Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/19/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19 | |
| HB160 | |
| HB282 | |
| HB140 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB385 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 385 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 384 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 140(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the proposed adoption, amendment,
or repeal of a regulation; and relating to contact
with agencies about regulations."
9:59:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, stated that the intent of the
legislation was to provide better information about
regulations that may significantly affect private
individuals and businesses, other state agencies and local
governments. She shared that HB 140 required that
regulation notices include information about estimated
costs beyond those to the agency. In view of the increasing
reach of the Washington D.C. into Alaska's affairs, the
bill also requires that when the federal government is the
reason for the regulation, the exact federal law, executive
order or decision be identified in order for Alaskans to
better understand government actions that affect their
businesses and lives.
Senator Dunleavy wondered who might be in opposition to the
bill. Representative Reinbold replied that there was some
initial opposition to the bill from the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA), and the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC). She pointed out that
neither organization offered vocal opposition until she
asked for their input. She stressed that the current
version exempted those organizations.
Senator Hoffman queried the reason that they wanted to be
exempted. Representative Reinbold responded that she did
not want to speak for those organizations. She furthered
that, in general, those organizations felt that they were
independent and "quasi-judicial." She stated that the
Alaska's legal department felt that, just because they were
independent did not merit their exemption.
Senator Olson wondered if Representative Reinbold was in
favor of the exemptions. Representative Reinbold responded
that she felt fine about the exemptions, and remarked that
many bills required some compromise.
10:04:57 AM
Senator Olson felt that some of the exempted agencies
should be examined further.
Co-Chair Meyer felt that the legislation could be expanded
at a later date, in order to incorporate some of the
exempted organizations. Representative Reinbold announced
that all of the agencies, boards, and commissions were
included with the four exclusions. She felt that there were
good reasons for the Board of Game and Board of Fish to be
excluded, because of the number of regulations. She did not
want to be inundated as a regulatory review committee with
600 emails based on regulations. She felt that increasing
accountability and transparency was essential, and was
provided in a packet.
Senator Hoffman felt that the organizations were exempt
because the fiscal note for the executive branch stated
that the exemption would reduce the overall fiscal impact.
He relayed that the last paragraph of the executive branch
fiscal note stated that the agencies must add indeterminate
positions and resources would be needed to comply with the
legislation.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the fiscal note total for the
bill was $600,000. Vice-Chair Fairclough replied that the
total for the fiscal notes was $677,000.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that the bill had been modified from
its original version in order to reduce the fiscal impact.
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked at FY 16, and noted that the
annual operating cost increase that was quantified under
the three fiscal notes was $677,200, without the
indeterminate note.
Senator Olson felt that there were many people that may be
negatively impacted by the exclusion of some of the
organizations. He felt that the people should be protected
by having many of the regulations publicly reviewed.
10:09:31 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if there was a consideration
for a tiered approach for gradual implementation of the
program in order to understand the fiscal impact of the
broader approach. She stressed that she supported the
concept, but was concerned about the indeterminate note.
Representative Reinbold replied that she felt the
legislation outlined a phased approach. She shared that the
bill was "gentle" as related to her feelings about the
regulatory process. She explained that the bill looked in
aggregate of the costs to the agency, other agencies, and
municipalities. It provided an aggregate based on a good
faith effort with no ability to sue for inaccuracy or
inefficient information, and provide online public
transparency.
Vice-Chair Fairclough stressed that she was not commenting
on the pressure that the bill may provide, but rather
whether a phased approach focusing on each department may
be simpler. She felt that the bill may be outlining a
broader approach to the issue.
Ms. Chambers testified regarding the fiscal note. She
announced that one of the fiscal notes totaled $333,000 in
the first year. She noted that there were many elements in
the bill which triggered that number. She stated that the
division supported transparency in government, and remarked
that there were many activities in the bill that the agency
currently conducts. She remarked that the division's boards
and commissions operated slightly differently that other
boards and commissions. The bill had the potential to
impact the licensees, because any costs that result from
the bill would be picked up by the licensees. The fiscal
impact was not a general fund obligation. She looked at
Section 2 of the bill, and expressed concern regarding the
issue of aligning the boards and commissions with regular
response to specific issues raised by the administrative
regulation review committee and some governor's office
concerns. She felt that the issue was important to her
division, because they tried to be as transparent as
possible. She stressed that the travel cost in the fiscal
note should be considered a "worst case scenario", because
it related to the possibility of board meetings in response
to any changes or recommendations by the Governor's Office
or the Administrative Regulation and Review Committee. She
stated that the division conducted approximately 25
regulation projects per year, which were board and
commissions. She stated that she did not anticipate the
division's travel costs, she stressed that there could be a
possibility for an in person meeting.
10:16:29 AM
AT EASE
10:26:13 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
Ms. Chambers stated that she had some more fiscal concerns
that she would like to express to the committee. She looked
at Section 3, and remarked that there was a requirement for
the agency to make a good faith effort to estimate the cost
to the state agency, private persons, other agencies, and
municipalities. She stated that the division had a
logistical concern with its twenty volunteer boards and
commissions and the type of regulations that were often
passed. She felt that it may be difficult to estimate the
cost in a good faith effort that would amount to education
to the public to some of the board regulations. She
remarked that there could be continuing education changes,
and the cost to the private person could be difficult to
quantify if the variety of courses were examined
nationwide. She understood that it was an extreme example,
but was a potential way to not satisfy the education of the
public. She also pointed out Section 7 regarding agency
contact with the public. She remarked that the she was not
intending to call out the division's inability to comply,
but rather the difficulty with the boards and commissions
to potentially comply with the requirements. She remarked
that the good faith effort to answer public questions
received in writing, or asked at a public meeting, were
received, weighed, and deliberated at the boards and
commissions meetings. She felt that the bill would require
the boards to speak to questions that may come up in
writing through the agency prior to public input would be
collected. She stressed that the agency did not have staff
that was empowered by the boards to speak on their behalf.
She remarked that many of the boards were ably administered
by the staff, but were mostly managed by licensee examiners
that oversaw up to three boards. She felt that the bill may
require additional meetings or procedures for boards to
answer.
10:31:28 AM
Ms. Chambers she pointed out that Section 8 only allowed
oral commentary as public comment, which could be received
through the division office. She explained that interested
parties, licensees, and the public could contact the office
to ask questions that the division would be obliged to
respond. She noted that many of her concerns from the
previous section would be amplified with the Section 8
issue. She remarked that there would need to be an
additional staff person to corral the comments and maintain
the concerns for the public record.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered why the governor's order did
not accomplish the proposed tasks in the bill. Ms. Chambers
responded that the governor's order was received the fall
prior, and the division worked to analyze the scope of
regulations. She felt that the compliance level would
result in a similar outcome.
Vice-Chair Fairclough felt that the indeterminate fiscal
note should be changed to zero. She suggested that a highly
justified supplemental budget item could be included in
following year. She stressed that the governor's order was
the catalyst for implementation.
Senator Hoffman felt that there should be an inclusion of
the RCA, Boards of Fish and Game, and the AOGCC, so they
can comply with the governor's executive order. He remarked
that there were concerns regarding the actions of the
Boards of Fish and Game, and stressed that they especially
should be included in the legislation.
10:36:10 AM
Senator Olson queried the most recent review of the
regulations. He recalled that he never had to meet with a
regulatory board while he was a member of a medical board.
If there was a regulatory review of the medical board, he
assumed it was conducted via teleconference. He wondered
what had changed recently to require physical attendance
for the review board meetings. Ms. Chambers responded that
the fiscal note reflected the "worst case scenario", where
board members may make the executive decision to meet. She
shared that there were tools provided for teleconferencing.
Many boards and commissions strived to meet via
teleconference for focused purposes.
Senator Olson felt that continued education did not require
a face to face meeting. He agreed with Vice-Chair
Fairclough, that the fiscal note could be almost zero. Ms.
Chambers responded that the division would advise the
boards to meet via teleconference, because there were
minimal costs for meeting via teleconference. She stressed
that, if a board intended to meet in person, she would
allow that meeting to occur.
ARNOLD LIEBELT, POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, (OMB) spoke to the fiscal impact of the legislation
across all departments as related to Section 3. He stated
that Section 2 should be considered the policy portion of
the bill. He remarked that Section 2 outlined the repeal of
the boards and commissions from the existing language.
There were approximately more than 100 boards and
commissions. He restated that the bill exempted the Board
of Game, Board of Fish, RCA, and the AOGCC. He explained
that the regulations would pass before the governor, and he
would participate in the process. He stated that boards and
commissions generally operated independently, and were
staffed with members of the public to represent the public
within the industries. He pointed out that Section 3
addressed the cost impact for the department and the boards
and commissions, because it asks the state agencies to
prepare an annual cost impact for private person including
businesses and municipalities. Through the fiscal note
process, the division already ascertained with that cost
would be for legislation and anticipated regulations to
state agencies. He stated that providing a cost estimate in
the aggregate was helpful, but that was primarily the
source of the cost. The indeterminate note from OMB
represented all the other agencies that did not submit a
fiscal note, but remarked that the note would have some
impact. He stressed that OMB could not estimate the number
of regulations or the cost therein.
10:43:05 AM
Co-Chair Meyer looked at AO.266, and felt that the work
outlined in the proposed legislation should already occur.
Mr. Liebelt responded that the work was similar, but the
cost came in when departments need to add to their workload
by estimating what the cost would be for private persons.
He stated that the departments were not currently staffed
for the requirements in the legislation. He noted that the
Boards of Game and Fish could see as much as 500 proposals
per year for regulations.
Senator Hoffman looked at the third paragraph of the
executive branch fiscal note, which referred to 162
municipalities in Alaska. He assumed that those
municipalities would also be impacted, but the fiscal note
did not reflect what costs would be attributed to them. He
wondered if there was an estimate for fiscal impact to the
municipalities in Alaska. Mr. Liebelt agreed that the
fiscal note excluded the municipalities, and the paragraph
was included to comment on the number of municipalities
that could or could not be impacted by regulations. He
looked at Section 3, which stated that the department's
boards and commissions would be required to provide the
cost impact to the municipality as a result of regulations.
Senator Hoffman stated that he did not understand why a
fiscal note would be zeroed out, with the knowledge of
probable costs. He felt that the agencies should be held
accountable for cost outlines, because those agencies
drafted the indeterminate fiscal note. He did not want to
impose an unfunded mandate to the agencies or
municipalities.
10:47:38 AM
AT EASE
11:01:14 AM
RECONVENED
CSHB 140(FIN)am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
11:02:02 AM
AT EASE
11:02:42 AM
RECONVENED