Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/13/2010 02:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB315 | |
| SB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 312 | ||
| = | SB 4 | ||
| = | HB 315 | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 2010
2:59 p.m.
2:59:26 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:59 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jennifer Senette, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson,
Sponsor; Max Mertz, Alaska Board of Public Accountancy,
Juneau; Julie Olson, President, Alaska Board of Public
Accountancy, Juneau; Tim Benintendi, Staff, Senator Donny
Olson, Sponsor; Randy Bates, Director, Division of Ocean
Management, Department of Natural Resources; Dan Easton,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation; Edward S. Itta, Mayor, North Slope Borough;
Harold Curran, Chief Administration Officer, North Slope
Borough
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Lindsay Wolter, Department of Law; Steve Borell, Alaska
Miners Association
SUMMARY
HB 315 PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
HB 315 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
SB 312 VESSEL PASSENGER TAX
SB 312 was scheduled but not heard.
SB 4 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SB 4 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
2:59:43 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to public accounting; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT the SCS for HB 315, labeled
26-LS1380\R, Bannister, 4/12/10, as the work draft before
the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Stedman explained the sections of the SCS. In
Sections 2 and 3, the SCS adds an executive secretary
position to the State Board of Public Accountancy. The
board is currently struggling to fulfill its mission
because of insufficient staff. The addition of this
position will enable the board to perform its duties more
efficiently. The position will be paid from license fees
and is supported by the Alaska Society of CPA's.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
JENNIFER SENETTE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON,
SPONSOR, explained that the SCS for HB 315 was crafted with
the help of the Alaska Society of CPA's and with the State
Board of Public Accountancy and enjoys their support. She
knew of no opposition to the bill. It was passed in the
other body unanimously. Some version of this legislation
has been passed in 45 states. The bill represents Alaska's
effort to bring accounting standards into line with the
rest of the nation and keep Alaskan CPA's nationally
competetive.
Ms. Senette reported that the bill accomplishes several
things. It gives CPA's mobility, the ability of a licensee
to gain a practice privilege outside of his or her
principle place of business without additional licensing
and fees. An Alaskan CPA would be able to practice out of
state and vice versa.
Ms. Senette related that the bill provides for simple
majority ownership. Under current law, Alaskan accounting
firms must be owned 100 percent by CPA's. Other non-CPA
professionals would be able to have a minority ownership.
The intent is to attract and retain qualified individuals.
3:04:49 PM
Ms. Senette described the third goal of the bill, which is
to enhance the board's ability to protect the public
interest. The board will have automatic jurisdiction over
all CPA's practicing in the state and address any
violations of its standards.
Ms. Senette said the bill also provides for an executive
secretary position to the board in order to enhance the
board's ability to perform its crucial functions. The cost
of the position will be borne through an increase in CPA
licensing fees.
Ms. Senette pointed out that a board member was present.
Co-Chair Stedman noted one zero fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
3:07:29 PM
MAX MERTZ, ALASKA BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY, JUNEAU,
introduced himself.
Senator Egan noted that Mr. Mertz' firm did his taxes.
Mr. Mertz related his six-year experience on the board. He
shared the difficulty of the board's ability to carry out
its mission. The bill brings to the table the notion of a
practice privilege which will enhance the board's ability
to govern. He agreed with the need for an executive
secretary.
3:11:08 PM
JULIE OLSON, PRESIDENT, ALASKA BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY,
JUNEAU, echoed Mr. Mertz's comments of support.
Senator Olson asked if the bill would have any effect on
smaller businesses.
Ms. Senette reported receiving only positive feedback from
firms of all sizes. She thanked the committee for hearing
the bill.
HB 315 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
3:13:13 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 312
"An Act providing for a reduction in the excise tax to
$34.50 for a passenger for each voyage on a commercial
passenger vessel; providing for a reduction in the
state excise tax imposed on a passenger on a
commercial passenger vessel by the amount of tax on a
passenger traveling on a commercial passenger vessel
imposed by a municipality that does not elect to
receive an appropriation of a portion of the proceeds
from the state tax; authorizing an appropriation from
the proceeds from the excise tax imposed on a
passenger on a commercial passenger vessel for state-
owned infrastructure to properly provide for
commercial vessel or passenger visits; requiring a
municipality receiving funds appropriated from the
excise tax imposed on a passenger on a commercial
passenger vessel to use the funds to improve port and
harbor facilities and other services and
infrastructure to properly provide for commercial
passenger vessel or passenger visits; limiting the
reduction for the excise tax imposed by a municipality
on a passenger on a commercial passenger vessel to
$17.25 a passenger for each voyage; requiring the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development to prepare and submit a report on the
needs of communities to safely and efficiently host
passengers subject to the state tax imposed on a
passenger on a commercial passenger vessel, and to
summarize the extent to which appropriations from the
state tax have been used to defray the costs of
meeting those needs; eliminating the authority to
appropriate funds received from the excise tax imposed
on a passenger on a commercial passenger vessel to an
area of the state that is not one of the first five
ports of call in the state for a commercial passenger
vessel carrying a passenger subject to the state
excise tax imposed on a passenger of that vessel; and
providing for an effective date."
SB 312 was scheduled but not heard.
SENATE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management
program; and establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board."
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT the CS for SB 4, labeled
26-LS0019\S, Cook, 4/10/10, as the work draft before the
committee.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED.
3:13:53 PM
Senator Donny Olson, Sponsor, explained the need for a bill
dealing with the Alaska Coastal Management Board. He
thanked the mayor of the North Slope Borough for appearing
at the meeting.
TIM BENINTENDI, STAFF, SENATOR DONNY OLSON, SPONSOR,
referred to Version S of the bill. He explained that
coastal zone management is a big issue. Version S is a
product of the sponsor and several supporters of the
legislation.
3:15:43 PM
Mr. Benintendi explained the changes in the bill. Section 1
allows the governor to appoint four coastal district board
members and an alternate without coastal district approval.
The commissioners would continue to serve on the board
totaling nine people appointed by the governor. Section 4
removes a provision for board consultation with federal
agencies. Section 5 is a grammatical correction. Section 9
removes the term "prescriptive and performance based"
regarding enforceable policies. The term "contemporary and
traditional" is also removed. The term "areas that merit
special attention" replaces the term "special management
areas" in several places. The word "on" replaces "upon".
Mr. Benintendi continued to say that Section 10 clarifies
the role of the board in approving regulation changes. The
term "areas that merit special attention" replaces the term
"special management areas". Section 11 clarifies that
regulations for district plan criteria cannot require
designation of areas as a precondition for establishing
district enforceable policies. Section 14 clarifies that
enforceable policies cannot conflict with state statute or
regulations.
3:19:33 PM
Mr. Benintendi explained that Section 19 removes the
proposed provision to allow reviews inland of the coastal
zone and removes the term "and water". Section 23 adds a
new subsection to clarify that draft permits cannot be
required before the start of an ACMP consistency review.
Section 30 removes Section 30 from SB 4 to AS 46.40.190
regarding cooperative administration. Section 31 removes
language in the existing definition "coastal resource
district" regarding boroughs that do not exercise plan and
zoning authority. Section 35 adds new language to the
definition of project that allows ACMP reviews of proposed
federal rules, including proposed rules regarding
endangered species. This may be a new way to challenge the
Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Benintendi reported that Section 36 removes the
proposed new definition for "special management areas".
Section 37 removes the repeal of the existing definition of
"areas that merit special attention". Sections 38 and 39
both repeal provisions in CH. 31, SLA 2005 that repealed
the coastal management program in 2011.
3:22:54 PM
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopting Version
S. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Olson pointed out the number of major concessions
considered by the bill's sponsor.
Co-Chair Stedman noted two new fiscal notes, one from the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for $165,000 in
general funds to cover the cost of travel and supplies for
the Coastal Policy Board as well as contractual funds for
DNR to draft regulations, and one from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) for $118,700 in
interagency receipts for one additional person needed to
serve as DEC's Coastal Management Program Coordinator.
3:25:01 PM
RANDY BATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCEAN MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, stated that the department
has serious issues with SB 4, especially Version R.
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out that the committee was
considering Version S, not Version R, and asked Mr. Bates
if he was prepared to address the substantial changes in
that version. Mr. Bates responded that he had just been
given a copy of Version S and has had a limited amount of
time to review it. He noted that after a quick review of
Version S, the changes made do not alter the department's
major concerns.
Co-Chair Hoffman expressed frustration about a letter from
DNR dated April 13 which he only received today. He said
the department's letter offered no solutions or "fixes". He
suggested that the department come up with something
positive so that issues in rural areas can be resolved. He
emphasized that rural Alaskans wish to be partners in
decisions that affect their daily lives. He maintained that
DEC does not want to share in decision-making regarding
coastal zone issues. He emphasized that the coastal zone
regulations would be expiring shortly. He strongly
requested positive suggestions, not obstacles.
Mr. Bates responded that the department's concerns are
substantial and the governor has spoken to these issues
several times. He stated that it is the department's
position that rural districts currently have an opportunity
to have input through coastal management. The coastal
program is a state program that is based on state decision-
making that takes into account local influence and input.
Coastal districts do have an opportunity to provide
comments during the consistency review of a project. They
do have enforceable policies that they could apply. The
bill deals with changing the input of local control. The
governor has stated that for those projects that are of
significant interest to the state and have significant
economic or other interests to its collective residents, a
local community should not have veto authority over those
projects and preclude development that is of great interest
to the rest of the state.
Mr. Bates maintained that SB 4, as proposed does not
provide a reasonable balance, which is why the department
has not provided solutions to modify the bill. He noted the
sunset provisions under AS 44.66.020 and AS 44.66.050, and
suggested that the legislative hearing process be followed
related to those sunset provisions. At the hearing process
the department should demonstrate an ability to implement a
successful coastal program and identify proposed statutory
regulatory changes that would benefit the public's
interest. He referred to today's letter which highlighted
his position.
3:32:24 PM
Co-Chair Stedman commented that four of the committee
members have significant coastal areas in their districts
and stressed the importance of this issue. The dialogue
over past weeks led to the request that the bill sponsor
consider amending Version R of the bill in order to address
concerns that were brought forward. He voiced concern that
the department is not interested in dealing with the matter
until next year. He clarified that the goal, as policy
makers, is to diminish the strife between coastal
communities and the department. He was concerned that the
department was not interested in working to solve the
issues. He asked if the department would look at Version S
and come back to the table with suggestions.
Mr. Bates stressed the importance of the written testimony
which contains concerns by the Department of Law, the
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
Department of Natural Resources. He said his department
would go back and take another look and report back to the
committee.
3:35:09 PM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the department's letter is not
in the packet.
Co-Chair Hoffman related that the biggest concession the
sponsor made is in Section 1. He took issue with the change
in Section 1 that lets the department pick its own team. He
accused the department of having stalling tactics even
though they are given a winning hand.
3:37:54 PM
Senator Thomas pointed out the interior's diverse economic
interests. He observed that the board seems to be taking
precedence over the department. He raised an issue about
the permitting process and how permits might be affected by
coastal management concerns such as water quality.
Mr. Bates replied that the Coastal Management Program does
not get involved with water quality enforcement on an
interior project unless it is a federal agency activity
such as a BLM Forest Service timber sale.
Mr. Bates addressed Senator Hoffman's concern by explaining
existing federal and state policies. He gave examples of
enforceable policies under SB 4, Version S, that conflict
with the state.
3:42:12 PM
Senator Thomas restated the question about water quality
issues along the coast. Mr. Bates clarified that the
current program as proposed in SB 4 eliminates the
possibility of consistency review under the ACMP for an
activity that is inland of the coastal zone. The reason is
that in 1978 the coastal zone boundaries were limited.
Alaska has an inland boundary that is biophysically
defined. The department does not see a need to review the
boundaries.
AT-EASE 3:45:05 PM
RECONVENED 3:57:41 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Mr. Bates had any more
information to share. Mr. Bates offered to review Version S
and report back to the committee.
Co-Chair Hoffman emphasized that the department's last time
frame was unacceptable. He suggested that the department
come up with suggestions by tomorrow morning. Mr. Bates
offered to respond by tomorrow.
Co-Chair Hoffman understood that the governor would pick
board members as a major concession found in Version S of
the bill.
4:00:24 PM
Senator Olson pointed out that the governor received the
bill only yesterday. He doubted that the time frame would
be met by the department. Mr. Bates said he had not
received a copy of Version S until today's meeting. A quick
comparison of Versions R and S showed a continuation of
substantial problems. He restated the department's concern
about the authority and purview of district coastal
policies. It is not a question about who approves the
enforceable policies, but the substance of those policies
that is the sticking point. He said he would respond within
the time frame requested.
4:03:06 PM
DAN EASTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, reported that DNR is not alone
with concerns about Version S, which he had also not seen
until today's meeting. He said DEC's concerns had to do
with the DEC "carve out", which the last CS removed. He
said he would also get back to the committee.
Co-Chair Hoffman requested addressing the concerns of the
state while including rural areas.
4:04:51 PM
LINDSAY WOLTER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference),
voiced concern about Version R. She said she has only
recently seen Version S. She highlighted legal concerns in
sections common to Version R and S. She began with Section
3 where the department may adopt regulations approved by
the board and the board would be responsible for approving
the coastal management regulations, coastal district plans,
and the enforceable policies developed by coastal
districts. She maintained that it was a significant amount
of work for nine board members, of which four are
commissioners with full schedules. It makes it difficult to
have a quorum and abolishes the ability to write emergency
regulations.
4:07:35 PM
Ms. Wolter turned to Section 11, which permits the board to
develop procedures and guidelines for consultation and
coordination with federal agencies managing land or
conducting activities potentially affecting coastal areas.
She maintained that negotiations with the federal
government should not be conducted by the board, but rather
by the state, as it would infringe on the governor's
executive powers. Section 13 also has a problem with the
mandate for a consensus because there is no definition of
what "consensus" means. There is also lack of transition
language in the bill, meaning that it is unclear what would
happen with the existing district plans and regulations and
if they would remain in effect pending approval of new
plans and regulations.
4:09:25 PM
Ms. Wolter reported that the Department of Law would have
to get federal approval by NOAA for any new coastal
management plans. That would also require transition
language, which the department could provide. She concluded
that there could be additional concerns in Version S;
however, she has not had time to study it.
Co-Chair Stedman requested that Ms. Wolter provide
recommendations for language changes by noon tomorrow. Ms.
Wolter agreed to do so.
4:11:03 PM
EDWARD S. ITTA, MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, spoke in
support of the bill. He said that since the governor would
appoint the board members that should take care of many
concerns. He pointed out that local districts would have a
voice with the board in place. He said the CS eliminates
the inclusion of inland areas and includes additional
protection so that coastal policies cannot conflict with
state or federal law. The bill clarifies that draft permits
are not needed to start the consistency review process. It
also deletes "and OCS waters" to avoid confusion about the
inclusion of any new areas or activities under this bill.
There is a new section confirming that proposed federal
rules on critical habitat designations are reviewable under
ACMP.
4:13:54 PM
HAROLD CURRAN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATION OFFICER, NORTH SLOPE
BOROUGH, addressed one question, whether or not federal
Endangered Species Act activities affecting coastal zone
areas are subject to consistency. He maintained that they
are subject to consistency. The state gets to make
determinations about the consistency of federal actions
within the coastal zone and those that affect the coastal
zone. The state argues that local districts will have the
power to veto state and federal statutes and regulations.
The standard for state consistency standards does not use
the word "veto" or indicate that there can possibly be a
veto of either federal or state law under coastal zone
management. It gives the state the ability to influence how
the federal government carries out its regulations. It is
an extension of state power, not a reduction. He noted that
it applies to the Endangered Species Act and is a valuable
authority for the state. He called it an example of how the
state should embrace coastal zone management.
4:16:14 PM
STEVE BORELL, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (via
teleconference), referred to a letter provided to the
committee. He thought that the S version corrected some
problems; however, he could not support the bill because
concerns remain.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a list of concerns. Mr. Borell
agreed to provide them.
AT-EASE 4:18:09 PM
RECONVENED 4:32:17 PM
Co-Chair Stedman requested language changes to Version S by
noon tomorrow.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:34 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 315 Proposed SCS Version R 041310.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2010 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/13/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2010 2:30:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| SB 4 Governor's Departmental response to CSSB FIN Version S.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2010 2:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB 4 Proposed CS FIN Version S 041310.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2010 2:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |