Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/2011 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB19 | |
| SB92 | |
| SB66 | |
| SB97 | |
| SB90 | |
| SB94 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2011
9:03 a.m.
9:03:51 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Darwin Peterson, Staff, Senate Finance Committee; Dana
Owen, Staff, Senator Egan; David Logan, Alaska Dental
Society; Don Habeger, Director, Division of Corporate,
Business, and Professional Licensing; Mark Davis, Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA); Tim
Grussendorf, staff, Co-Chair Hoffman; David Teal, Director,
Legislative Finance Division; Senator Bettye Davis,
District K, Anchorage; Pamela Marsch, Staff, Senator Bettye
Davis; Connie Davis, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Deborah Stauffer, Alaska State Board of Dental Examiners;
Gail Walden, Matsu, Alaska State Dental Hygienist
Association; Ted Leonard, Executive Director, AIDEA; Chris
Kolerok, Consultant Alaska Gross Capital; Lisa Rogers,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 19 PASSENGER VEHICLE RENTAL TAX
SB 19 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal note
from the Department of Revenue.
SB 66 AIDEA: NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
SB 66 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 90 BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY SECRETARY
SB 90 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 92 DENTISTS/DENTAL HYGIENISTS/ASSISTANTS
SB 92 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 94 SECOND VERSE OF ALASKA'S STATE SONG
SB 94 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 97 COMMUNITY REVENUE SHARING/EDUC FUNDING
SB 97 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new indeterminate
fiscal note from the Senate Finance Committee for
the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development and one new indeterminate
fiscal note from the Senate Finance Committee for
the Department of Education and Early
Development.
SENATE BILL NO. 19
"An Act excluding motorcycles and motor-driven cycles
from the passenger vehicle rental tax."
9:03:57 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman proposed committee substitute, work draft
27-LSO157/M. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for purpose of
discussion.
9:06:07 AM
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, described
the changes made in the CS. He stated that the committee
decided that the established 10 percent tax was too high.
The CS taxes motorcycle rentals at 3 percent.
Co-Chair Stedman noted several requested responses that the
committee received from the Department of Revenue (DOR).
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report SB 19 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act relating to dental hygienists, dentists,
dental assistants, dental hygiene, and dentistry."
9:08:41 AM
Senator Egan explained that CSSB 92 (L&C) clarified
statutes for dental hygienists, dentists and the board of
dental examiners.
DANA OWEN, STAFF, SENATOR EGAN, stated that the bill was
introduced to the office by a group of dentists and dental
hygienists. He stated that the dentistry and dental hygiene
statutes had not been comprehensively reviewed in over 20
years. The bill makes many changes to the statutes, most of
which are reflections of changes in dental practices. Some
changes are due to differences in regulatory framework and
others accommodate modern communications technology. The
committee proposing the changes was composed of three
dentists and three dental hygienists. One of the dentists
and one of the dental hygienists on the committee sit on
the board of dentistry. The committee originally proposed a
sunset provision, but the provision is currently separated
from the larger bill to facilitate reauthorization of the
board.
9:11:47 AM
Mr. Owen provided a sectional analysis.
Section 1. Removes a requirement that a person
practicing dental hygiene, or who is offering to
practice dental hygiene, must have a current
certificate of registration.
Section 2. Establishes the qualifications necessary
for licensure as a dental hygienist.
Section 3. Amends the qualifications necessary for a
dental hygienist to be licensed by credentials.
Section 4. Edits the dental hygiene licensing
provision to provide that successful applicants for
licensure will no longer be registered by the Board of
Dental Examiners (board) (see sec. 25 for a parallel
provision applicable to dentists).
Sections 5 - 6. Conform the "renewal of license" and
"lapse and reinstatement of license" provisions to the
bill's removal of the registration requirement for
dental hygienists.
Section 7. Allows a dental hygienist who has
completed a course offered by or under the auspices of
a program accredited by the Commission on Dental
Accreditation of the American Dental Association or
other equivalent course or program to receive a
restorative function endorsement from the board.
Section 8. Changes the levels of supervision required
for a dental hygiene student performing dental hygiene
procedures. Makes the section applicable to all
students enrolled in dental hygiene programs.
Sections 9 - 11. Change the permitted scope of
practice for a dental hygienist and clarify what
practices and procedures may not be delegated to a
dental hygienist by a dentist.
Section 12. Clarifies what practices and procedures a
dental hygienist, who has entered into a collaborative
agreement with a dentist, may be authorized by the
dentist to perform.
Section 13. Makes stylistic changes.
Section 14. Permits the board to sanction a dental
hygienist who used or knowingly cooperated in deceit,
fraud, or intentional misrepresentation to obtain a
certificate or endorsement and amends the other
grounds for discipline, suspension, or revocation of a
dental hygienist's license.
Section 15. Gives the board the authority to impose a
civil fine of up to $25,000 for a violation of
AS 08.32 or a regulation adopted under the chapter.
Section 16. Amends the list of dental hygienists to
whom the provisions of AS 08.32 do not apply.
Section 17. Provides new definitions applicable to
AS 08.32 for "licensed dental hygienist" and "licensed
dentist."
Section 18. Adds a qualification for the public
member of the board.
Section 19. Requires the members of the board to take
an oath. Requires the board to adopt a seal.
Section 20. Requires the president of the board to be
a dentist or dental hygienist.
Section 21. Amends the powers of the board.
Section 22. Requires the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development to employ an
investigator for the board.
Section 23. Requires the board to establish standards
for dental radiological equipment that comply with
applicable federal law. Permits the board to charge a
fee for equipment registered under the section.
Removes a requirement that inspections of radiologic
equipment be performed by a person with certain
qualifications.
Section 24. Requires the board to maintain a registry
of persons licensed as dentists or dental hygienists
and persons certified as dental assistants, and a
registry of licenses, certificates, and endorsements
revoked by the board.
Section 25. Edits the dentist licensing provision to
provide that successful applicants for a license will
no longer be registered by the board (see sec. 4 for a
parallel provision applicable to dental hygienists).
Section 26. Amends the qualifications for a license
to practice dentistry in the state.
Section 27. Requires that an applicant for licensure
as a dentist must be interviewed in person by the
board.
Sections 28 - 29. Amend what is necessary for a
dental hygienist to be licensed by credentials.
Section 30. Permits all persons enrolled as students
in an accredited school of dentistry to perform dental
procedures without a license if certain conditions are
met.
Section 31. Conforms the "renewal of registration"
provision to the bill's removal of the registration
requirement for dentists.
Section 32. Provides that a dentist who does not pay
the license renewal fee forfeits the dentist's
license. Permits the board to reinstate a license
upon certain conditions.
Section 33. Amends the grounds for discipline,
suspension, or revocation of a license to practice
dentistry.
Section 34. Permits a dental assistant who has
completed a course offered by or under the auspices of
a program accredited by the Commission on Dental
Accreditation of the American Dental Association or
other equivalent course or program to receive a
restorative function endorsement from the board.
Section 35. Adds a new provision allowing persons
enrolled in a program or course of study to perform
dental assisting procedures as part of that course of
study or program without a certificate if certain
conditions are met.
Section 36. Adds a new section that provides who may
own, operate, or maintain a dental practice, office,
or clinic.
Section 37. Provides new definitions applicable to AS
08.36 for "certified dental assistant," "licensed
dental hygienist," and "licensed dentist."
Section 38. Repeals AS 08.32.020, 08.32.035,
08.32.040, 08.32.060, 08.32.097, 08.32.100, 08.32.120,
08.32.130, 08.32.140, 08.32.190(2); AS 08.36.075(b),
08.36.075(c), 08.36.075(d), 08.36.075(e), 08.36.114,
08.36.230, 08.36.244, 08.36.246, 08.36.247, 08.36.248,
08.36.260, 08.36.271, 08.36.290, 08.36.350(a)(3), and
08.36.350(a)(4).
Section 39. Instructs the revisor of statutes to
change the catch line for AS 08.36.250.
9:19:13 AM
Co-Chair Stedman addressed Page 18, Line 28 regarding the
ownership of the dental office and facility. He asked the
reason for the new section.
DAVID LOGAN, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY answered that the
statute currently lacks a provision permitting a surviving
spouse to have ownership of a practice during a transition
period. The section allows a transitional period during
which a spouse has ownership of a practice with a licensed
dentist in control. During the transition period, the
spouse may sell the practice to another individual. The
section also clarifies additional mechanisms for ownership
of a dental practice.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned the fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) for $114,200 in receipt support services to employ
one full time investigator.
9:21:28 AM
Senator Thomas asked about the first item in Section 1, the
removal of the need for a current certification of
registration. He asked if the language was redundant. Mr.
Logan responded yes.
Senator Thomas asked about the certification or inspection
of equipment. He expressed interest in the hazards of x-ray
and was curious about the condition of the equipment used.
Mr. Logan answered yes. He expected that much of the
content of the statutes will be transferred into
regulations with some minor modifications. He mentioned the
overarching federal law that ensures the minimum standard.
He noted requirements for qualifications of the equipment
inspectors along with a time allotment for inspection.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked why the Labor and Commerce (L&C)
committee felt the need for an investigator. Mr. Owen
responded that an investigator would provide a more
effective way of policing dental practices.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the committee. Mr. Owen
responded that the committee was composed of three dentists
and three dental hygienists.
Mr. Logan added that board members expressed concern about
the length of time required to adjudicate cases. He pointed
out the limited number of investigators. The department has
many investigations with different boards. The board opined
that with its own investigator, the investigations would be
performed in a timely manner. The board acknowledged that
the change would result in additional licensing fees.
9:24:46 AM
Senator Olson asked about Page 18. He understood that only
a person who holds a valid license can own and operate a
dental practice clinic. He asked if the owner of a dental
practice must have a valid dental license. Mr. Logan
responded that a laundry list of exceptions exists in the
legislation.
Senator Olson asked if a community owned dental clinic was
trying to attract a dentist would they be exempted from the
restriction. Mr. Logan agreed. He stated that the
community could own the dental clinic but the management of
the clinic must be done by a licensed dentist.
Senator Olson asked about prescriptive authority and the
midlevel practitioners. Mr. Logan answered that the bill
has no effect on midlevel practitioners. They are exempt
from the state licensure.
Senator Olson asked about the health corporation's dental
practitioners who have studied abroad and then returned. He
wondered the effect the legislation has on those
practitioners working for the native corporations. Mr. Owen
responded that current practice in rural areas of Alaska
will remain unchanged. He explained that the original
drafted language was insufficient. He worked with attorneys
and a drafter to incorporate the appropriate language into
the amendment.
Senator Olson wondered about letters of support from
specific health corporations. Mr. Owen did not have the
requested letters.
9:28:02 AM
Senator Olson asked about Section 14 and the disciplinary
action by the dental board. He recalled that medical boards
are always seeking investigators. He wondered why the
dental board was different. Mr. Logan suspected that
additional boards would visit the legislature with the same
request.
Senator Olson asked about Section 23 and the radiological
procedures. He asked how the legislation restricts the
practice of current radiology technicians. Mr. Logan stated
that a board member could answer the question.
Senator Olson asked how many disciplinary actions occured
in the last five years. Mr. Logan deferred the question to
the director.
9:30:19 AM
DEBORAH STAUFFER, ALASKA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. She stated that the board of dental examiners
unanimously supported the passage of SB 92. She pointed out
that the legislation updates current statutes. She stated
that as of February, there were six open complaints filed
and awaiting review. She mentioned nine open investigations
with some consent agreements pending and noted nine other
cases awaiting records or release documents since the last
meeting in December. The results are similar to those noted
in the November meeting regarding the number of complaints
and investigations. She stated that one case closed in May
after eight years of investigation. She opined that an
additional investigator would help protect the public.
Co-Chair Stedman requested the data in letter format.
9:34:28 AM
Senator Olson asked how the number of open complaints
compares with those of the medical board. Ms. Stauffer did
not know.
Senator Olson requested a comparison. He believed that the
medical board did not possess their own investigator. Co-
Chair Stedman stated that the data will be compiled for the
committee.
9:35:06 AM
GAIL WALDEN, MATSU, ALASKA STATE DENTAL HYGIENIST
ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), testified in support of
the legislation. She agreed that the dental practice act
had not been thoroughly reviewed and updated in
approximately 20 years. She noted that SB 92 amends and
repeals dental hygiene statute language where appropriate,
making the practice act more concise. She opined that SB 92
maintains high standards for dental hygienists.
9:36:33 AM
DON HABEGER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATE, BUSINESS, AND
PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, stated that he did not have the
requested information to answer Senator Olson's question.
He offered to provide the information to the committee.
Senator Egan offered to provide additional information and
announced that an amendment would be offered during the
bill's next hearing.
SB 92 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 66
"An Act creating a new markets tax credit assistance
guarantee and loan program within the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; and
providing for an effective date."
9:37:56 AM
MARK DAVIS, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT
AUTHORITY (AIDEA) testified on SB 66. He stated that the
bill allows AIDEA's participation and support in a federal
tax credit program known as the New Markets Tax Credit
(NMTC). The bill is part of AIDEA's plan to add tools to
further economic development in the state. The NMTC program
was run by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and was
started in 2000 as a unique equity leveraging program. He
explained that the program works by encouraging people to
compete with IRS tax credits available through the United
States Department of Treasury. The credits are awarded as
Community Development Entities (CDE). Those entities then
seek investors.
Mr. Davis mentioned two sets of investors in the program:
equity investors and leverage lenders. The equity investors
receive a 39 percent credit on their federal taxes over a 7
year period. The tax credits are available to low income
areas, certain rural areas, or to targeted populations such
as Indian tribes. The program is also available to targeted
populations lacking access to loans.
Mr. Davis explained that once a CDE has a tax credit it
finds investors and a bank to make the leverage loan. He
noted that the Platinum Fish Processing Plant and the elder
care facility in Kotzebue both utilized the credits as
well. Unfortunately, the program has lacked vigor due to
the national credit crunch. The leverage lenders must agree
to two restrictions. The first restriction is to take
interest only on the leverage loan portion of the
investment for seven years and must agree not to foreclose.
The project can use the equity capital by the qualified tax
driven investors and pay interest only for seven years. At
the end of the seven years, the equity investors forgive
the investment and the loan is refinanced. The program
provides instant equity to the refinancing at the end of
the 7 year period and lowers the cost of a project by
approximately 20 to 25 percent.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the forgiveness of the equity.
Mr. Davis responded that the tax equity investors are
driven by the 39 percent tax credit.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how many years the investors have to
utilize the 39 percent tax credit. Mr. Davis responded that
they utilize the credit at different percentages over seven
years.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the percentage is taken directly
from the tax bill. He asked if the investors walk away from
their equity position. Mr. Davis responded yes. He added
that approximately 99 percent of cases follow the described
format.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the issue of the debt
incurred. Mr. Davis explained that the leverage lenders
place 70 percent of funds into the project. At the end of
seven years, the residual amount of the loan is used for
refinancing. The original equity can be used as a portion
of the debt equity calculation to qualify for the
refinancing.
9:43:34 AM
Senator Thomas asked about the equity provision. He
wondered if the federal tax credits offset the equity in
the seven year period of time. Mr. Davis responded that
investors with tax liabilities seek tax credits or
consortiums of investors hire employees to seek out those
looking for NMTC opportunities. Usually the 39 percent tax
credit provides the motive. The transaction is leveraged
and works well for low income communities because of the
equity position gained after seven years. The difficulty
with the program is due to the bank's unwillingness to lend
at interest only, or without the ability to foreclose. Many
states operate as a community development entity. He noted
that AIDEA made a different choice as Alaska has a CDE
known as Alaska Growth Capital, which is already active in
the state. The approach taken by AIDEA is to guarantee the
leveraged part of the loan for the seven year period. He
stated that AIDEA canvassed banks and talked to Alaska
Growth Capital and hired a consultant with the consensus
that an AIDEA guarantee would be sufficient to revive the
program in Alaska.
9:45:59 AM
Co-Chair Stedman supposed that the loan sounded like a zero
money down, 100 percent leveraged proposition. He wondered
about the lender's recourse when dealing with the project
assets. Mr. Davis responded that a bank must agree to
interest only and cannot foreclose during the seven year
period during which the credit exists. The code insists
that if the project fails and payments are not made, then a
recapture event occurs. A recapture event means that the
investor must repay all credits received with interest at
the interest repayment rate from the first date of the
filing of the first return claiming the credit.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the equity investor covers
the debt if the project implodes. Mr. Davis corrected that
the equity investor repays the credits with interest. The
interest in a tax bill can often exceed the principal.
9:48:08 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman understood that the bill targets
economically disadvantaged and rural areas. He noted that
program was reauthorized by congress for an additional two
years beginning in January. He asked about the anticipated
success of the program in rural areas of the state. Mr.
Davis responded that AIDEA could provide one or two new
market tax credit projects each year. He added that the
projects are complex and require ample time to assemble.
The projects are available in areas that conventional
lending is unavailable and can be used to leverage lending
to provide a project that would not cash flow for seven
years. He stated that the project would work for a platinum
fish plant or a processing plant in rural Alaska. Another
advantage of the program is its few restrictions for the
types of projects eligible for funding. Most federal
programs are restrictive. The list of restricted projects
is limited to golf courses, massage parlors, hot tubs and
alcoholic dispensaries.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the fish plant in Ketchikan.
Mr. Davis clarified that the mentioned fish plant was in
Platinum Alaska.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the fish plant was used for cold
storage or waste reduction plant. Mr. Davis answered that
the program has been used for a fish processing plant,
elder care facilities, industrial plants, office buildings
and renovation of buildings in low income areas.
9:50:51 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the population cap of 2000.
Mr. Davis responded that three triggers exist: a census
track for poverty, a census track for population less than
2000 or a census track with a large targeted population.
9:51:27 AM
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one zero fiscal note. He asked
about the cap of $40 million. Mr. Davis answered that the
original cap was $50 million. In the hearing before the
Senate Community and Economic Development committee Senator
Menard suggested reducing the cap to $40 million and AIDEA
agreed to the reduction. He thought that the cap would
provide the ability to provide two projects per year.
9:52:17 AM
TED LEONARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIDEA (via
teleconference), echoed the testimony of Mr. Davis. He
added that AIDEA is seeking another tool for the promotion
of economic development in rural areas or areas of the
state suffering poverty.
CHRIS KOLEROK, CONSULTANT ALASKA GROSS CAPITAL (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He stated that Alaska Gross Capital is the only entity with
an allocation from NMTC and has received $90 million. He
stated that "the NMTC program is a powerful tool to bring
Wall Street capital to main street Alaska." He mentioned
that his company's goal was to bring another elder care
facility, a domestic violence shelter, and a village health
clinic online.
9:55:55 AM
SB 66 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
9:56:32 AM
AT EASE
10:03:01 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 97
"An Act authorizing additional appropriations for
public education and for community revenue sharing
based on the price of Alaska North Slope crude oil,
and adjusting the formula for payments to
communities."
Co-Chair Hoffman proposed committee substitute, work draft
#27-LS0626/E. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for purpose of
discussion.
10:04:24 AM
TIM GRUSSENDORF, STAFF, CO-CHAIR HOFFMAN discussed the
changes made in the CS. The first adjustment was for a
timeframe in which to calculate the average price of oil.
The full year will be used to establish the average price
per barrel. He explained the addition of a "safety cushion"
of $2 per barrel of oil to ensure that the revenue is
available and to prevent overspending of the surplus.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the $2. Mr. Grussendorf
responded that the cushion describes the $2 over the
average price per barrel. Co-Chair Stedman added $2 dollars
of the break even rate of our operating and potential
capital budget. The intent was that the original bill was
spinning out the percentage of the surplus between 2 and
2.7 percent of the surplus for these programs. The factors
chosen will produce a similar number as seen in the
original bill.
10:06:21 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
mentioned that the prior version of the bill was based
strictly on the price of oil, which allowed the potential
to share wealth that failed to materialize. This version
shares wealth only during times of surplus. The surplus is
taken for one year, which will determine the amount handed
out in the following year.
10:07:28 AM
Mr. Teal provided a sectional analysis. He began with
Section 1 which relates to supplemental funding for K-12
education. The amount allocated equals $5 million for each
dollar difference between the actual price and the trigger
price of oil. Section (b) computes the trigger price of oil
and states that expenditures will be taken excluding the
community revenue sharing payments and the education
payments made under this bill. Any deposits to the budget
reserve fund are also excluded. The breakeven price of oil
is rounded to the nearest dollar with the addition of the
mentioned $2. The $2 provides a safety valve that gives
sufficient funding to make the appropriation to community
revenue sharing and to K-12 and to offset any errors in
revenue forecasts. The goal was to avoid sharing money that
was not present.
10:10:19 AM
Mr. Teal continued with Section 2 and the revenue sharing
portion of the CS. He noted that 2(b) corrects an error
that is unrelated to the supplemental community revenue
sharing and refers to the existing basic revenue sharing
program.
10:11:06 AM
Mr. Teal described Section 3 and the change of the revenue
sharing program enabling the amount distributed to include
the basic revenue sharing portion. This section allows the
amount calculated under (d) to be distributed. Section 4
mirrors the calculations of the education portion.
10:12:36 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman applauded the legislation. He supported
sharing the wealth with school districts and municipalities
during times of high oil prices.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report CSSB 97 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
SB 97 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Senate Finance Committee for the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development and one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Senate Finance Committee
for the Department of Education and Early Development.
SENATE BILL NO. 90
"An Act classifying and setting a monthly salary for
the executive secretary of the Board of Public
Accountancy."
10:14:47 AM
Senator Egan explained that the legislation corrects an
error created by the passage of previous legislation.
Mr. Owen stated that the position of executive secretary
for the Board of Public Accountancy was established in law
and the funding to pay for the position at a range 23 was
incorporated into the budget. He added that because the
range was not established in statute, the Department of
Revenue felt it necessary to perform a classification study
for the position. The study determines that the position
deserves a range 19. The certified public accountants asked
that the position be established in statute as a range 23,
which they deemed sufficient to hire the caliber of
applicant required for the position.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one zero fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
10:16:37 AM
LISA ROGERS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), represented
the Alaska Society of Certified Public Accountants. She
stated that her profession requires a competent executive
secretary. She emphasized that the person holding the
position would help to facilitate investigations. The board
opined that a range 19 might attract a person without
thorough understanding of the profession's complexities.
SB 90 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 94
"An Act adding a second verse to the official Alaska
state song."
10:18:58 AM
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, ANCHORAGE, introduced the
legislation. The bill adds the second stanza to the Alaska
state song.
PAMELA MARSCH, STAFF, SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, testified that
SB 94 would add a second verse to the Alaska state song.
She stated that the second verse provided recognition to
the Alaska natives and to Benny Benson who designed the
Alaska flag. Similar bills have been introduced in the
past. She believed that this is the year to support the
long overdue addition of the second verse to the Alaska
state song.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one indeterminate note from the
Office of the Governor.
10:21:46 AM
Senator Davis hoped that the bill would proceed with a zero
fiscal note as recommended by the prior committee of
referral, State Affairs.
10:22:39 AM
CONNIE DAVIS, JUNEAU, testified in regard to the second
verse of the state song written by her mother. She
mentioned that the University of Alaska Foundation which is
legally separate from the university itself. The foundation
manages gifts and donations for the benefit of the
university. The copyrights of the Alaska state song are
held in trust by the university foundation, therefore the
state is not responsible for any problem that might arise
in regard to the second verse.
10:24:06 AM
SB 90 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 AM.