Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/02/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB318 | |
| HB380 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 380 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 2, 2006
9:12 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Lyda Green convened the meeting at approximately
9:12:07 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Con Bunde, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: CRAIG JOHNSON, Staff to Representative Lesil
McGuire; PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Transportation Section, Department of Law; RUTH BLACKWELL,
Realtor and Representative, Alaska Association of Realtors;
PEGGY ANN MCCONNOCHIE, Representative, Alaska Association of
Realtors; KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal
League; MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer;
KRISTEN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation; BILL HOGAN, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services; JANET
CLARK, Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Management Services,
Department of Health and Social Services; JEFF JESSEE, Chief
Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority; DR.
KATHINKA WHITE, Alaska Primary Care Association; RYNNIEVA MOSS,
Staff to Representative John Coghill; EDDY JEANS, Director,
School Finance, Department of Education and Early Development
Attending via Teleconference: From Fairbanks: LUKE HOPKINS,
Assembly Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough; From an offnet
locations: BOB GERLACK, State Veterinarian, Division of
Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation;
Dr. BRAD WHISTLER, Dentist, Department of Health and Social
Services; From Anchorage: DR. LOUISA CASTRODALE, Division of
Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 318-LIMITATION ON EMINENT DOMAIN
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor, the Department of
Law, and took public testimony. A committee substitute was
adopted and the bill reported from Committee.
HB 380-ANIMALS & ANIMAL OR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor, the State
Veterinarian, the Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Department of Health and Social Services. The bill reported
from Committee.
HB 105-MEDICAID FOR ADULT DENTAL SERVICES
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor, the Department of
Health and Social Services, the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority, Alaska Primary Care Association, and took public
testimony. The bill was held in Committee.
HB 16-SCHOOL FUNDS RELATED TO BOARDING SCHOOLS
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and the Department
of Education and Early Development. A committee substitute was
adopted. Two amendments were considered, but failed adoption.
The bill was held in Committee.
HB 218-PRIVATE HATCHERY COST RECOVERY FISHERIES
This bill was scheduled but not heard.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 318(JUD)
"An Act limiting the exercise of eminent domain."
9:12:47 AM
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Senator Bunde moved to adopt committee substitute Version 24-
LS1083\R as the working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for explanation.
Co-Chair Green explained that, at the request of the bill's
sponsor, Representative Lesil McGuire, Version "R" would delete
language adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The language
eliminated is located in Sec. 5, page 6 beginning on line 25 and
continuing through page 7, line 11 of SCS CS HB 318(JUD),
Version 24-LS1083\P, as follows.
…However, a municipality may exercise the power of eminent
domain to acquire private property from a private person
for the purpose of transferring title to the property to
another private person for economic development if
(1) the municipality does not delegate the power of
eminent domain to another person;
(2) before issuing the notice in (3) of this
subsection, the municipality makes a good faith effort to
negotiate the purchase of the property;
(3) written notice is provided at least 90 days before
the public hearing to each owner of land that may be
affected by the exercise of eminent domain;
(4) the municipality holds a public hearing on the
exercise of eminent domain after adequate public notice;
(5) the governing body of the municipality approves
the exercise of eminent domain by a two-thirds majority
vote; and
(6) in the case of a second class city, the governing
body of the city adopts an ordinance by a two-thirds
majority vote, the ordinance is submitted to the voters for
approval at the next general election or at a special
election called for that purpose, and the exercise of
eminent domain is approved by a majority of the votes on
the question.
Co-Chair Green supported the elimination of this language, as
its inclusion would negate the purpose of the bill. The adoption
of Version "R" would return the bill to its original form.
9:14:03 AM
CRAIG JOHNSON, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, the bill's
sponsor, informed the Committee that this bill was developed in
response to a recent United States (U.S.) Supreme Court ruling,
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, eminent domain case in
which private property was condemned and "transferred to another
private entity for private economic development". The public
outcry to that Court's ruling spurred eminent domain legislation
in 42 states. Representative McGuire researched Alaska Law and
found that existing law "would allow this type of condemnation".
Therefore this bill, which has been scrutinized by a variety of
entities including the Department of Law, environmental groups,
the Alaska Railroad Corporation, utility and oil companies, and
realtors, was developed to address the issue.
Mr. Johnson stated that one of the policies paramount in the
development of the bill was "the appropriateness of transferring
private property to another private individual", specifically
the transfer of people's homes. Numerous homes were taken and
transferred to a private developer in the Connecticut case.
Thus, this bill contained language that would protect a person's
primary residence. He clarified however, that the bill would not
absolutely prohibit eminent domain of a person's home, as there
are legitimate instances for its use. "The determination was
that the ability of one person to recreate doesn't take priority
over another person's dwelling space." This determination was
further refined to protect approximately a four-acre plot around
someone's home from eminent domain.
Mr. Johnson stressed that while "this is a bill that no one
loves", 90 percent of it is acceptable. It is a compromise
between the stances of such entities as the American Association
of Realtors who believe that "no private property should ever be
taken" as opposed to the position of environmental groups that
support widespread use of eminent domain. This bill would
reserve the use of eminent domain "in traditional uses but
strictly deals with those two narrow policy issues of private to
private and protecting someone's home".
9:17:44 AM
Mr. Johnson professed this legislation, which would not fiscally
impact the State, was thoroughly reviewed, both in its
development and during its 22 Legislative hearings. He urged the
Committee to support the bill.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that the sponsor supported
the Version "R" committee substitute.
Mr. Johnson affirmed.
Mr. Johnson noted that federal legislation is currently being
considered that would restrict funding to states that "allow
private to private transfers of any political subdivisions". In
conclusion, this bill would reserve eminent domain policy
decision authority to the Legislature rather than to local
governing bodies.
9:18:49 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, Assembly Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, in opposition to
Version "R". The Borough considers eminent domain a local
control issue and has established a process to best fit the
needs of the community. The Municipality of Anchorage has also
adopted an eminent domain policy.
9:19:57 AM
Mr. Hopkins addressed Mr. Johnson's comments that Version "R"
"would strike the best balance" between the various interests.
One consideration omitted however, was a local municipality's
right to take action on an issue involving eminent domain
specifically relating to economic development concerns. He urged
the Committee to consider the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute, Version "P", as it is responsive to the needs of
local governments.
9:21:23 AM
Senator Stedman asked Mr. Hopkins whether this bill might
"hinder" a municipality's ability to extend sewer and water
lines or further utility infrastructure. Oftentimes, easements
are necessary to support these efforts.
9:22:14 AM
Mr. Hopkins understood that the bill would not restrict utility
and infrastructure easements.
Co-Chair Green concurred.
9:23:11 AM
Senator Stedman stated that, oftentimes, in the effort to expand
a utility trunk line, a utility must negotiate easements across
private property. The question is whether this legislation might
negatively impact municipality or utility's ability in that
regard.
Mr. Johnson assured the Committee these circumstances were
"protected in the bill". Efforts were taken not to change
existing uses of eminent domain. Language in Sec. 2(a)(10) page
3, line 10 specifically allows the continuance of eminent domain
for community sewerage needs. Utility infrastructure, railroad,
hospital, highway needs and other public good needs are also
addressed in Sec. 2.
Senator Stedman acknowledged.
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Department of Law, concurred with Mr. Johnson's
remarks.
9:24:50 AM
RUTH BLACKWELL, Realtor and Representative, Alaska Association
of Realtors, shared that the Association is 99 percent
supportive of Version "R". The Association is against changing
private property to public use, as such action would negate that
land's obligation to contribute to the community tax base. A
person's private property should only transfer to another
private entity through the free market enterprise system. The
government should not become involved in that process.
Currently, only one percent of the land in Alaska is privately
owned; 99 percent of the land is owned by the State, federal, or
lands claim entities. That amount should be sufficient to
provide for a municipality or other public land use need for
economic gain.
9:26:38 AM
PEGGY ANN MACONNOCHIE, Representative, Alaska Association of
Realtors, enthusiastically spoke in support of Version "R", as
it would revert the bill to its original intent. "The Kelo case
was a clear taking of private property … for private purposes."
The Association understood municipalities' desire to have more
local control, but that must not come at the expense of the
owners' property rights. Version "R" would protect those private
property rights.
9:28:13 AM
Ms. McConnochie assured the Committee that "this is a very
important issue to all of us as private property owners", and
the Legislature's decision on this bill would be remembered for
decades. People's homes should be sacred. A person's ability to
own, use, and transfer property is "one of our basic rights".
Legislative protection of that right would be appreciated.
9:28:46 AM
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League (AML)
informed the Committee AML had "no position on eminent domain".
However, he noted that three of AML's largest members have
enacted eminent domain policies similar to those presented in
the bill. The only issue of concern to AML is that of local
control.
Mr. Ritchie agreed with Mr. Hopkins that the policy adopted in
the Senate Judiciary committee substitute, Version "P"
established a process through which "the Legislature could
absolutely guarantee" that "a very substantial and fair" eminent
domain public hearing process would occur at the local level.
Any decision made at the local level would require support from
the majority of the local governing body.
Mr. Ritchie concurred with the Alaska Association of Realtors
position that this was a very important decision. However, he
reemphasized AML's concern about local control. He stressed that
one should be mindful that the Kelo case, which generated this
legislation, occurred in Connecticut. Alaska is not Connecticut.
None of the 10,000 eminent domain situations presented in the
Kelo case pertained to a situation that occurred in Alaska. "We
have been good stewards of eminent domain."
9:30:41 AM
Co-Chair Green removed her objection to adopting Version "R".
There being no further objection, Version "R" was ADOPTED as the
working document.
Senator Dyson was "delighted with both the bill" and Co-Chair
Green's support of it.
Senator Dyson moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 318 (FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with previous zero fiscal note #1 dated January 11,
2006 from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; previous zero fiscal note #2 dated January 11, 2006
from the Department of Environmental Conservation; previous
indeterminate fiscal note #3 dated January 10, 2006 from
Department of Law; previous indeterminate fiscal note #4 dated
January 11, 2006 from the Department of Natural Resources; and
previous indeterminate fiscal note #5 dated January 11, 2006
from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
9:31:58 AM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 380(RES)
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the
commissioner of environmental conservation regarding
animals, animal products, agricultural products, and the
transportation of animals and animal products; relating to
the employment, appointment, and duties of a state
veterinarian by the commissioner of environmental
conservation; relating to the powers of the commissioner of
natural resources regarding agricultural products; relating
to animal rabies prevention and control; and providing for
an effective date."
9:32:11 AM
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, the
bill's sponsor, communicated that many "working groups" met over
the Legislative interim to develop this bill, which would revise
State Statutes pertaining to "the powers of the State
Veterinarian and our animals and animal product Statutes".
Mr. Pawlowski informed the Committee that the majority of the
State's animal Statutes were established prior to 1949 when the
majority of "animals were considered livestock". Over time, "the
definition of what an animal or animal product is" has changed
and State Statutes must evolve to reflect current circumstances.
In addition, such things as Avian influenza and other zoonotic
diseases must be considered.
Mr. Pawlowski proclaimed that the authorities provided to the
Department of Environmental Conservation by existing Statutes
were deemed "inadequate and the definitions were unclear". As a
result, "the State was not in a position to react accordingly in
the event of a crisis". This bill "would repeal and reenact the
majority of the provisions of Title 3 as they relate to animals
and animal products and the power of our State Veterinarian".
Mr. Pawlowski contended the changes made to the bill during its
committee hearing process produced a good product. The bill
would have no fiscal impact. This bill "is one piece of the
puzzle" through which to address the threat to humans from Avian
influenza and other zoonotic diseases, which could be
transmitted by exposure to domestic animals.
9:33:50 AM
Co-Chair Green asked for further information about issues that
were addressed during the bill's hearing process.
9:34:05 AM
Mr. Pawlowski shared that the State's agricultural community had
raised concerns. He praised the efforts of the Senate Resources
Committee, chaired by Senator Ralph Seekins, in addressing those
concerns. To that point, he referenced language in Section
1(b)(3) and (4) beginning on page 2 line 29 and continuing
through page 3, line 2 of SCS CS HB 381(RES), Version 24-
LS1469\L. This language addressed the procedure through which
the State would quarantine or destroy an animal. Existing
"Statutes are completely inadequate", as they would provide
compensation only for dairy cattle. The compensation levels,
ranging from $300 to $500 per animal were also limited by
judicial district. The value of dairy cattle today far exceeds
that value. Thus, the definition of animal was expanded to align
with the federal indemnity payments of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program.
Mr. Pawlowski stated that further consideration was provided to
address the diversity of animals found in Alaska, such as
reindeer, which might not be included for compensation in the
federal indemnity program. The compensation would be subject to
appropriation. This would "create a vehicle" through which the
Legislature could, in an emergency, provide support to the
industry and a community "to solve a problem that really wasn't
of their making".
Co-Chair Green noted that this would address the concern that
Committee members might have heard from constituents.
In response to a comment from Co-Chair Green, Mr. Pawlowski
directed attention to another provision in the bill that had
evoked concern: the ability of the DEC commissioner to appoint
individuals other than the State's Veterinarian to enforce or
manage provisions in Title 3. This language is located in
Section 1(b)(2), page 2 lines 25-28. The Senate Resources
committee substitute addressed this concern by incorporating on
lines 26 and 27 of that subsection, the requirement that the
appointed individuals must act under the direction of the State
Veterinarian.
Mr. Pawlowski stated that were there an Avian influenza outbreak
or a foot and mouth outbreak in a reindeer herd, the State
Veterinarian must possess the authority to work with municipal
officials and local veterinarians, and act as the responsible
party in overseeing any action being taken, including the
actions of an appointed individual.
9:36:51 AM
BOB GERLACK, State Veterinarian, Office of the State
Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health, Department of
Environmental Conservation, testified via teleconference from an
offnet site. Current State Statutes would allow the State
Veterinarian to control the spread of contagious disease
provided it originated with livestock, commercial poultry or
animals of fur farms. This bill would expand this authority to
help protect both domestic and wildlife animal resources as well
as public health in the State.
Mr. Gerlack stated that this bill would complement HB 95-PUBLIC
HEALTH DISASTERS/EMERGENCIES, which was enacted in the year
2005. That bill allowed "public health officials to control the
spread of contagious and potentially deadly diseases in people".
Mr. Gerlack informed that the regulations in place to control
infectious diseases in animals were reviewed in the past. The
determination was that they created "an artificial system", as
they treated diseases in livestock, wildlife, pets and people as
separate issues. "The fact is that infectious diseases are
rarely restricted to an individual group or species of animals."
They could not be "contained by artificial or geographic
boundary" and "could spread very rapidly". The emergence and
rapid spread of new diseases in this century has presented "new
challenges for the management and control of animals and public
health diseases". More than "70 percent of recent infections
affecting people are zoonotic diseases", which are diseases that
originate in animals but could inflect people. Zoonotic diseases
could, on a large scale, negatively impact animal health, food
supplies, human health and local and national economies. This
should be a concern to all people and industry.
Mr. Gerlack proclaimed that diseases could spread into Alaska by
the importation of animals or animal products such as dairy,
meats, animal feed, or domestic or wild animal movement. Animals
could easily transverse the border between Alaska and Canada.
Migrating waterfowl could introduce Avian influenza or the West
Nile virus into the State. The State Veterinarian must be
provided the authority and tools to protect people and animal
resources in the State. The current authority is limited in
regards to infectious disease control. In addition, no State
agency has the authority to manage all groups or categories of
animals including domestic livestock, pets, exotic or wild
animals. This authority is urgently needed in order to control
threats to the State's animal resources or public health.
9:40:58 AM
DR. LOUISA CASTRODALE, Division of Public Health, Department of
Health and Social Services, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage on behalf of Dr. Richard Mandsager, Director of the
Division. The Division, which works closely with the State
Veterinarian's office on disease investigations that affect both
animal and human health, fully supports this bill, as it would
strengthen the collaborative effort.
9:41:40 AM
CHRISTIAN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, was available to
respond to questions.
Co-Chair Green asked which change to the bill was most
significant in achieving support for it.
Ms. Ryan responded that, during the bill's evolution, "a lot of
changes were made to make people more accepting of the
legislation". Broadening the definition of which animals could
be quarantined by the State from livestock to all animals had
tremendous impact; however, many people were supportive of the
bill due to fear of the Avian flu and other diseases that might
occur. The addition of the indemnity clause through which the
State could reimburse people for animals that might be taken
also satisfied many concerns. The addition of the language
specifying that no action could be taken without the approval of
the State Veterinarian was also an important element. These
conditions appear to satisfy the concerns.
Co-Chair Green noted the Alaska Department of Fish and Game had
provided a pamphlet [copy on file] titled "A Field Guide To
Common Wildlife Diseases and Parasites in Alaska".
9:43:13 AM
Senator Bunde moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 380(RES) was REPORTED from
Committee with previous zero fiscal note #1 dated February 6,
2006 from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
AT EASE 9:44:14 AM / 9:46:12 AM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 105(FIN)
"An Act relating to coverage for adult dental services
under Medicaid; and providing for an effective date."
9:46:25 AM
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
BILL HOGAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services, informed the Committee this legislation would change
Medicaid coverage to allow adult recipients to receive up to
$1,150 annually in preventive and restorative dental care
services such as cleaning, exams, tooth restoration and both
upper and lower dentures. Adult dental care is currently limited
to emergency care for the immediate relief of pain or acute
infection. The most common outcome of the current care is the
extraction of teeth. This Medicaid expansion would benefit "the
most needy Alaskans: those with disabilities and seniors".
Approximately 16,000 of the adults currently enrolled in the
State's Medicaid program could benefit from this proposal.
Mr. Hogan noted this was one of the first Medicaid programs to
specify a maximum limit. In addition, the bill would include a
three-year termination date. "This will allow the Department and
the Legislature to evaluate the effectiveness of the program,"
to include participation levels "and the true cost and value of
the program". The Department is actively working with
stakeholders, particularly the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA), "who consider this a significant issue within
communities throughout Alaska". AMHTA would provide the State
match required by Medicaid for this program.
Mr. Hogan stated that between $700,000 and $800,000 of AMHTA
mini-grant program funds are spent annually on providing dental
care to AMHTA beneficiaries, particularly those with behavioral
health issues and developmental disabilities. Those funds could
be better utilized for other beneficiary needs were this program
implemented.
Mr. Hogan shared that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development annually
expends $100,000 to help individuals in their program "obtain
dental care to increase the likelihood that they could be
employed".
9:49:53 AM
JANET CLARK, Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Management
Services, Department of Health and Social Services stated that
the Department's assumptions in the original fiscal note were
extensively reviewed during the bill's hearing before the House
Finance Committee. As a result, the fiscal note that reported
from House Finance was considerably less than the initial fiscal
note. Many of the assumptions were changed, including the
decision to reduce the number of recipients served by the
program in its initial two years due to access and start-up
issues. The original assumption that the program would serve 35
percent of eligible adults is reflected in the program's third
year of operation.
Ms. Clarke continued that, in addition, the Department's
emergency dental care expenses were reduced for year two and
three of the program, based on the assumption that the Medicaid
preventive care service would reduce the demand on emergency
dental care service.
Ms. Clarke stated that the Department's original fiscal note was
developed with the understanding that Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP) funding would be reduced from 57 to 50
percent; however that reduction had not transpired. Therefore,
the fiscal note was revised to reflect the current 57.58 percent
FMAP level. Another "key" fiscal element was AMHTA's commitment
to provide their FY 07, FY 08 and FY 09 dental services budget
to the program. Thus, as reflected in Fiscal Note #2, dated May
4, 2006, AMHTA would contribute $425,000 in FY07, and $1,425,000
each for FY 08 and FY 09. The FY 07 fiscal note was also
reduced, as the program would not be anticipated to begin until
late in the fiscal year.
Ms. Clarke noted that the State's FY 08 general fund match
obligation would be $1,300,000. This, with the assistance of the
AMHTA funding, would leverage approximately $10.3 million in
services. The fiscal note also reflected the termination of the
program in FY 09. Efforts to refine the fiscal note assisted in
reducing the program's impact on the State's general fund.
Senator Dyson inquired to the income and asset levels a non-
AMHTA recipient, "non-disabled, non-elderly adult" must have to
qualify for the program.
Ms. Clark responded that a 21 through 64-year-old person, who
was not in one the aforementioned categories and who did not
have children, would not typically qualify for Medicaid.
Senator Dyson acknowledged.
9:54:04 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked regarding the Department's efforts "to
work with the Alaska Dental Association to get them to allow
temporary dental licenses for those dentists from outside
Alaska" who wish to provide basic dental services in rural areas
of the State during the summer.
Mr. Hogan deferred to the Department's Dentist, Dr. Brad
Whistler.
9:54:46 AM
DR. BRAD WHISTLER, Dentist, Department of Health and Social
Services, testified via teleconference from an offnet site.
Community health centers and tribal dental programs have
discussed this issue with the Alaska Dental Board. The Board is
considering issuing courtesy licenses, which are different than
temporary licenses. The Department deferred to the community and
tribal dental programs to further this issue with the Alaska
Dental Board.
Co-Chair Wilken identified his interest to be with the issuance
of temporary licenses rather than courtesy licenses. Continuing,
he asked the status of Board action regarding the issuance of
temporary licenses "to people that want to come and help
Alaskans".
Mr. Whistler had not been personally involved in the actions of
the Dental Board. However, he understood that "the only issue
that is being addressed by the Dental Board at this time is the
courtesy license issue".
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether Dr. Whistler planned on asking the
Dental Board to consider "granting temporary licenses that could
take care of some of our more indigent people by what amounts to
volunteers".
Mr. Whistler, speaking on behalf of the Department, stated he
would "be happy to" advance that subject. He explained that a
temporary license could be issued to a dentist desiring to
practice in Alaska, provided they held a license in another
state. This license would suffice until the time the Dental
Board could meet and "do licensure by credentials". A courtesy
license could be issued to a dentist who planned on providing
volunteer services, as a person holding a courtesy license could
not charge a fee for their service. A courtesy license would not
be appropriate for the needs of a community health center or
tribal program, as their desire is to employ dentists.
9:56:34 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked Dr. Whistler to provide his office a
letter detailing the efforts being taken by the Department "to
enable temporary licenses" in the State. The letter should
include such things as the feasibility of the licensure, the
steps that would be required to further the effort, and the
benefits that would be anticipated. He also requested a copy of
any correspondence between the Department and the Dental Board
relating to this issue.
Co-Chair Green supported Co-Chair Wilken's request.
Co-Chair Wilken shared his concern about the proposed dental
program by repeating the "old saying that those that forget
history are doomed to repeat it. And here we go again." He
recalled discussions that occurred when the Denali Kid Care
program was proposed. While that program "was presented with a
firm number of expenditure", the cost associated with that
program "has far exceeded" what had been anticipated for a
variety of reasons. The Power Cost Equalization program is
another program whose expenses dramatically increased. Its
expenses increased from eight million dollars a year to $80
million dollars in six years.
Co-Chair Wilken questioned the true fiscal impact of the bill,
as, while he appreciated the inclusion of the $1,150 per person
annual dental service limit, the number of program recipients is
unknown. Therefore, to gain his support, he suggested an annual
maximum expenditure level be specified for the program. The
intent would be to terminate the program once the limit was
reached. This would provide the Legislature with "a hard
indication of just the demand" on the program.
Co-Chair Wilken asked that the bill be held in Committee to
further discuss how to incorporate such language.
Co-Chair Green acknowledged.
9:58:31 AM
Senator Olson asked the Department's and the Alaska Dental
Board's "views" on licensing dental hygienists who received
training in countries other than the United States.
Mr. Hogan deferred to Dr. Whistler.
9:58:46 AM
Dr. Whistler clarified that the Department is not involved with
the Alaska Dental Board and the issuance of licenses. The
Department, in this process, has focused on "Medicaid financing
and reimbursement for those providers that are practicing under
general supervision of dental staff". The Department has
participated in "expanding private capacity" and has been
supportive of the program encouraging "tribal expansion and
provision of care to Indian Health Service (IHS) beneficiaries
in the State".
Senator Olson asked whether he would be correct in communicating
to his constituents in the IHS program that Dr. Whistler and the
Department were supportive of the program.
Dr. Whistler stated that the Department has been and would
continue to support IHS activities. As a dental officer of the
State, he is aware that this model has been successful in New
Zealand, Australia, Great Britain and other countries. The
dental access issue is widespread in the United States, and this
concept and others have been discussed. The American Dental
Hygiene Association has proposed "an expanded dental hygiene
model to address some of these same issues." Numerous
discussions between private dentistry and public health dentists
have occurred on the issue of how to meet the needs of "the
underserved". Personally, he believed this program was worthy of
consideration and could work. It has been successfully
implemented in other areas of the world. He agreed that the
program should be evaluated to ensure that it would be "an
appropriate model for the State".
10:01:49 AM
ANDY POPE, a senior citizen, testified in Juneau in support of
the bill. Senior citizens, particularly low-income seniors, "are
probably the only class [of citizens] in this State excluded
from the dental health care". Native health corporations provide
dental care to Natives and employed people have access to
employer insurance plans. Seniors cannot purchase private
insurance, and if it were available, the cost would exceed
senior's financial capacity. "There are programs for alcoholics
and narcotics, but not low-income seniors." This is "an overdue
benefit" for seniors. The bill is "well constructed" and the
$1,150 per person annual limit would provide "a safety cap",
which, by requiring people to participate for expenses above the
limit, would curtail excessive expenses. However, people might
have a problem finding a dentist "that would let you get
something done for a down payment". He doubted the program would
escalate out of control. "All individuals would be treated the
same". The $1,150 per person limit "is reasonable", and the
termination date would control the parameters of the program. He
urged the Committee to adopt this "long overdue" legislation.
10:04:25 AM
DR. KATHINKA WHITE, Representative, Alaska Primary Care
Association, Inc., spoke in support of the bill. The Association
"represents 24 health care organizations operating 115 non-
profit community health centers and other safety net providers"
that offer health and dental care to "the uninsured,
underinsured, underserved populations in the State". Her
testimony was as follows.
I am speaking to you on behalf of Alaskans that remain
untreated victims of our nation's silent epidemic, oral
disease. Dental carries and periodontal disease are
infectious diseases caused by the transmission of bacteria
from the parent to child or from partner to partner. In the
year 2000, in the publication "Oral Health in America" the
Surgeon General released a milestone report that provided
overwhelming evidence of this epidemic. It emphasized that
the mouth is a point of entry for infection, which can
spread to other parts of the body and pointed to emerging
associations between oral diseases and other physical
ailments such as diabetes, heart disease, strokes, adverse
pregnancy outcomes including low birth weight babies. The
report makes it clear that oral health is integral to
overall health. Oral health care represents the most
frequently reported unmet health need among low-income
persons.
The inability to access proper dental health resources has
had devastating personal consequences for many Alaskans,
including severe oral facial pain, infection, impaired
ability to eat, poor diet, nutritional status, speech
difficulties, lost work days, and unnecessary tooth loss.
Currently dental services for adults are limited to the
relief of pain and infection only. These services do not
include root canals resulting in the extraction of most
teeth. Many individuals would rather live in continuous
pain than have their teeth extracted because the social
consequences of oral disfigurement diminishes their self-
image and sense of self worth. Adults without adequate
dental care resources express a feeling that their lack of
dental coverage and resulting inability to get appropriate
dental care reflects society's lack of recognition of them
as people with intrinsic value.
The Surgeon General's report also noted this relationship
between oral facial disfigurement due to oral disease and
the associated social stigma, low esteem, and anxiety
experienced which in turn limits their educational, career,
and marriage opportunities. Among adults seeking jobs those
with visual carries and missing teeth were less employable
than those with healthy smiles, resulting in increased
numbers of adults on state funding ATAP [Alaska Temporary
Assistance Program], unemployment, and food stamp programs.
In closing, oral health means much more than healthy teeth.
Oral health is integral to the general health and well
being of all Alaskans. Not allowing dental care benefits
that include prevention and routine dental care knowingly
puts our most vulnerable citizens at a greater health risk.
Alaska cannot afford these long-term financial and human
welfare costs. Alaska Primary Care Association and the
Municipality of Anchorage support HB 105 and believe its
time for the dental Medicaid program to be restructured to
include preventative and restorative services. Thank you.
10:08:14 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the Primary Care Association (PCA)
had contacted the Alaska Dental Board in support of issuing
temporary dental licenses. The issuing of these licenses would
assist in serving some of the people she had spoken of.
Dr. White was unsure. She was aware, however, that the Alaska
Dental Board had not taken any action in that regard. PCA has
taken a position in support of the dental health aide program.
She also supported that program as she had personally worked in
many remote Bush villages and could attest to the skills,
knowledge, and empathy of the people involved in the program.
Co-Chair Wilken thought that the PCA's "voice would be very
powerful" in bringing the temporary license issue to the
attention of the Alaska Dental Board. Their participation could
advance the efforts included in this legislation. Therefore, he
urged her organization to investigate how other states'
experiences with temporary dental licenses could assist in
allowing "dentists to come and serve some of the less abled of
our society".
Dr. White responded positively to Co-Chair Wilken's suggestion.
The Association would support this endeavor, as many of its
member "community health centers are under-served. That's a big
problem for us." She was currently involved in an effort to
create an Alaska oral health care partnership to provide "more
dental care and better retention in the State".
Co-Chair Wilken appreciated Dr. White's comments.
Senator Olson asked the number of dentists employed by PCA.
Dr. White stated she was the sole PCA dentist. PCA is advancing
the aforementioned oral health network to improve access to
dental care "by establishing a more cohesive structure with the
community health center dental clinics", furthering a shared
provider program to improve dental care access, and advancing
other aspects to improve dental care opportunities through the
organization.
10:11:24 AM
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority, thanked the Committee for considering this bill.
AMHTA is interested "in this bill and dental services in general
because" many of AMHTA's "beneficiaries have tremendous dental
needs". AMHTA annually funds a mini-grant program that "provides
grants of up to $3,000 directly to individual beneficiaries for
a wide range of things" such as laptop computers, a car to
transport them to work, or other expenses that would improve
their quality of life. AMHTA "was stunned" to find that
approximately 70 to 80 percent of the mini-grant funding was
used for dental services. Spending one's mini-grant funds on
dental care would not be expected to be "way up on people's list
of things they want to do in their spare time or with any
additional dollars they might have".
Mr. Jessee noted AMHTA worked closely with the Department to
construct a bill with cost containment provisions such as the
individual dental service limit and the termination date. In
addition to working on this "very important bill", AMHTA is
working on a program through which dentists could donate dental
service and be compensated for their out of pocket expenses.
Another effort being advanced by AMHTA is the development of
partnerships with community health centers "to get them up and
running on providing more comprehensive dental care".
Nonetheless, the funding mechanism proposed in this bill "is
critical" to these endeavors and to meeting the dental needs of
AMHTA beneficiaries.
10:13:54 AM
There being no further testimony, Co-Chair Green ordered the
bill HELD in Committee in order to develop language addressing
Co-Chair Wilken's concern.
10:14:22 AM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 16(RLS)
"An Act relating to funding for school districts operating
secondary school boarding programs, to funding for school
districts from which boarding students come, and to the
effectiveness of district secondary school boarding
programs; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt committee substitute Version 24-
LS0125\C as the working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for explanation.
10:15:07 AM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, the bill's
sponsor, informed the Committee that five years prior,
Representative Coghill had spent time in Nenana on a building
remodeling project. Students attending the Nenana Boarding
School assisted in that project. Those students communicated to
Representative Coghill the newfound optimism they were
experiencing as a result of attending the boarding school. The
experience "changed their opinion of where they were going with
their life" and expanded their opportunities for becoming
"productive citizens".
Ms. Moss stated that, because of this interaction,
Representative Coghill became "interested in the so-called
boarding school concept". This bill is a product of that
interest. This bill has generated tremendous discussion. She
cited Co-Chair Wilken as instrumental in prompting the
Department of Education and Early Development (DOE) and the
State Board of Education "to actually propose regulations that
will regulate these boarding schools". Representative Coghill
viewed student attendance at a boarding school "as an issue of
choice, and an opportunity for students all over the State to
enter into a program that can basically change their life". For
example, the Nenana Boarding School graduated 14 students in
2005: 11 of those graduates continued their postsecondary
education with financial assistance; two enlisted in the United
States Marines, and one entered the Job Corps. The entire
graduating class improved their life "and became productive on-
going citizens".
Ms. Moss stated that Version "C" would allow any Statewide
Secondary Residential Program (SSRP), commonly referred to as a
boarding school, established prior to January 1, 2005, to be
reimbursed for operating the residential program through a
stipend. To qualify for this program, the SSRP must have a
suitable student dormitory, daily access to a public school
offering grades nine through 12, and be a full time school. The
stipend rate would be determined by the DOE with the stipulation
that it could not to exceed the statutory limits as specified in
Section 1(b)(2) lines 8 through 12 of Version "C".
Ms. Moss stated that Version "C" also defined what would
constitute a school district and what would qualify as a
district-operated Statewide Residential Educational Programs.
Furthermore, Version "C" would align language with existing
regulations. An effective date of July 1, 2006 is specified in
the bill.
10:18:51 AM
Senator Dyson asked whether the bill's sponsor was "comfortable
with the changes" included in Version "C".
Ms. Moss affirmed he was.
Senator Dyson asked whether the sponsor considered the $20 per
student per day stipend adequate to feed, clothe, and house a
student at the school.
Ms. Moss responded in the negative. The sponsor believed that
students' parents and school districts should contribute toward
the expense of the program. Thus, the stipend is "a portion" of
the actual costs.
Senator Dyson acknowledged.
Senator Bunde understood the stipend would be paid to the school
district rather than to the individual.
Ms. Moss affirmed.
Senator Bunde asked regarding the provision that would provide
each student a round trip ticket to the school, as he felt that
requiring a student to personally "buy-in" would result in the
student being "more dedicated" to the endeavor. Requiring a
student to be responsible for their travel expenses might
further their "incentive to achieve".
Ms. Moss responded that the majority of students who attend the
schools live in remote areas of the State, thus "the cost of
travel is fairly expensive". While a student might make two or
three trips home during a school year, the school would
compensate for only one round-trip ticket. The travel expense
would amount "to only a small part" of the total student cost.
Senator Bunde viewed the round-trip ticket offering as "a
marketing tool: come to our school and we'll give you a free
trip." The provision to pay for the round-trip ticket was of
concern to him.
Co-Chair Green noted that, in addition to the stipend and the
trip, the State's Base Student Allocation (BSA) formula funding
would also be applicable.
Ms. Moss responded in the affirmative.
10:21:46 AM
Co-Chair Wilken pointed out that the inclusion of the Lower
Kuskokwim in the Residential School Program details, as
specified on page 2 of the DOE fiscal note #2, dated May 2, 2006
was an error, as "the Bethel program was no longer part of this
bill".
10:22:10 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance, Department of Education
and Early Development, affirmed. The Department would revise the
fiscal note to reflect the removal of the Bethel Lower Kuskokwim
School from the Residential Program.
Co-Chair Green acknowledged that a corrected fiscal note would
be developed.
Co-Chair Wilken shared that a few years prior, because of his
concerns about the boarding school program, he had been accused
of eliminating State funding for the Nenana Boarding School. To
that point, he appreciated Representative Coghill, Ms. Moss',
and the Department's efforts to address his concerns, as
evidenced by the inclusion of the phrase "approved by the
department under regulations" in Section 1, Article 2(a) page 1
on line 9 of Version "C"; specifically the inclusion of the
reference to State regulations. He displayed a compilation of
DOE regulations [copy not provided], which were currently under
review. Because of the State Board of Education's lack of action
on overseeing the boarding school program, the Department
updated regulations and developed criteria, which must be met
before someone could establish a boarding school program. As a
result, the State could "analyze whether it's in the best
interest of the State" to allow the formation of another
boarding school program.
10:23:40 AM
Co-Chair Wilken appreciated the endeavor to replace the term
"boarding school" with Secondary School Residential Program.
Co-Chair Wilken warned that the Federal No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) program would force the State to change its approach to
education. Many outlying communities might be unable to provide
a curriculum and education that would allow a student "to
perform on the world stage". Thus, some students might be forced
to participate in such things as a SSRP. One area of concern is
the negative impact this would have on a community desiring to
keep their youth in their community. Another concern is one
relating to economic development. State facilities such as the
King Career Center in Anchorage, the Hutchison Career Center in
Fairbanks, and vocational technical schools in Kotzebue, Nome,
Bethel, Seward, and Galena should be developed in anticipation
of the pressure to meet NCLB standards. To that point, his
recent decision not to support funding for the St. Mary's school
in the FY 07 capital budget was a difficult one, as that
community was attempting "to do exactly" what is being discussed
in this bill.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that were the proposed DOE boarding
school regulations not adopted as presented, the discussions on
this issue would continue during the next Legislative session.
The regulations are "good" and have widespread support. He
supported the bill and the sponsor's "efforts to take us to the
next step in rural education".
10:25:58 AM
Senator Bunde informed the Committee he would be offering an
amendment to the bill that would provide the funds to address
the one million dollar fiscal impact reflected in fiscal note
#2.
Co-Chair Green removed her objection to the committee
substitute.
Without further objection, committee substitute, Version "C" was
ADOPTED as the working document.
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes all language in Sec. 5 line
28 of CS HB 16(RLS) and replaces it with the following. [NOTE:
The amendment must be conformed to Version "C".]
Sec. 5. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
CONTINGENT EFFECT OF SECTIONS 1-4. Sections 1 -4 of
this Act are contingent on the passage by the Second
Regular Session of the Twenty-Fourth Alaska State
Legislature and enactment into law of a version of SB 112
that imposes a tax on residents of and individuals employed
in regional educational attendance areas.
Sec. 6. If sections 1-4 of this Act take effect, they take
effect on the effective date of a version of SB 112 passed
by the Twenty-Fourth Alaska State Legislature and enacted
into law that imposes a tax on residents of and individuals
employed in regional educational attendance areas.
Sec. 7. Sections 5 and 6 of this Act take effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
Senator Bunde moved Amendment #1.
Senator Dyson objected.
Senator Bunde agreed with Co-Chair Wilken that, in the
foreseeable future, the State would experience an increase in
the number of boarding schools.
10:26:43 AM
Senator Bunde proclaimed that many of these boarding schools
would be located in Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs)
"where the folks unfortunately haven't chosen to accept the
personal responsibility to support their schools". Therefore,
this amendment would impose a tax that would assist in
supporting the expenses of a boarding school in an REAA.
10:27:22 AM
Ms. Moss stated the bill's sponsor would be opposed to the
amendment. "There already is an existing stipend that's being
paid for students that come into boarding schools." This bill
would broaden the opportunity so that more students could attend
such a school. The sponsor would argue that the tax proposed in
this amendment "is a whole separate issue that doesn't belong in
this piece of legislation".
Senator Bunde was concerned that the proposals in this bill
could provide REAAs an opportunity to "double-dip", as schools
in those areas are already fully supported by State funds.
Senator Olson voiced "strong objection" to the amendment.
Support of it would be contrary to the "spirit" of the original
bill.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Bunde, Co-Chair Wilken and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Hoffman, Senator Olson, Senator Dyson and
Senator Stedman
The motion FAILED (3-4)
Amendment #1 FAILED to be adopted.
Conceptual Amendment #2: This amendment deletes the entirety of
material in Section 1(b)(1) beginning on page 2, lines 2 through
4, which reads as follows.
(1) one round trip on the least expensive means of
transportation between the student's community of residence
and the school during the school year if the district
expends money for the trip; and
Senator Bunde moved Amendment #2.
Senator Olson objected.
Senator Bunde echoed his earlier comments against providing
travel for students. Eliminating the free travel provision is
"an attempt to encourage people to invest in their own
education". People work harder when they have a personal
investment.
Ms. Moss communicated that the bill's sponsor would object to
the amendment. While waivers are available in hardship cases,
parents of students attending the Nenana Boarding School are
currently required to provide $1,000 toward their child's room
and board. The students to whom a round trip travel ticket would
be provided are those with no road access to the school.
Attending the school is "an extra hardship" for such students
due to the expense and distance that must be traveled. While
attending the school is optional, it should be recognized that
the school is graduating students who are becoming productive
Alaskans, who otherwise might become "a burden to the State".
10:30:41 AM
Senator Bunde voiced concern that instead of attending the
school in pursuit of furthering their education, some students
might view the free travel as an opportunity to escape from a
small town or their parents. "That would defeat the purpose of
what the bill is trying to achieve."
Co-Chair Wilken shared that the round trip travel was an issue
of discussion during the development of the bill. The State
currently provides a round trip ticket to students attending the
Mt. Edgecumbe School in Sitka, and, while the Nenana Boarding
School is not exactly the same model as that school, "the
thought was" that providing a round trip ticket to the Nenana
Boarding School might alleviate pressure on Mt. Edgecumbe, which
has a waitlist of students. In addition, the decision was made
to include in the bill the requirement that the "least
expensive" mode of transportation be utilized.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Bunde and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Olson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Dyson, Senator
Stedman and Co-Chair Wilken
The motion FAILED (2-5)
Conceptual Amendment #2 FAILED to be adopted.
10:33:03 AM
Mr. Jeans communicated that the Department worked diligently
with the State Board of Education to develop "regulations that
would limit the number of communities that could participate in
this program" to the communities of Nenana and Galena. In
addition, the proposed regulations would require the State Board
of Education to determine a need and an application process
before allowing any other school district to begin to operate a
boarding school. Furthermore, this legislation would require an
additional step to be taken in that the Department must seek
Legislative approval in order to expand the program. The
necessary safeguards would be in place.
Mr. Jeans shared that an annual report on the boarding school
program would also be required. The report would include such
things as the number of students applying, accepted, and
enrolling in the boarding school program as well as the Mt.
Edgecumbe program. The data would be shared with the
Legislature.
Co-Chair Green recalled that the FY 07 capital budget would
include one million dollars each for the Galena and Nenana
boarding schools. She asked whether the funds specified in this
bill would be in addition to that money.
Ms. Moss stated that the money included in the capital budget
would be in addition to the funding specified in this bill. The
capital budget funds would be utilized to expand dormitory
facilities.
There being no further discussion, Co-Chair Green ordered the
bill HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Lyda Green adjourned the meeting at 10:35:13 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|