Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/22/1999 06:05 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 22, 1999
6:05 P.M.
TAPES
SFC-99 #106, Side A & B
SFC-99 #107, Side A & B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 6:05 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair John Torgerson, Co-Chair Sean Parnell, Senator
Randy Phillips, Senator Dave Donley, Senator Loren Leman,
Senator Gary Wilken, Senator Pete Kelly, and Senator Lyda
Green.
Also Attending:
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR; DARWIN PETERSON, Staff, Senator John
Torgerson; BRETT HUBER, Staff, Senator Rick Halford; ROBERT
BUTTCANE, Juneau Probation Officer, Department of Health and
Social Services; NANCI JONES, Director, Permanent Fund
Dividend Division, Department of Revenue; ANNE CARPENETI,
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance Section, Department
of Education; ROSALEE WALKER, Older Persons Action Group,
Juneau; GARY BERRY, American Legion, Juneau; KEVIN RITCHIE,
Alaska Municipal League (AML), Juneau; GERALD DORSCHER,
Legislative Officer, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Juneau;
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue,
Department of Health and Social Services; JAY LIVELY, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services;
LORAINE DERR, President, Alaska State Hospital and Nursing
Association (ASHNA), Juneau.
Teleconferenced:
DALE BONDURANT, Kenai; ED ZASTROW, Alaska Association of
Retired Persons (AARP), Ketchikan; BOB GORE, Pioneers of
Alaska, Ketchikan; RICK SOLIE, Fairbanks Memorial Hospital,
Fairbanks; DAN HOUGHTON, Alaska Regional Hospital,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
SB 4-OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS
SB 4 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 88-DIETITIANS AND NUTRITIONISTS
CS SB 88(FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendations and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
SB 106-REMAND OF HEALTH FACILITY PAYMNT DECISION
SB 106 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 151-MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS
SB was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Torgerson called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at approximately 6:05 P.M.
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to licensure of dietitians and
nutritionists; and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 88(L&C)
"An Act relating to licensure of dietitians and
nutritionists; and providing for an effective date."
Senator Dave Donley spoke to the committee substitute for SB
88. He explained that the committee substitute work draft,
1-LS0409\N, Lauterbach, 4/15/99, provided technical changes
recommended by the Division of Occupational Licensing.
[Copy on File]. The changes are to version "K" on Page 2,
Line 26, deleting the language "after a hearing". The
second change was to version "M", Page 3, Line 26-27,
addition of language which allows the Department to adopt
regulations necessary to implementing the chapter.
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt the "N' version of the
proposed legislation. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Senator Donley understood that there would be no changes to
the fiscal note with the new version. He believed that the
changes made would make the Department's work easier.
Senator Donley MOVED to report CS SB 88(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 88(FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendations and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
SENATE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to establishing an office of victims'
rights; relating to compensation of victims of violent
crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for
certain offenses; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules,
and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(JUD)
"An Act relating to establishing an office of victims'
rights; relating to compensation of victims of violent
crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for
certain offenses; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules,
and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence."
Co-Chair Torgerson spoke to the Letter of Intent included in
the bill package. The intent of the letter would specify
the Legislature to fund the Office of Victim's Rights solely
from the additional revenue generated by the new provisions
established in the legislation. Additionally, that funding
would not result in a decrease of funding for crime victim's
compensation, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault.
DARWIN PETERSON, Staff to Senator John Torgerson, explained
that the Senate Finance Committee at a previous meeting had
requested a new fiscal note from Legislative Affairs Agency.
In the FY00 column, it was requested that only the amount
needed to establish that office be entered. He referenced
information from Senator Torgerson's office, outlining how
the funding would work. The estimated amount of revenue
that would be generated and available by SB 4 from FY97 and
FY98 convictions, would be $391 thousand dollars. Mr.
Peterson addressed the fiscal notes included in member's
packets.
Senator Adams asked if the fiscal impact referenced by Mr.
Peterson would be the same amount as contained in the new
work draft. Mr. Peterson understood that the fiscal impact
would not change in the work draft. Co-Chair Torgerson
interjected that the effective date would need to be
changed. The key to making the legislation work would be
delaying when that office would open.
Senator Donley explained that the proposed committee
substitute would change the location of the Office of
Victims Rights from the Legislative Branch to the Department
of Public Safety. He pointed out that is where the other
grants for a victim's right pass through. The only change
would be the language on Page 10, Line 31.
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt committee substitute 1-
LS0029\H, Luckhaupt, 4/22/99, as the bill version before
Committee members. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
(Tape Malfunction)
BRETT HUBER, Staff, Senator Rick Halford, pointed out that a
qualification difference was indicated in the bill. The
previous qualifications were more stringent that those
recommended in the proposed draft. Senator Donley noted
that the drafters had only four hours to work on the current
language.
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt Amendment #5 which would add
the Senate Judiciary version qualifications for the victims
advocate into the proposed committee substitute. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
(Tape Resumed Functioning)
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt Amendment #6 which would
revise the name of the office to conform the committee
substitute as it appears in the Senate Judiciary version,
from the Office of Victim Advocacy to the Office of Victim's
Rights. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Senator Donley reminded members that Amendment #2 was
pending and that the effective date would need to be
changed. Senator Green pointed out that the "appointment"
language was also different. Senator Donley advised that
placing the Office in the Department of Public Safety would
constitutionally change the appointment criteria removing
the Legislature from the "loop".
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt Amendment #2, a change to Page
1, Line 13, after "may" inserting "reasonably". There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt Amendment #4, 1-LS0029\D.2,
Luckhaupt, 4/19/99, which would provide for the delayed
effective date for hiring. Upon request of Co-Chair
Torgerson, Senator Donley WITHDREW consideration of
Amendment #4. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Senator Donley MOVED a conceptual amendment to Amendment #4,
that the committee substitute include the same delayed
effective date as appears in the original #4. He requested
that it be brought back to the full Committee for review.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted that the delayed effective date
would be restricted to the Department of Public Safety.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Parnell MOVED to adopt the Letter of Intent. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juneau Probation Officer, Department of
Health and Social Services, stated that the Department is
committed to providing victims of juvenile crime a whole
array of services to restore them to wholeness. Victims are
an equal partner in the work of the Department. The bill is
of concern to the Department, as it establishes a separate
bureaucracy that polices the delinquency system. The
Department would prefer that the Legislature support the
juvenile system in its current efforts to provide services
to victims.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law, testified that the Department
of Law was not in favor of the proposed legislation. The
Department does not support the public notice section or the
approach of the bill. She stated that moving that Office to
the Department of Public Safety was problematic. It would
make that Department responsible for investigating some of
their own staff people, placing them in an adversary
position with their own lawyers.
NANCI JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, noted that she was present to answer
questions of the Committee.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted that SB 4 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to exemptions for municipal property
taxes for certain primary residences; relating to
property tax equivalency payments for certain
residents; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Parnell explained that the bill addresses the
municipal property tax exemptions for senior citizens and
disabled veterans. He spoke to work draft 1-LS0842\G, Cook,
4/22/99 and the unfunded mandate. Co-Chair Parnell noted
that the committee substitute would add a new Section #1, so
that any property exempted from taxation for purposes not
included in the local contribution calculation for school
funding would remain in State law. Additionally, the
proposed committee substitute would add Section #4, Page 3,
which would move the exemption for the seniors to the
optional exemption portion of the statute.
Co-Chair Parnell MOVED to adopt the committee substitute as
the working draft before the Committee. Senator Adams
OBJECTED.
Senator Adams questioned the exclusion from local tax
limitations. Co-Chair Torgerson pointed out that Amendment
Senator Donley asked if local government would be
responsible for passing an ordinance in order to continue
the existing exemption. Co-Chair Parnell explained that the
legislation would clarify that the municipality, by
ordinance, would be wholly or partially exempted by taxation
and would be responsible for taking that step.
Senator Phillips referenced Page 2, Line 19, and asked if
$150 thousand dollars was the determined cap. Following
discussion among Committee members, Senator Adams maintained
his objection to adopting version "G" of the proposed
legislation. He advised that pressure would be released in
specific portions, however, would be applied more deeply to
other cost areas.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Donley, Green, P. Kelly, Leman, Parnell,
Phillips, Torgerson, Parnell
OPPOSED: Adams
The MOTION PASSED (8-1).
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance Section, Department of
Education, commented that the Department of Education did
have a "problem" with Section #1 of the legislation
because it changes the way the value determination is
calculated. It would make it vary from community to
community based upon what the voters of that community
accepts for property tax.
He continued that under Title 29, the State Assessor
determines the full and true calculation of real and
personal property within each community in the State. There
exists a "mandatory exemption", which is $150 thousand
dollars and an "optional" exemption which the community
can exempt over and above the $150 thousand dollars. Under
Section #1, it states that the property value may not be
included in the determination to the extent of the
exemption.
TAPE SFC-99 #106 Side B
Mr. Jeans continued. He stated that the Department
recommends that there is a uniform calculation used in
applying for a determination for State foundation purposes.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if the end result would be
increased local effort, and State aid decreased. Mr. Jeans
acknowledged that was correct. Co-Chair Torgerson pointed
out that the $150 thousand dollars was already deducted from
the full and true value. Mr. Jeans advised that an amount
must be set and that vague language will create a problem.
Senator Adams asked if there should be a "grandfather
clause" included in the legislation. Mr. Jeans replied
that his concern was only with the inclusion of the language
"$150 thousand dollars". He recommended that a uniform
process be used to determine the local effort.
In response to Co-Chair Torgerson's concern, Mr. Jeans
reiterated that he had had a conversation with the State
assessor and that by moving it from a required exemption of
$150 thousand dollars to an "optional" exemption would
cost municipalities approximately $6 million dollars
statewide.
ROSALEE WALKER, Older Persons Action Group, Juneau,
requested that the legislation be held in Committee. She
noted that many important groups had not been consulted
regarding such an important piece of legislation. Ms.
Walker emphasized that this should not be an "optional"
amount, and that instead it should stay mandatory.
GARY BERRY, American Legion, Juneau, indicated that he was
present to testify on a section of the bill which had been
deleted.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Alaska Municipal League (AML), Juneau,
advised that the AML supports the passage of SB 151. He
agreed that it is important that the school issue had been
addressed. Additionally, AML supports giving the
municipalities the broadest possible options in working with
the senior community. Some of the options discussed by the
municipalities would be to make that option "needs" based,
potentially reducing the amount. The average exemption
under the program is a little under $100 thousand dollars.
He recommended that options be included in the package in
order to allow the opportunity for deferral.
Senator Parnell requested Mr. Ritchie to explain the concept
of "deferral". Mr. Ritchie explained that tax deferral is
a concept used nationally which would simply allow a senior
to defer taxes, and that it essentially becomes a lien on
the property and not become payable until the property is
either sold or the senior dies.
Senator Leman inquired if AML would continue to support the
legislation if the exemption was included, but the
municipalities were allowed to opt out. Mr. Ritchie replied
that the bill in the present form is relatively new and that
he would not be able to comment on that possibility. He
noted that the AML policy, which was adopted in November
1998, states that the choices of the organization provide
that there are exemptions.
Senator Adams asked if AML would support the desires of the
senior citizens with the property tax exemptions. Mr.
Ritchie replied that AML adopt its policy statement
annually. Co-Chair Torgerson requested that Mr. Ritchie
closely study Section #1 to further discuss the impact.
GERALD DORSCHER, Legislative Officer, Veterans of Foreign
Wars (VFW), Juneau, asked if the disabled veterans would be
affected by the proposed legislation. Co-Chair Parnell
acknowledged that was correct. The disabled veterans'
exemption would remain in place under the proposed draft and
would not be affected.
DALE BONDURANT, Kenai, (Testified via Teleconference),
testified against SB 151. He stated that it would downgrade
medical health care, social benefits, schools, roads and so
forth. The oil company knows that the citizens as a whole
have less personal benefits from the income of depleting oil
resources than the oil industry can easily rate. Mr.
Bondurant noted that fewer benefits equate to less public
watchdog interest. He claimed that the oil companies are
raping the Alaska resources.
ED ZASTROW, Alaska Association of Retired Persons (AARP),
Ketchikan, (Testified via Teleconference), spoke in
opposition to SB 151. He noted that there are a growing
number of senior citizens that have chosen to live in their
homes because of the property tax exemption, permanent fund
checks and longevity bonus. These monies are major factors
in their fixed income. He emphasized that a threat to
eliminate any of these sources of funds creates a major fear
within the senior population.
Mr. Zastrow pointed out that the latter portion of the bill
addresses local elections. AARP sees that as "pitting"
the seniors against their neighbors which is totally
unacceptable. He urged that the bill be left in Committee.
BOB GORE, Past President, Pioneers of Alaska, Ketchikan,
(Testified via Teleconference), spoke in opposition to the
proposed legislation. He stated that this is a "hardship"
bill and that there is not enough space in the Pioneer Homes
to take care of all the seniors that will need to sell their
homes with the bill's passage. He emphasized that this bill
does not treat the older Alaskans with respect.
Co-Chair Parnell MOVED to adopt Amendment #1, 1-LS0842\A.2,
Cook, 4/22/99. [Copy on File]. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was adopted.
Co-Chair Parnell MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Copy on
File]. The amendment would insert language on Page 3, Line
4: "An ordinance adopted under this subsection may limit
the exemption to only those individuals with financial need
as defined in the ordinance". There being NO OBJECTION, it
was adopted.
Senator Leman MOVED a conceptual amendment, Amendment #3,
which would change the "opt in" method to the "opt out"
option on Page 4, Line 3. The language would make the
option a municipal decision rather than going before the
voters.
Senator Adams questioned language on Page #2 regarding the
$150 thousand dollars. Co-Chair Torgerson noted that these
concerns would be addressed at a later time.
Senator P. Kelly requested clarification regarding the
proposed amendment. Co-Chair Parnell explained that it
would be by ordinance and not by the approval of voters.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
SB 151 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
SENATE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to decisions by the commissioner of
health and social services to remand certain health
facility payment decisions back to the hearing
officers; and amending Rule 602, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure."
SENATE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to decisions by the commissioner of
health and social services to remand certain health
facility payment decisions back to the hearing
officers; and amending Rule 602, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure."
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR requested that the bill be moved to the
amendment process.
Senator Wilken noted that Rick Solie was on teleconference
and had a limited time to testify.
RICK SOLIE, Representing Fairbanks Memorial Hospital,
Fairbanks, (Testified via Teleconference), voiced his
concern with SB 106. He noted that it was the intent of the
Alaska State Hospital and Nurses Association (ASHNA) to work
in a dual track with the legislation, which would move the
legislation, but at the same time work with the departments
to discuss the appeal process and timing. Mr. Solie stated
that Fairbanks Memorial Hospital's concern is that issues
can be resolved within the working group in a timely
fashion. Mr. Solie suggested that it would make more sense
to focus on efforts outside of the Legislative process, such
as addressing the backlog of appeals.
Mr. Solie advised that ASHNA has concerns with the
amendments, particularly Amendment #1. [Copy on File]. He
referenced the report submitted to Committee members from
Donna Herbert, a consultant, identifying the difficulty in
establishing a flat rate. [Copy on File].
Mr. Solie continued that Amendment #2 was reasonable and not
of great concern to his organization. [Copy on File].
Additionally, Amendment #3 addresses the backlog of appeals.
He reiterated that his comments were in opposition to
Amendment #1.
DAN HOUGHTON, Alaska Regional Hospital, Anchorage,
(Testified via Teleconference), stated that he was available
to answer questions. He stated that he would support
passage of SB 106 in its present format.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Perdue,
Department of Health and Social Services, stated that the
Department is opposed to the proposed legislation. He noted
that the rate appeals process is cumbersome and costly. The
Department believes that the reasons for those problems is
that the appeals process is "lost" because the underline
rate setting system is obsolete. The existing rate setting
system is expensive and those costs are largely based on a
federal mandate which has since been appealed. He noted
that there are budget negotiations still in process
requiring $15 million dollar reductions to the Medicaid
budget. Mr. Lindstrom concluded that the existing system
preserves the status quo and the existing system insulates a
portion of the budget more entirely than anything else he is
aware of.
TAPE SFC-99 #107 Side A
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the bottom line is that if the
State is concerned about reforming the system, the issue
should not be distracted. He referenced the letter in
members packet dated April 19th by Commissioner Perdue
regarding the appeals issue at Bartlett Regional Hospital.
He reiterated that the Department could not accept the
underlining premise of SB 106.
Senator Phillips asked if Providence Hospital had any
appeals current at this time. Mr. Lindstrom replied that
there are a number of facilities that have appeals every
rate every year. Of the forty appeals that are outstanding,
one issue accounts for twenty of the appeals. Senator
Phillips voiced a conflict of interest as he is employed by
the Providence Health Care System. He asked to refrain from
voting on the amendments and the bill.
Senator Leman asked if the Department could recommend any
changes for the current "archaic" system in place. He
questioned the opinion of Commissioner Perdue on an
amendment that he had recommended. Mr. Lindstrom agreed
that there was need for legislation to change the current
system. A big portion of the problems is imbedded in State
laws resulting from federal mandates. He deferred the
question regarding the amendments to Mr. Lively, Deputy
Commissioner.
Senator P. Kelly pointed out that some of the ASHNA
Hospitals are in support of the legislation. Mr. Lindstrom
replied that he could not speak for all the facilities,
however, there have been some facilities that have never
appealed a rate. He believed that Fairbanks would fall into
that category.
Mr. Lindstrom spoke to the problems with the proposed
legislation. On the facilities side of the Medicaid budget,
the ability to actively manage the cost control is very
limited. There are only two elements, one on the front end
and the certificate of need process and the second is the
ability to some degree to oppose policy and issues reflected
in the appeals payments process. Those are the only tools
that the State has. He emphasized that this bill would
essentially remove one of those tools.
JAY LIVELY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services commented on Amendment #1 in response to
questions from Senator P. Kelly. Mr. Lively pointed out
that the Department has focused mostly on the details of the
appeal process. He commented that the amendment would
charge the Department to go back to determine how current
rates are set and then create an alternate system that would
be less cumbersome.
Senator Wilken referenced Page 2, Line 16 and asked the
recommendation of the Department regarding the most
reasonable amount of time. Mr. Lively responded that the
Department would like to see between 120 and 180 days. Co-
Chair Torgerson interjected that 120 days was not a
reasonable number. He acknowledged that 30 days might be
too "tight".
LORAINE DERR, Representing the Alaska State Hospital and
Nursing Association (ASHNA), Juneau, spoke in support of the
legislation and stated that the problem is that in the
appeals process, there is no finality. The basis of the
bill puts finality to the process. ASHNA would like to see
the process have some sort of completion.
Co-Chair Torgerson explained that he agreed with the bill
and the way it was written, however, he believed that the
legislation does not address the heart of the problem. The
legislation does solve the problem in how quickly it could
move to court, however, the underlining problem is that
there is no agreement on what qualifies an eligible
reimbursement.
Senator Donley MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Senator Wilken
OBJECTED. Senator Wilken pointed out that there are many
hospital officials that are uncomfortable with Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that the bill would not be moved
out of Committee if Amendment #1 failed. Senator Adams
commented that it was his preference to work on the bill in
Subcommittee.
Senator Taylor disagreed with comments made by the
Department regarding the legislation and the amendments. He
commented that he would not object to Amendment #1 which
would allow the benefit of finality for legislative
consideration.
Co-Chair Torgerson urged the various factions to come to the
table and create a working document. He acknowledged that
the Legislature does not have the expertise to undertake the
challenge at this time.
Senator Wilken asked if the new rates would be included in
the report. Co-Chair Torgerson commented that there would
be a report provided with the rates, subject to appeal. He
advised that it was his intent to create language, which
would remove all the appeals.
Senator P. Kelly commented that Amendment #1 should be made
into a separate bill rather than incorporated into the
legislation. Co-Chair Torgerson stated that he was not
willing to make that change.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Donley, Green, Leman, Parnell, Torgerson
OPPOSED: Adams, P. Kelly, Wilken, Phillips
The MOTION PASSED (5-4).
Co-Chair Parnell MOVED to adopt Amendment #2 which would
insert language on Page 2, Line 17, "unless the facility
requests a delay", and Page 2, following Line 25, inserting
a new subsection: "At the request of any party, the
department may offer a process of voluntary mediation".
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Senator Leman questioned if Amendment #3, 1-LS424\G.7,
Bannister, 4/21/99, would be beneficial to the proposed
legislation. [Copy on File]. Senator Leman MOVED to adopt
Amendment #3 and asked to hear from the Department.
Mr. Livey responded that Amendment #3 would provide any
appeal that is remanded back to the hearing officer by the
Commissioner after April 20th but before the effective date,
would also be subject to the 30-day rule.
Senator Taylor questioned the retroactive date and the
effect that the amendment would have on the legislation. He
commented that he was not concerned with passage of the
amendment.
Senator Leman WITHDREW Amendment #3 with the understanding
provided by Commissioner Perdue from an earlier conversation
that the Department would work diligently to achieve
finality. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Co-Chair Torgerson commented that the bill would be HELD in
Committee in order to work in more detail with the
Department on the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Parnell requested a brief discussion on the fiscal
notes. He noted the three temporary positions requested in
the fiscal statement.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that new hearing officers would be
needed to deal with the backlog of outstanding appeals. He
emphasized that the most effective way to resolve the
backlog of appeals would be to grant an additional hearing
officer position and the additional resources for the
Department of Law and the Department of Health and Social
Services Commissioner Office to address the concern.
Co-Chair Torgerson requested a check of the length of time
between the 30-60-90-day comparison and the fiscal impacts
that each would bear. Senator Taylor commented that he
would oppose any additional changes to the fiscal note.
Mr. Lively responded that 120 days would be a more
acceptable amount of time.
SB 106 was HELD in Committee for further clarification on
the fiscal notes.
TAPE SFC-99 #107 Side B
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
SFC-99 14 4/22/99 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|