Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/02/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 327 - EXTEND BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS Number 046 REP. CYNTHIA TOOHEY, Prime Sponsor of HB 327, stated that the State Board of Veterinary Examiners passed the current sunset date on June 30, 1993. She was asked by DR. JIM LEACH to extend the sunset date through 1997. Rep. Toohey felt it was a reasonable amount of time, although most boards are at ten years. Given the current fiscal climate, she felt it was important for the board to pay its own way. Rep. Toohey referred to the fiscal note and stated that the annual revenue exceeded the annual cost. REP. TOOHEY introduced KARL LUCK, Director of Occupational Licensing and BARBARA MARCISAK, Member, State Board of Veterinary Examiners. Number 119 REP. VEZEY asked Rep. Toohey if the director of the State Board of Veterinary Examiners was a paid position. Number 130 REP. TOOHEY said that she thought it was a non-paying position and referred to Mr. Luck. Number 132 MR. LUCK replied that there are no salaries for board members, but there is per diem. Number 138 REP. VEZEY asked if there were salaries for staff. Number 139 MR. LUCK said that occupational licensing is paid for through fees. Number 144 REP. VEZEY asked why there was no fiscal note for that. Number 145 MR. LUCK responded that there was no increase to the fiscal note from what was normally charged. Number 151 REP. VEZEY restated the annual cost as being $28,100 and the annual revenue as being $33,900. Number 172 MR. LUCK further stated that the reason for the zero fiscal note was because there was no increase or decrease to the budget. Number 187 REP. VEZEY asked if that was proper criteria for a zero fiscal note. Number 186 MR. LUCK replied that it was the criteria that has been used for all the board's previous bills. Number 203 REP. TOOHEY, to clarify, asked if the annual cost of $28,100 went to pay for Mr. Luck's staff and part of his salary. Number 212 MR. LUCK answered yes. He stated that the entire division's budget was funded by all receipts from licensing. He further stated that the tracking system used to determine when license fees are due had been changed by recommendations from a previous audit. A "positive time- keeping" system was suggested, meaning that a licensing examiner would keep track of his/her time on a daily basis so that all their salary and benefits and all other expenses would be directly charged to the board that was being examined. As a result of the system change, Mr. Luck said that staffing problems had arisen due to changing from a system where there was one budget dealing with the aggregate to 32 individual budgets. He said that issue would be addressed in the 1995 budget. Number 290 VICE-CHAIR G. DAVIS stated for the record that Rep. Bunde arrived at 3:12 p.m. Number 295 REP. VEZEY asked what the impact on the budget would be if the licensing period went from two years to three or five years. Number 310 MR. LUCK said that there would be no impact on the budget. He stated that there were approximately 309 veterinarians that have a two-year licensing fee of $200 (for two years). Number 326 REP. VEZEY asked if licensing every third year would be cheaper time-wise than every two years. Number 337 MR. LUCK replied that the cost would reduce, and also perhaps the time it would take to do renewals. Number 356 REP. VEZEY questioned if the proposal would be the appropriate vehicle to address the licensing period in. He wondered if that would be violating the "single-subject act." Number 368 MR. LUCK stated that he was not an expert on such matters, and said he did not see it as a problem. Number 371 REP. VEZEY stated the two issues as being the sunset date for extending the board and the period that a license is valid. Number 389 MR. LUCK said that to change the licensing period of one board would "get the money out of sync," as one board is collected from one year and another from the alternate year. Number 413 REP. BUNDE said that the bill did not include the duties of the board of examiners. He felt it would be a separate bill. Number 426 REP. VEZEY stated that it would require a change in the title, but it would not violate the single-subject rule. It would be a valid bill. Number 434 REP. TOOHEY asked for comments or questions from BARBARA MARCISAK. Number 437 BARBARA MARCISAK, Member, State Board of Veterinary Examiners, asked if money would be saved by extending the licensing period. Number 460 REP. VEZEY said that if paperwork were processed on an annual basis, one would have "X" amount of paperwork. If the paperwork was done biannually, one would have "X" amount of paperwork divided by two. Number 467 REP. OLBERG felt that the $100 fee annually was very inexpensive. Number 479 MR. LUCK asserted that the fees were set based on the expenses the board incurs. Number 500 VICE-CHAIR G. DAVIS asked if there were any recommendations from the committee on HB 327. Number 503 REP. BUNDE recommended that the committee move HB 327 out of committee with individual recommendations. Number 507 VICE-CHAIR G. DAVIS asked if there were any objections. Hearing no objections, the bill was so moved. He stated that discussion for HB 361 had been postponed. Seeing no further business before the committee, VICE-CHAIR G. DAVIS adjourned the meeting at 3:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|