an opportunity to weigh
in throughout the process.
2:16:36 PM
Representative Carpenter stated that he did not think the
Kenai residents' understanding of the current regulations
and how management was conducted was germane to the bill
discussion. He thought the people of Kenai were likely
fully aware of how the state was managing resources. He did
not believe the committee should be questioning whether the
people of Kenai did or did not know.
Senator Revak thought it was important to remember that
predator control was a small piece of intensive management.
He stated that intensive management included a variety of
things such as research, controlled burns, and all
different aspects of habitat. He believed under 1 percent
of intensive management the previous year went to predator
control.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee would hear
invited testimony.
2:17:54 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), provided testimony on HB 80. He
read a prepared statement:
The Alaska Legislature recognized the importance of
wild game meat to Alaskans as a food source and
consistent with Article VIII, Section 4 of the Alaska
Constitution, passed the intensive management law in
1994. This law requires ADF&G and the Alaska Board of
Game to identify moose, caribou, and deer populations
that are especially important food sources and to
ensure that the populations remain large enough to
provide food security to Alaskans to an adequate
sustained harvest. Recognizing the potential for
federal interference and state IM programs, the
department funded its IM programs under the IM law
from a series of capital budgets. As the capital funds
were expended and new funds were not allocated,
hunters became concerned about the future of intensive
management in Alaska. Because of the success of
several state-run conducted IM programs in increasing
ungulates, principally caribou and moose populations
on state lands, hunters requested an intensive
management surcharge be added to their licenses. This
was at the request of hunters across the State of
Alaska. The request was made to ensure the funds were
dedicated and available to assess and conduct
intensive management activities, especially given the
reluctance of federal managers to conduct intensive
management on their lands or using federal funds.
The legislature agreed and added an intensive
management surcharge to hunting licenses in 2016 and
the surcharge has been collected since January 1, 2017
and has been used to fulfill our obligations under the
state IM law. Intensive management programs and
enhanced habitat [inaudible] predators are a core
element of game management on state lands. I emphasize
that IM programs also include habitat enhancement in
addition to predator control. We have done several
habitat enhancement projects across Alaska aimed at
improving ungulate numbers. In addition to reliable
funding, careful planning is essential to ensuring our
state IM programs are both effective and defendable.
All state intensive management programs are guided by
an intensive management protocol that ensures
decisions are based on the best available science.
Intensive management allows us to put food on the
table of Alaskans and is one of the priorities of me
as commissioner and are essential to meeting
subsistence needs, the department's first priority.
Just look at the success we have had in meeting the
food needs of Alaskans in the 40-mile caribou herd.
This herd, restored through our IM efforts, put over
2.6 million of healthy meat in the freezers of
Alaskans. I refer to a handout each of you should
have. These surcharge funds also ensure that we can
implement the state IM law without interference of
federal oversight, and I remind you that two-thirds of
Alaska lands are federal lands and are off limits to
intensive management activities as they are managed
for their natural diversity, not human use, despite a
rural subsistence priority and there is no assurance
one can feed one's family under natural diversity
objectives.
The legislation before you today repeals the sunset on
the intensive management surcharge. This proposal does
not have any additional costs to the department.
Should the surcharge sunset, the department will see a
significant decrease in revenue to pay for intensive
management and our ability to meet our obligations
under the intensive management law. Revenue from the
IM surcharge totals approximately $1 million in each
of the last three calendar years. Most of those funds
are used to match Pittman Robertson dollars at a one
to three ratio. That means absent an appropriation for
the match, the department could stand to lose nearly
$4 million hampering the department's ability to
conduct IM activities. With that, I urge your support
for this important piece of legislation.
2:21:48 PM
Representative Wool referenced Ms. Torkelson's testimony
that funds were used for research, management, and habitat
enhancement. He did not believe he had heard her list
predator control. He did not know whether it was a
deliberate or accidental omission. He understood predator
control accounted for a small percentage in FY 20. He
pointed out that it accounted for a larger percentage in FY
18 and FY 19. He highlighted the controversial nature of
the topic. He referenced a couple of costs. He thought it
was important to touch upon the issue because many
legislators heard from constituents who did not agree with
the aerial hunting of wolves or gassing of wolf pups in
their dens. He believed it was what Representative
Josephson had been referring to when he had asked if
everyone realized some of the funds went to those
methodologies. He knew it had been going on and that it had
been controversial. He noted the topic had come up in the
commissioner's confirmation and it would continue to be an
issue. He thought if the sponsor was going to list what the
funds would be used for that predator control should be on
the list with habitat enhancement and research and
management. He stated that while it was not a large part of
the budget, it was part of the budget and he believed it
should be discussed in the open.
Senator Revak responded that the programs were statutory,
and DFG had to fund intensive management. He felt it would
be appropriate to address the issue separately. He stated
that currently intensive management had to be funded. He
believed it would be better for it to be funded with a user
fee rather than UGF.
Representative Rasmussen referred to Representative
Carpenter's point of order. She did not feel like the
conversation was germane to the topic.
Representative Wool countered that the committee had
received a handout for the bill that mentioned the
aforementioned items. He disagreed with the previous
comment and stated that the topic was germane.
Co-Chair Merrick noted the committee had been joined by
Representative Mike Cronk.
2:25:29 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked why a sunset date had been included
when the fee had been put forward in 2016.
Senator Revak replied that he was not in the legislature
when the initial bill had passed. He deferred to the
commissioner.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that there had been the
same amount of angst about predator control and a variety
of other things when the law had originally passed. He
believed the compromise had been made to leave a sunset in
place to review whether the program was or was not working.
2:26:30 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
ROD ARNO, POLICY DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, PALMER
(via teleconference), shared that the Alaska Outdoor
Council (AOC) had been on hand in Juneau in 2016 with the
other major conservation organizations in the state to come
together and agree to have hunting license fees increased
to help pay for management of fish and game. He detailed
that Section 22 of HB 137 had created the intensive
management surcharge. The bill had also created how the
funding source could be gathered and used specifically for
intensive management projects. He relayed that the bill had
created a sustainable wildlife account. He reported that
AOC members and those of other major conservation
organizations had willingly agreed to be part of the
legislation and to pay more for the opportunity to gather a
wild food harvest. The sunset had been included due to the
apprehension from some people over how intensive management
would be implemented by different administrations and how
it would be received by the public through the board
process.
Mr. Arno stated that AOC members were pleased with the way
DFG had dispensed the funds from the special subaccount. He
noted that individuals who purchased the $5 low income
resident hunting license did not have to pay the $10 fee.
He added that nonresidents paid an additional $30 fee on
top of their hunting or trapping license. He relayed that
the AOC's 10,000 members were more than willing to help pay
for the state's management that allowed for an increase in
harvestable surplus. He emphasized that food security was
much more important than the concerns over some of the
methods of predator control.
Co-Chair Merrick noted Representative Kevin McCabe had
joined the meeting.
2:30:15 PM
MARK RICHARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESIDENT HUNTERS OF
ALASKA, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of
HB 80. He understood and respected that some legislators
had issues with predator control in general. He was happy
to discuss those issues with anyone outside of the meeting.
However, he pointed out that intensive management was a
law, and the Board of Game was mandated to follow the law
and do intensive management when necessary. He stated that
most of what went into intensive management did not involve
predator control efforts and could be funded in part by
matching three to one federal Pittman Robertson dollars. He
noted the dollars were growing substantially with the new
[federal] administration. The continuation of the surcharge
helped with the continuation of work including aerial
population surveys, animal health monitoring, habitat
surveys, and other. He stated the work was necessary in
order for the department to inform the Board of Game about
what kind of opportunities hunters could have and how much
game could be taken sustainably. He encouraged members to
support the legislation. He remarked that opposing the bill
would only result in less Pittman Robertson funding coming
into the state.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee had been joined by
Representative George Rauscher.
2:32:59 PM
JOHN STURGEON, DIRECTOR, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, ALASKA
CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support
of SB 22 and believed it should be made permanent. The
organization believed the law had been of great assistance
to DFG and the proper management of Alaska's wildlife
resources. He stated that harvesting wild game was a
practice steeped in tradition and was extremely important
to Alaska families. He shared that his family almost
exclusively relied on wild game for their freezer. He
highlighted that without the funds to properly manage
wildlife as a food source, the food source could be
drastically reduced or in some cases lost. He noted it was
very important in rural Alaska.
Mr. Sturgeon stated that an intensive surcharge had been
added to hunting licenses in 2016 and had been collected
since January 1, 2017. He stated that because the programs
had proven successful in increasing caribou, moose, and
deer populations, hunters requested the surcharge to ensure
the funds were dedicated and available to assess and
conduct intensive management activities. He stated that the
license revenue allowed DFG to carry out projects free of
interference from the federal government and freed up
Pittman Robertson funds for the state in a three-to-one
match. He stated that most hunters paid the surcharge
without hesitation or regret. He relayed hunters realized
the value of proper management of the state's wildlife
resources. He expressed strong support of the intensive
management program and urged making it permanent.
2:35:31 PM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. She asked the
department to review the fiscal note.
RACHEL HANKE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), reviewed the fiscal note. The
fiscal note reflected the changes in revenues to the Fish
and Game Fund starting in FY 23 at $500,000 beginning on
December 22. The note reflected $1 million in the outyears.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due in her
office by the end of Saturday, April 17, 2021.
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:36:42 PM
AT EASE
2:37:55 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Public Accountancy; and providing for an effective
date."
2:38:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
He thanked the committee for hearing HB 126. He read the
sponsor statement (copy on file):
HB 126 extends the termination date for the Board of
Public Accountancy for eight years until June 30,
2029.
Legislative Audit conducted their review of this board
and concluded that "the board served the public's
interest by conducting meetings in accordance with
state laws, amending certain regulations to improve
the public accountancy occupation, and effectively
licensing and regulating certified public accountants
and partnerships/corporations engaged in the practice
of public accountancy."
The Board of Public Accountancy consists of seven
members appointed by the Governor. Five members are
certified public accountants or public accountants,
and two members are public members.
Extending the Board of Public Accountancy is critical
in protecting the public interest by ensuring that
only qualified persons are licensed, and that
appropriate standards of competency and practice are
established and enforced.
Representative Thompson indicated Ms. Curtis with the
Division of Legislative Audit would present the audit
findings.
2:39:58 PM
AT EASE
2:40:52 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Curtis to present the audit
findings.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, drew attention to a transmittal letter
that accompanied the audit (copy on file). She clarified
that the audit was conducted in accordance with auditing
standards with the exception of the standard of
independence, which she and her staff did not meet because
they were CPAs.
Ms. Curtis reported that the audit found the Board of
Accountancy to be serving the public's interest by
conducting its meetings in accordance with law and by
effectively licensing CPAs and partnerships and
corporations engaged in public accountancy. The audit
recommended an eight-year extension. She directed members
to page 8 of the audit for standard licensing statistics.
She highlighted that Exhibit 2 showed 1,328 active licenses
and permits as of January 2020. When compared to the prior
sunset audit in 2012, the number represented a 10 percent
increase. She explained that the audit had found Alaska to
be one of the few states that did not require a social
security number for licensure, consequently there were a
high number of international applicants.
Ms. Curtis directed attention to page 7 of the audit and
highlighted the schedule of revenues and expenditures. As
of the end of FY 19 there was a surplus of over $84,000.
She noted the fees were shown on page 8. The audit made one
recommendation for improvements beginning on page 11. The
audit recommended the Division of Corporations, Business
and Professional Licensing (CBPL) chief investigator ensure
investigations were completed timely. She detailed there
had been 101 complaints open during the audit period and 40
of the complaints had taken over six months to complete.
Auditors had reviewed five of the 40 and found that two had
unjustified periods of inactivity ranging from 64 days to
219 days. According to staff, the inactivity was the result
of turnover and competing priorities.
Ms. Curtis addressed management's response to the audit
beginning on page 21. She relayed that the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED)
commissioner agreed with the report conclusions except for
the conclusion that 40 percent of investigations took over
six months to complete. She reported the commissioner
stated that CBPL had no control over how an investigation
would unfold or how long it would take, and the division
did not have a policy to complete all investigations within
a specific timeframe. However, the commissioner agreed to
authorize an additional investigative supervisor to help
with the caseloads. The commissioner also took exception
regarding the audit conclusion that the use of technology
impacted board operations and believed that the
technological tools had been successful for all boards.
Ms. Curtis relayed that the board chair's response was
located on page 25 of the audit report. She stated that the
chair did not disagree with any of the report conclusions
but had taken the opportunity to highlight a disagreement
the board had with DCCED regarding what should be
considered essential travel.
2:44:39 PM
Representative Josephson referred to the April 8, 2020,
audit and asked about the 101 board related cases. He asked
how many accountants there were [in Alaska].
Ms. Curtis responded that as of January 2020 there were
1,328 active licenses and permits.
Representative Josephson asked if the issue should be cause
for a shorter extension period.
Ms. Curtis answered that the criteria used to evaluate the
sunset process included the efficiency to which the
complaints were addressed. She elaborated that some
occupational boards had continuing education requirements.
She detailed there could be investigations related to the
continuing education requirements, which most people would
consider less concerning than something like malpractice.
The sunset extension recommendation did not take the number
of complaints into consideration, rather it considered the
efficiency aspect of the time it was taking to complete
investigations.
2:46:27 PM
Representative Josephson noted that the cost of a two-year
license was much less compared to the license for another
profession discussed in committee the previous day. He
wondered whether there could be a fee increase (in separate
legislation) and a requirement for the hiring of additional
investigator positions.
Ms. Curtis responded that the question may be better
directed to Ms. Chambers. She relayed that the audit had
not looked at what type of policy could be put in place.
2:47:18 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
thought raising fees to hire additional staff was a sound
suggestion. The division had already added one or two
investigators to the team of 19 investigators responsible
for covering the 43 professional licensing programs and
business licensing investigations. The division was already
augmenting its team in order to address some of the
workload concerns addressed in the audits. She explained
that the investigators charged only to the programs as they
were working them. She used CPAs as and example and
explained that if there was an increase in CPA casework,
the CPA program would be charged that amount, which could
lead to an increase in fees.
2:48:31 PM
Representative Rasmussen observed that it appeared the
board anticipated a surplus of $531,524. She wondered if
the board remained in possession of the funds.
Ms. Chambers responded that all of the professional
licensing boards carried forward any surpluses or deficits
from fiscal year to fiscal year. The department was
required by AS 08.01.065 to do a fee analysis and set fees
to ensure a surplus or deficit was not too high. She
elaborated that as a program grew a surplus, the department
likely would reduce the fees. Conversely, if a program had
a deficit, the department would likely increase fees to
keep the program from sinking further into deficit. The
fees were always retained for use for the specific
licensing program's expenses.
Representative Rasmussen wondered why a board with a
$530,000 projected surplus was not granted the opportunity
for travel to meetings determined by the board. She asked
if statutory or regulatory change was needed.
Alternatively, she wondered if the decision was made by the
department.
Ms. Chambers responded that the fiscal expenditure
authority for each board was set at the division level. She
detailed that when the state budget was set via the
legislative process, the department was allocated a
specific amount of expenditure authority for all of the
licensing programs. She expounded that each board was not
allocated the independent authority by the legislature. She
explained that just because a board may have a surplus did
not mean the department had the expenditure authority from
the legislature to spend that much money during a fiscal
year.
2:51:56 PM
Representative Wool looked at page 6 of the audit report.
He observed that 40 out of 101 cases had been open for over
180 days. He reasoned they took too long to process. He
asked if his understanding was accurate.
Ms. Curtis responded that the audit indicated 40 percent
seemed high on a case-by-case basis.
Representative Wool asked for verification it was just
coincidence that five cases had been reviewed in the audit
and 40 percent of the five had periods of unjustified
inactivity within the 180 days. He noted the audit's
mention of staff turnover. He asked for verification the
turnover pertained to board staff only and not CBPL staff.
Ms. Curtis clarified that the investigative function was
carried out within CBPL, and the report was referring to
division staff.
Representative Wool thought it sounded like the same thing
the committee had heard about the midwifery board. He
stated that the boards were getting called out for taking
too long, but it had to do with the staff at CBPL, which
was out of the boards' control. He asked if his
understanding was accurate.
Ms. Curtis agreed that the audit highlighted the issue as
an area for improvement. However, she noted that the
recommended term of extension was not impacted by the
issue.
Representative Wool asked if CBPL was audited.
Ms. Curtis replied that the division was audited as part of
the sunset process as support to the board. She elaborated
that every time a board was audited, the auditors looked at
CBPL support. She detailed that licensing processing was
not done by board members. She explained that largely there
was an audit of CBPL every time the Division of Legislative
Audit looked at an occupational board.
2:54:28 PM
Representative Carpenter referred to page 7 and highlighted
a discrepancy in the licensing fees charged between the
years FY 17 and FY 19. He noted that the fees were $179,000
in FY 17 and $730,000 in FY 18.
Ms. Curtis responded that the board was on a biannual
renewal cycle causing an influx in fees every other year.
She relayed that the off-year fees collected included
people getting licensed in between or renewing a license.
She explained it was the reason an audit included at least
three years to see one full licensing cycle.
2:55:26 PM
Representative Edgmon knew from his time on the committee
that Ms. Curtis had done many audits. He remarked there had
been four bills in the last two days with wildly varying
fees. He asked if it was Ms. Curtis's experience that the
user fees were established board-by-board with no regard to
any uniformity standards or benchmarking. For example, for
the current bill, fees occurred under the realm of the
Board of Public Accountancy and were not related to
sportfishing, midwives, or other.
Ms. Curtis responded that statute specified a fee had to be
set to cover the cost of regulation. She explained that the
cost of regulating each occupation was tracked. She
elaborated that the variance in fees was the variance in
regulating the occupation, which was often driven by
investigations (as was the case in the midwifery board seen
by the committee the previous day). She furthered that
boards with a large number of licensees (e.g., the Board of
Nursing) tended to have lower fees because they were spread
out over a larger number of people.
Representative Edgmon thought the information was helpful.
He stated it helped him understand why the midwifery board
fee was $3,800 for two years versus sportfishing licenses
and nonresident fees in the $100 to $200 range. He remarked
on the long schedule for the Board of Public Accountancy.
He asked for verification that the money would be swept
from the General Fund if the reverse sweep did not occur.
Ms. Curtis responded in the negative. She clarified the
money did not go into a sub-fund of the General Fund that
was subject to the sweep. She elaborated that the fees were
not dedicated revenue and went into the General Fund; there
was no separate tracking at the sub-fund level. She
explained that the appropriation to expend for regulation
of boards was at the division level and came from the
General Fund.
Representative Edgmon asked for verification that the fees
would not be subject to the annual vote on the reverse
sweep.
Ms. Curtis agreed.
2:58:23 PM
Representative Josephson stated his understanding that the
General Fund was sweepable.
Ms. Curtis replied that certain sub-funds of the General
Fund were sweepable.
Representative Josephson noted that in July 2019 the Senate
Finance Committee had discussed how the dollars could be
swept away and there had been consideration of the legal
consequences of that potential action.
2:59:13 PM
Representative Wool asked about the length of time it took
to process an investigation, which was in part due to CBPL
staffing. He remarked that the audit recommended an eight-
year extension. He pointed out that a separate audit of the
midwifery board included the board chair's response to the
audit. The midwifery board chair had pointed out that the
length of time it took to process an investigation was not
the board's fault and was due to CBPL. He stated that a
board was being charged with being deficient in its time
response for an issue that resided with the department.
Ms. Curtis addressed her testimony from the previous day
regarding the midwifery board. She had stated that the
board's term of extension was two years, significantly
below eight years due to an issue identified during the
audit and the board's reluctance to recommend statutory
changes in the public's interest. She elaborated that the
board did not want to increase fees, which was not
appropriate. She could not speak to the issue identified in
the audit on the record. She relayed that her separate
recommendation relating to the timeliness of investigations
did not factor into her recommended extension. She regarded
the nature of a health board's investigations and impact to
public safety as more important and more likely to
influence a recommended term of extension as opposed to
boards like public accountancy and barbers and hairdressers
that did not have as tight a connection to public health.
3:01:54 PM
Representative Wool understood that health and public
safety prevailed over accountancy. However, the issue of
timeliness had been addressed by the audit as something the
board needed to respond to. He highlighted the issue of a
CBPL staff shortage impacting timeliness. He felt that some
of the boards were being unfairly called out for something
beyond their control.
Ms. Curtis replied that the issue had been raised to her
multiple times from board chairs and House Finance
Committee members. She recognized that CBPL was not the
board itself; however, it was board support. She explained
that the audit was a legislative oversight mechanism, and
she always brought the issue to legislators' attention when
the support was not as good as it should be and whether she
believed it impacted the timeline of coming back in to do
more legislative oversight. She stated there were numerous
things that could impact delays apart from insufficient
staff. Whether a board had good procedures and supervision
also impacted delays.
Ms. Curtis reported that the audit did not address the
specifics of why something was not working. She had done a
deeper dive in 2005 when she had looked at the
investigative function and had found other contributing
aspects related to how it was organized. She clarified that
the current audit was not a specific evaluation of the
investigative section. The audit highlighted problems. She
believed that the delay in 40 percent of the board's
investigations indicated that things could be done faster.
She stated one would expect that if the cases were not a
priority or the evidence could not be obtained, the cases
should be cleaned up and closed out. She stated there were
many different things that could contribute to the
situation.
3:04:33 PM
Representative Carpenter stated there had been discussion
on money and potential staff shortages and whether it would
help to solve problems. He referenced the unjustified
inactivity on 40 percent of the board investigations. He
noted that the audit specifically identified staff
turnover, competing priorities, and an absence of
documentation showing supervisory reviews were occurring.
He noted that Ms. Curtis had just mentioned good
procedures. He thought Ms. Curtis was making the case that
better management would help to address the issue of
inactivity. He asked if the statement was fair.
Ms. Curtis responded that she had not done a deep enough
dive to say specifically what the department should do. The
auditors typically asked the department why something was
happening, and the department provided the cause such as
competing priorities and turnover. She thought Ms. Chambers
would like to speak to the issue.
Ms. Chambers responded that management of the investigative
process was important to CBPL, and the division had
operating procedures followed by its team. The division
agreed with the audit that it could improve, and it had
taken steps to hire an additional supervisor. Additionally,
the division had adjusted some of its policies and
procedures to ensure it was clarifying priority cases. She
reported there was a focus on life, health, and safety
cases.
Ms. Chambers explained that the auditor had identified the
concern that the division's team was not meeting its own
procedures in terms of documenting case activity. The
division was continuing to add resources and doubling back
to ensure its investigators and three-member investigative
team were ensuring the documentation happened. She noted
that on the next audit of any of the division's programs
(stretched across 21 licensing boards) the auditors would
be able to see the reasons why a case may have taken too
long according to the division's standards. She provided
examples such as a respondent not being forthcoming with
information, inability to reach witnesses, staff turnover,
and/or competing health and safety priorities. She
explained that it would enable the auditor to see the
reason and a finding like the one included in the current
audit would not occur. The division was continuing to
improve its management and always appreciated the auditors'
feedback.
3:07:39 PM
Representative Carpenter remarked that the question was not
intended to poke anyone in the eye. He stated his intention
to highlight that if the division was not following its own
procedures, it could be remedied fairly easily. He believed
it was not about needing more resources, but merely a will
for the division to follow its procedures in some cases. He
thought the issue was primarily management related and not
funding related.
Representative Josephson looked at page 6 of the audit and
the 101 board related cases spanning 3.5 years. He wondered
to what degree the cases were essentially complaints about
an accountant's negligence. For example, if a person was
audited or they did not like their return. He compared the
first examples to an accountant missing a deadline or
having a substance abuse problem, which was something the
board may want to know about. He wondered if there was a
clearing system where complainants were told their
complaint was outside the division's jurisdiction.
Ms. Curtis responded that there was a process in place if
something was not in the division's jurisdiction. She noted
the 101 number pertained to complaints or cases. She
explained that the division had a process to close them out
and not pursue them. There was a complaint phase and an
investigative phase, and one had to meet a threshold before
it was investigated.
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
3:10:07 PM
LESLIE SCHMITZ, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), thanked the audit process
for the recommendation of the maximum extension of eight
years. She relayed that the board made every effort to stay
interactive with stakeholders and licensees and it tried to
reach out to the people it was regulating or the people who
were looking to the board to protect public safety. The
board also made every attempt to stay active at the
national level to address issues affecting the profession.
She elaborated that the board maintained ongoing projects
to update and modernize its statutes and regulations in
order to remain current with the direction of the
profession. She thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
3:11:35 PM
DON RULIEN, PAST MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY
and CURRENT MEMBER, ALASKA SOCIETY OF CPAs, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 126. He provided
detail about his work in the field and term on the board.
He stated that the State Board of Public Accountancy played
an integral part in providing protection to the public that
ensured all CPAs meet all statutory requirements and
regulations. He appreciated the committee hearing the bill
and supported the recommended eight-year extension.
3:12:55 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
3:13:11 PM
CRISTA BURSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA SOCIETY OF CPAs
(AKCPA), ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), supported HB 126
in extending the termination date of the Board of Public
Accountancy. She reviewed the duties of the board. She
highlighted that the board was inclusive of all interested
parties including the AKCPA. She detailed that the AKCPA
and the Board of Public Accountancy had a very positive and
collaborative relationship. She thanked the committee for
its consideration.
3:14:17 PM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. She asked the
department to review the fiscal note.
Ms. Chambers reviewed the fiscal note. The note reflected
that the board would sunset if the bill did not pass and
there would no longer be the $25,600 necessary to support
the activities of the board. The note reflected the $25,600
in the outyears to support the board's activities. She
remarked that sometimes fiscal notes for extension bills
were not intuitive. She explained that the licensing
program would continue if the board were to sunset. She
clarified that the note did not show the cost of the
licensing program; it showed the cost for board member
travel, the advertising of board meetings, and additional
meals and incidentals board members received while
traveling.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments for the bill were due
to her office by the end of Saturday, April 17, 2021.
HB 126 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
3:16:10 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:16 p.m.