Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/16/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB115 | |
| HB26 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 16, 2015
1:31 p.m.
1:31:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Sponsor; Tom Wright, Staff,
Representative Mike Chenault; Ed Fogels, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources; Laura
Stidolph, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson; Sara Chambers,
Director, Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor, Alaska Division of
Legislative Audit.
SUMMARY
HB 26 EXTEND CERT. DIRECT-ENTRY MIDWIVES BOARD
HB 26 was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(CED).
HB 115 AK SOVEREIGNTY;US TRANSFER LAND TO ALASKA
HB 115 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
1:32:33 PM
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to the transfer of public land from
the federal government to the state and to the
disposal of that land; and providing for an effective
date."
1:32:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, SPONSOR, read the sponsor
statement (copy on file):
Committee Substitute for House Bill 115 (RES) enacts
the Alaska Sovereignty and Transfer of Federal Public
Lands to Alaska Act. The bill requires that the United
States to transfer title to public lands to Alaska on
or before January 1, 2017. The bill also affirms
Alaska's state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Although there are a number of state and federal
constitutional issues regarding the provisions
contained within the bill, this bill was introduced
since the 35-year deadline from the time Alaska was
admitted into the Union as provided within the
Statehood Act, PL 85-508, is long past. I believe
there is a breach of good faith since the state is
still entitled to and awaiting the transfer of the
remaining 5.5 million acres. Thus far the state has
received patent to about 99.5 million acres.
Currently, the state has 10.9 million acres of
selections from which to receive its 5.5 million acres
of entitlement as well as 10.2 million acres of top-
filings that may eventually become selections should
applicable withdrawals be lifted. These withdrawals
come in numerous varieties of federal action and
processes. Two common executive branch actions that
create withdrawals are Public Land Orders (PLOs,
issued by the Department of the Interior) and
Executive Orders issued by the President.
The committee substitute for House Bill 115 (RES)
requires the federal government to turn over all lands
held by the federal government to the state subject to
acceptance by the state with the exception of lands
used for military purposes including military
reservations.
At this time according to the Department of Natural
Resources, there are approximately 222 million acres
within Alaska under federal ownership.
1:36:12 PM
Representative Chenault relayed that he was open to
questions.
Co-Chair Thompson pointed to the Legislative Legal opinion
that the bill would be unconstitutional.
Representative Chenault agreed that the bill might be
unconstitutional, but that the court system would need to
make the final determination, not the legal opinion of one
lawyer.
Representative Gara felt that the legal opinion clearly
stated that the bill was unconstitutional. He queried
whether the sponsor knew of any provision in the U.S.
Constitution that allowed a state to take federal land from
the federal government.
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, replied in
the negative.
Representative Gara noted that similar laws had been
enacted; a 1982 initiative that had demanded that the
federal government return all federal land within the state
was deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Attorney General,
no movement had occurred on the issue for 32 years. He
furthered that in Utah a similar bill had been passed,
which had forced that state to set aside $2 million for
litigation purposes. He feared that the bill would result
in future litigation cost to Alaska.
Mr. Wright answered that the path to litigation would be
determined by the courts system and the governor. He shared
that the "Tundra Rebellion", passed in 1983, was not
enacted because the U.S. Attorney General took issue with
the law. He argued that the state had been waiting for 35
years to receive approximately 5.5 million acres, which
required that a strong message be sent to Congress.
Representative Gara wondered whether the bill could be
limited to the transfer of lands that had been promised to
the state upon statehood.
Mr. Wright replied that it would be up to the will of the
committee.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that department staff were online
for questions.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke to the zero fiscal note. He asked
where anticipated legal expenses to defend the legislation
would come from.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the fiscal note was
indeterminate, not zero, because the legal costs were yet
unknown.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the Legislative Research
Services Brief that discussed land outside of wildlife
refuges and monuments. He wondered about the timing of the
bill.
Mr. Wright replied that the bill was related to timing due
to the president's orders to set aside more of Alaska's
land for conservation.
1:42:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether the state was
behind in the survey work necessary to transfer most of the
land and, if so, should the state be working on that issue
while simultaneously pushing the legislation.
Representative Chenault deferred the question to the
Department of Natural Resources. He added that there could
be reasons to hold back on certain land selections because
other selections could become available.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the ninth and tenth
amendments had ever been used successfully when arguing
similar cases on court.
Mr. Wright replied that the amendments had been included in
the backup documents for the bill in order to highlight
state sovereignty over certain issues.
Representative Guttenberg restated his question.
Mr. Wright believed that Utah was currently using those
amendments to argue a similar court case.
1:44:38 PM
ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, added that of the 100 million acres of land
received by the state through the Statehood Land
Entitlement, 65 million had been surveyed and patented to
the state; approximately 35 million had yet to be surveyed
and were considered "tentatively approved." He furthered
that the 35 million acres essentially belonged to the
state, to manage as it wished, and that the survey backlog
was not currently limiting the state's ability to fully
utilize its lands.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the conflict of property
transfers among land owners sharing property lines. He
wondered how far along the state was concerning resolution
on native allotment and over-selection issues.
Mr. Fogels thought that the question was broad and would
require and extended amount of time for a response. He
explained that the issues were ongoing and that the
department was mandated by law to transfer lands to
municipalities; some municipalities had completed their
entitlements, some had not. He continued that there were
many issues related to native allotments and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) had conveyed many allotments to-date.
He opined that the world of land management was complex.
Representative Guttenberg asked how quickly the state could
take the transfer of land, were the issues to be settled,
and the legislation were to pass.
Mr. Fogels felt he could not answer the question. He said
that if the courts determined the additional 200 acres
would be awarded to the states then it would be a
significant task to identify which lands, in addition to
the Statehood Land Entitlement lands, would be given to the
state.
1:48:49 PM
Representative Wilson felt that the fiscal note should be
zero, and not indeterminate, because there would be no
fiscal impact until a decision was made to litigate the
issue.
Mr. Fogels responded that the department's fiscal note was
based on the assumption the bill would be successful. He
said that the note accounted for the process and the
additional land management by DNR. He added that additional
revenues to the state could be expected. He stressed that
the fiscal note was purely related to land management and
did not consider litigation expenses.
Representative Wilson felt that the fiscal impact of the
bill should be viewed as a budget issue for the sake of
accuracy.
Mr. Fogels replied that the department had been asked to
provide a fiscal note for potential costs due to additional
land management.
Representative Wilson hoped that the department would
further scrutinize the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered whether the federal government, or
the state, would decide which lands would be returned.
1:52:11 PM
Mr. Wright replied that approximately 5.4 million acres of
land had been allotted to the state through the statehood
act, 10.9 million acres of selections to receive the
allotment, and 10.2 million additional acres of land that
was considered "top filed", a contingent selection where
the land would be subject to federal restrictions or
withdrawals; the state could not take these lands but by
executive order on the federal level. He gave an example of
land that was rich with mineral deposits along Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) that was currently under top filing
status and was unavailable to the state. He noted that no
wilderness refuges had been included in the bill. He
thought that it would be financially prudent to exclude
national parks from the bill because the state would not be
able to afford to maintain them.
Co-Chair Neuman surmised that the legislation asked the
federal government to turn requested lands back over to the
state for resource development.
Mr. Wright believed there was wide national support for
western states to win the transfer of federal public land
back to states, mainly to open up utilization of the public
land.
Co-Chair Neuman repeated the question as to whether the
bill would allow the state to select lands that it felt
would be beneficial to the state.
1:55:54 PM
Mr. Fogels responded that the state had 5.4 million acres
left to go in its entitlements and that the state had
selections on approximately 10.1 million acres, and an
additional 10.3 top filed. He said that the state had to
complete the statehood land entitlement process. He stated
that the bill offered a strong recommendation that public
land orders be lifted by the federal government to allow
the state to broaden its selection pool of land. He shared
that valuable lands had been identified that the state
would like to control. He said that the bill would require
the federal government to give additional lands; not
specified, and lands could be rejected that were deemed to
not be in the state's best interest.
Co-Chair Neuman surmised that the state needed the land in
order to diversify the economy. He believed that the bill
would create jobs for the state.
1:58:10 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the acreage of state
park land managed by the state. Mr. Fogels replied that the
state currently had approximately 3 million acres in the
state park system.
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether the fiscal note
for the bill would be increased by the state adopting the
entire 54 million acres of park land currently under the
federal government.
Mr. Fogels replied that there was the possibility that
revenue could be generated by acquiring the additional
lands, but that a way to zero out the fiscal note had yet
to be determined.
Representative Kawasaki thought that if the state were to
assume the 54 acres of federal park land it would be a cost
to the state. He opined clean water responsibilities that
the state took over in 2008, as well as wetlands permitting
in 2013, both of which had been of additional cost to the
state, and wondered if the legislation would produce
similar results.
2:01:25 PM
Mr. Wright replied that the sponsor intended to ask one of
the finance committee members to introduce an amendment
that would exclude national parks.
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to page 2, lines 5 through 6:
(b) The affirmation, reservation, and assertion in (a)
of this section include the reservation of the rights
of the state to claim a credit or setoff for any
amount or injury inequitably or unlawfully caused or
claimed by the federal government.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether there was a listing of the
possible amounts identified in the section, and whether
there was an estimate of the potential value of those
injuries.
Mr. Fogels answered that he would provide the information
to the committee at a later date.
Representative Gara asked whether the 5.4 million acres
left to transfer to the state from the federal government
were in dispute.
Mr. Fogels replied no, the 5.4 million acres were the
remaining land entitlement. He reiterated that there were
10.1 million acres of land in "selection status", of which
selections had been prioritized, and that the state could
ask for conveyance of those lands at any time. He shared
that the "choicest" lands to the state were in the second
group of top filed lands and amounted to an additional 10.3
million acres. Those choice lands were currently off-limits
to the department because of the federal land withdrawals.
He stressed that it was important that the Department of
the Interior list the public land orders so that the state
could broaden the selection pool to the full 20.4 million
acres to choose from. He argued that the public land orders
no longer served a purpose and should be lifted by the
Department of the Interior.
2:05:08 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if there had been any
indication of willingness, or resistance, by the BLM to
comply with the goals of the bill. Mr. Fogels believed that
the BLM and Department of the Interior were reluctant to
lift the public land orders. He relayed that Governor
Walker had met with Department of the Interior Secretary
Sally Jewell to discuss the issue. He state that the BLM
would convey the state anything that was a valid state
selection fairly expeditiously. He reiterated that he was
speaking only to the statehood land entitlement; he could
not answer how the federal government would react to the
bill in regard to additional lands.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether passage of the bill would
encourage federal authorities to move more expeditiously
with the conveyance of state lands or other federal lands
to the state.
Mr. Fogels thought that the bill would help to lift the
public land orders.
Representative Gara reiterated concern that the bill was
unconstitutional. He hypothesized that if Alaska could take
whatever federal land it wanted, what would stop other
states from acting similarly, to the detriment of the
country.
Mr. Wright thought that decisions pertaining to the
hypothetical situation would be determined on a state-by-
state basis.
Representative Gara offered the example of the state of
Kentucky taking over the United States Mint and
subsequently destroying the economy on the federal level.
Mr. Wright responded that he could not speak to the
example.
Representative Gara added that Pennsylvania could take and
sell the Liberty Bell.
Mr. Wright rebutted that he could not speak to the
intentions of other state, nor answer rhetorical questions.
Co-Chair Thompson deduced that Representative Gara was
speaking to material things, whereas the bill discussed
land and the states right to the land after 50 years of
waiting.
Representative Gara stated that his concern was for passing
a bill that was unconstitutional. He requested a fiscal
note and an opinion from the Department of Law.
Co-Chair Thompson argued that the committee was not at the
point of appropriating money, but bringing the subject to
the forefront by alerting the federal government that the
state was ready to take back the land.
Representative Gara shared that the State of Utah had
passed a similar bill, which had garnered little response
from the federal government. He said that nothing had
happened in Utah for two years because the bill was
unenforceable. He stated no litigation had been filed
because the bill was unconstitutional. He wondered whether
the bill was the appropriate vehicle for gaining the
attention of the federal government.
Co-Chair Thompson contended that if more states filed bill
of a similar type, the federal government might revisit the
issue of conveyance of lands to states. He believed that
the bill was a good start in a possible national movement.
Vice-Chair Saddler requested an overview of the development
of public land ownership in the Eastern United States
verses the Western United States.
2:11:58 PM
Representative Chenault replied that he could not provide a
history. He said that as states became states, more land
from each wound up under federal control. He related that
the biggest problem that Congress faced when Alaska became
a state was the state's small population and large land
mass; there was fear that Alaska would become another
colony, leaving the federal government to take care of the
state's needs. He felt that, because approximately 62
percent of the Alaska's land was currently under federal
authority, the state had not been able to develop its
resources to sustain its economy. He suggested that the
state might not have to rely on federal dollars for certain
programs if it was allowed to develop its lands in a
responsible manner. He remarked that that initial fear of
Congress was what had occurred, not because of Alaska's
lack of ingenuity, but because the federal government had
not allowed the state to develop its land. He believed that
the legality of the bill should be decided in court.
Representative Munoz understood that lands that were top-
filed related to new land designations on preliminarily
selected lands. She asked whether the top-filing happened
before or after the lands had been identified by the state.
Mr. Wright deferred the question to the department.
Mr. Fogels answered that top-filed meant that the land was
wanted by the state, but that the land could not become an
officially selected parcel because of federal action. He
said that clean federal land, managed by the Bureau of Land
Management would be a valid selection; top-filings were a
selection on top of a federal withdrawal and not an
official selection allowed by Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
2:16:08 PM
Representative Munoz surmised that top-filing could include
designations for refuges, parks, and national forest land.
Mr. Fogels replied in the negative. He explained that all
of the selections and top-filings were on BLM land,
multiple use federal lands, and the state had no selections
on refuges. He shared that national forests were handled
differently, the state had a special "flavor" of selection,
particularly in Southeast Alaska. He provided an example of
the pipeline corridor; when TAPS was first built BLM put a
withdrawal called Public Land Order 5150 from Prudhoe Bay
to Valdez. He explained that any BLM within the corridor
was withdrawn from state selection, resulting in a narrow
right-of-way. He furthered that the selections within the
corridor were not valid selections, but top-filings,
meaning that as soon as the federal government lifted the
public land order the top-filings would turn into valid
selections.
Representative Munoz asked why the state was not selecting
land within the 10.1 million acres that were still valid
for selection. Mr. Fogels replied there was valuable land
in the 10.1 million acres of selected lands, the issue was
that there was also valuable and in the other 10.3 million
acres of top-filed land, some of which was even more
desirable.
Representative Munoz surmised that the 10.1 million acres
was unencumbered with top-filing and the legislation would
lift the top-file designation on the 10.3 million acres,
further expanding the pool of land that state could
request.
Mr. Fogels replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the bill
would not require the transfer of military bases. Mr.
Wright replied in the affirmative.
2:19:56 PM
Representative Guttenberg understood that asking the
federal government remove its restrictions would allow the
state to expand its selection criteria.
Mr. Fogels reiterated that the state was entitled to 5.4
million acres under the Statehood Land Entitlement, where
those 5.4 million acres were chosen from was the question.
The state wished to grow the pool to choose that acreage
from to 20.4 million acres.
Representative Guttenberg wondered how many employees in
the department interacted with federal land managers. Mr.
Fogels replied that the department interacted with federal
employees on many issues, on a daily basis. He said that he
could not provide a number related to the issue.
2:22:30 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the department was
actively pursuing lands that were rich in heavy metals.
Mr. Fogels replied that most of the lands currently managed
by the state were open to mineral entry; there were a
number of mineral prospects begin worked throughout the
state. He said that the state encouraged and increase in
the mining industry and recognized that responsible mining
practices contributes greatly to Alaska's economy. He
assured the committee that the department was encouraging
additional responsible mining in the state.
HB 115 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson requested to be a co-sponsor of the
legislation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Direct-Entry Midwives; and providing for an
effective date."
2:24:35 PM
LAURA STIDOLPH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, relayed
that the bill would extend the sunset date of certified
direct entry midwives to June 30, 2017; a two-year
extension. She noted that the board's deficit and audit
issues had been discussed during a previous hearing and
that there were people on hand to speak to those specific
issues.
2:25:59 PM
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the fiscal note reflected
$5,500 of expenditures for board travel and advertising of
meetings. He related that in FY 14 the board's revenue
total was $3,990, while expenditures were $55,795; a
deficit of $51,805. He said that the board had a current
operating deficit of over $115,000, and had been in deficit
spending since 2008. He shared that licensing fees had
increased, and were due for another increase in spring
2014, but with the limited number of midwives in the state,
how the board would catch up with the deficit was
questionable.
Ms. Stidolph answered that with the board bearing the
burden of the large cost of investigations, even an
increase in the board's fees would not cover the deficit.
She deferred the question to the department for further
detail.
Co-Chair Thompson understood that Legislative Budget and
Audit (LB&A) had been tasked with reviewing the board and
would be coming forward with recommendations.
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, stated that the fiscal
note spoke to the expenses that were particular to the
board; if the board were to sunset the division would
continue to license midwives and would relieve licensees of
the expense of board travel, which was the only isolatable
expense in regard to the board itself. She agreed that the
board had been in a deficit position and had been working
toward an assertive and meaningful to the budget. She
relayed that fees had been increased for both midwives and
apprentices; midwives now paid the highest licensing fee
charges by the division: $1,750 every two years. She added
that the apprentice fees had risen from over $100 to over
$900 in 2013. She noted that it would take several more
increases and continued attempts to rein in spending and
get out of the deficit positon, but with a very small
number of licensees that could take several licensing
cycles.
Co-Chair Thompson observed that most of the deficit was due
to investigations. Ms. Chambers replied in the affirmative.
She added that investigations figured prominently in the
legislative audit findings.
Co-Chair Thompson highlighted the LB&A criticism of the
department for not pursuing 4 different midwifery cases.
Ms. Chambers responded that there were several cases that
had been referred to the Department of Law's Office of
Special Prosecutions and Appeals that had not been followed
up on and had been deemed a low priority. She said that at
the time the agency had not done its due diligence to
follow up on the cases, but that since had corrected the
issue putting new safeguards into place to double check
files sent over to sister agencies; in addition, an expert
witness had been retained to review the cases to determine
which of the agencies was most appropriate for each case.
She explained that the licensees involved in the cases in
question had refused to sign a consent agreement. She
assured the committee that the division was actively
pursuing remedies to the problems.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if there was any chance of
recouping the investigation expenditures.
2:32:14 PM
Ms. Chambers answered no. She shared that there was a
proposal in the budget that would give the board and the
division the opportunity recoup fines to help mitigate some
of the expenses.
Co-Chair Thompson observed terminating the board would cost
the state more money than renewing the sunset date.
Ms. Chambers replied that she was not familiar with the
numbers.
Representative Wilson queried the difference between
retaining the board, and allowing the licenses to be
handled by the department.
Ms. Chambers replied that the board currently had the
ability to review and approve licenses, which would revert
back to the division. She said that the board handled most
of the administrative elements, including investigative,
which allowed for public deliberation that would not be
allowed under the department.
Representative Wilson expressed concern that the fiscal
note did not reflect the $115,000 deficit. She asked who
paid the $115,000 when it was not being paid by the board.
Ms. Chambers answered that the division had appropriation
authority. She added that board was in a deficit position,
which department was working actively to correct, and the
appropriation authority was being covered by boards that
were in a surplus position. She stated that that this
happened on an annual basis by nature because there was one
time, every two years that a board would bring in revenue
that was meaningful during their renewal period and offset
the programs that had opposing biennial revenue periods.
She stated that the funds were not mixed in the sense that
the operations were being paid for by another because of
the carry forward, but at the higher appropriation level
all of the licensing programs were able to be solvent to
stay in the black.
2:36:24 PM
Representative Wilson wondered if another audit when the
bill would be up again for sunset in two years.
Ms. Chambers deferred the question to the Division of
Legislative Audit.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT (via teleconference), replied if the
board received an extension, another sunset review would be
triggered by statute. She said that given the sort
timeframe since the last audit she expected the field work
would take less time, but another audit would be conducted.
Co-Chair Thompson understood that LB&A planned to examine
the board and make a recommendation.
Ms. Curtis answered that the current review by that
committee had not factored into the suggested sunset date.
Representative Wilson asked how much the most recent audit
had cost. Ms. Curtis replied that the division did not
track the cost of audits. She shared that an hourly rate of
approximately $67 per hour had been calculated, so that
could be multiplied by the 1,100 hours it took to conduct
the audit. She explained that a typical sunset occupational
board audit took approximately 500 to 600 hours to
complete. She relayed that this particular board audit took
longer because of the nature of the problems that were
found and because it had been done by a new auditor.
2:39:30 PM
Representative Gattis felt that not hearing from the board
was limiting the conversation. She queried the purpose of
the board. She asserted that she was pro-midwife, but she
believed the board had struggled. She relayed that she took
issue with extending the board another two years.
Ms. Chambers noted that the department had invited the
board to address the committee. She believed it would be
appropriate for the board to provide input during committee
discussions.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the increase in fees would
affect the number of midwives paying into the licensing
pool.
Ms. Chambers replied that it was a possibility. She said
that it was always a concern, not specific to midwifery,
that a rise in fees would cause people to drop out of
licensure.
2:41:55 PM
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the audit cited
a division failure for some of the board's issues. He
wondered how much of the financial problems of the board
could be attributed to the department.
Ms. Curtis answered that 100 percent of the cause for the
reduced extension was due to the division and not the
board. She related that areas for improvement would always
be found; but in regards to the severity of the problems,
the majority were at the division level.
Representative Gara surmised that the board had done
nothing wrong, and queried the logic of the limited
extension.
Ms. Curtis did not view the recommendation as a punishment.
She asserted that legislative audit was the legislatures
monitoring mechanism; the two-year extension was given
because the issues were so important and worth the cost to
come back to the table to ensure that the problems
recognized in the audit were handled.
2:45:14 PM
Representative Gara argued that the audit punished the
board by creating uncertainty. He did not think that
threatening the board was the proper way to get the
department to do its job.
Ms. Curtis relied that it was difficult to explain the
reasoning pertaining to board action versus division
action, and how that factored into an extension. She
reminded the committee that it was only a recommendation;
she would present the report and provide information but it
would be up to policy makers to make the final decision.
Representative Gara recommended that the board be given a
full extension. He asked if fee increases were the only way
that the board could maintain its finances.
Ms. Chambers answered that the department was fully in
compliance with legislative audit's recommendations and
took full responsibility in the areas of deficiency. She
stated that the division would set fees with the advice and
input of the board. She believed that some of the
responsibility lay with the board continuing to rein in
spending and refining decision making processes to reduce
expenditures.
2:49:19 PM
Representative Pruitt read from the letter from the Board
of Direct-Entry Midwives chair, Cheryl Corrick, located
within the audit:
"Recommendation No. 2:
I concur with this recommendation, with reservations.
The Board has requested that, in addition to the
proposed increases in licensing fees for CDMs, the
Division also increase apprentice licensing fees to
50% of CDM fees. The Board sees this as a potential
way to help meet the shortfall. So far, the Board's
request has been denied over the past two years."
Representative Pruitt wondered why the board's suggestion
had not been considered.
Ms. Chambers answered that the increase had been
implemented but that it affected a small number of
midwives. She said that fees would need to be increased
again in order to keep up with rate of spending while
trying to chip away at the negative carry forward.
Representative Pruitt wondered whether the division had the
ability to recoup costs of the investigations from
individuals found to be at fault. He asked whether the
department had, or should have, the ability to recoup costs
of investigations involving unlicensed individuals.
Ms. Chambers answered that the division did not currently
have the ability to recoup costs from licensed or
unlicensed individuals; it would require a statutory
change.
Representative Pruitt asked whether the challenges found by
the audit were related to the board or the department.
Ms. Curtis replied that most of the problems stemmed from
the department.
Representative Pruitt asked whether similar challenges were
faced by other boards. He requested suggestions from
legislative audit on how to fix the problem.
Ms. Curtis replied that the extension reduction was being
driven by the investigative problems, which were specific
to the midwife cases and were not found in other boards;
this was not a division-wide problem. She spoke to fee
setting. She relayed that if a board was significantly in a
deficit, legislative audit would make a recommendation that
the board work with the division to set fees appropriately.
She pointed out to the committee that a fee schedule could
be found in the audit. She said that deficits could vary
widely and that the situation could be tricky when setting
fees as a response to a spike in expenditures. She
furthered that the audit performed in FY 06, had an annual
licensing fee of over $2,000 biannually. She stressed that
this was not a new problem for the board.
2:55:27 PM
Representative Wilson pointed to page 2 of the fiscal note.
She wondered what the licenses would cost if the board were
to dissolve.
Ms. Chambers answered that the numbers in the fiscal note
would be different if the division were to manage the
licensing program differently.
Representative Wilson wondered who would pay for the
investigations if the board were dissolved.
Ms. Chambers replied that licensees always recouped the
costs of investigations, the existence of the board would
not change the licensing structure.
Representative Wilson surmised that no matter what, the
licensees would have to pay the fee if they wanted to
remain legally licensed.
Ms. Chambers replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson expressed unhappiness with the
problems faced by the midwives. She worried that midwives
would end up with licensing fees that they could not
afford.
Representative Pruitt clarified that licensing would still
exist even if the board disbanded. He felt that the
midwives would be penalized if the bill did not go forward
in the process. He thought that the legislation highlighted
that something was broken within the department and not
with the board or the midwives.
2:59:30 PM
Representative Gattis reiterated her concern that the
committee had not heard from the board. She strongly
believed input from the board was needed.
Ms. Stidolph agreed that a board member's input would be
valuable.
Co-Chair Thompson believed the board needed to exist. He
expressed concern at the cost of the audit for a board that
oversaw few licensees. He felt that the problem should be
reexamined in 2 years after the legislature received a
recommendation from Legislative Budget and Audit. He
thought that passing the legislation would allow the board
to continue to be involved in the ongoing education and
certification of midwives.
Representative Wilson reiterated concern of what could
happen if the committee immediately did nothing.
Representative Gara requested clarification on the cost of
the audit.
Co-Chair Thompson explained that the audit took 1,100
hours, billed out at $67 per hour, resulting in
approximately $74,000 total.
Representative Gara moved a conceptual amendment to extend
the termination date to 3-years.
Co-Chair Thompson said that the problem was that the costs
of investigations were being placed on boards that were not
responsible for the problems being investigated. He
reiterated that it would be prudent to wait for the
recommendations that LB&A would provide in 2 years.
3:04:57 PM
Representative Gara withdrew the conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 26 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 26 was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:06:23 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AS 38.05.125.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| BLM-Alaska Conveys 729,000 Acres to State of Alaska.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| Draft A Legal Memo-HB 115.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| Leg Research-State Lands.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| MyliusPresentationonLands-2013.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| South Carolina Resolution.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| State asks feds for transfer of 19,322 disputed acres on North Slope.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| PL85-508.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| US Constitution-9th and 10th Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| USCODE-2011-title43-chap33A-sec1635.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| Utah HB148.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| CSHB 115 (RES)-Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB 115 AK Miners Assoc Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |