Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/2011 09:00 AM FINANCE
Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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.