Legislature(2005 - 2006)
05/07/2005 06:12 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB37 | |
| SB102 | |
| SB124 | |
| SB125 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 7, 2005
6:12 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 6:12:51 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Les Gara; Representative Beth Kerttula;
Representative Ethan Berkowitz; Representative Paul Seaton;
Melanie Lesh, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens; Randy Bates,
Deputy Director, Division of Project Management &
Permitting, Department of Natural Resources; Judy Brady,
Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association; Chris
Poag, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Dr.
Richard Mandsager, Director, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health & Social Services; Joe Balash, Staff,
Senator Gene Therriault; Jerry Burnett, Legislative Liaison,
Department of Revenue; Mark Hickey, Lobbyist, Juneau;
Michael Macleod Bull, Executive Director, American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU); Marie Darlin, Alaska Association of
Retired Persons (AARP); Amy Oney, Assisted Living Industry
Home-Owner, Anchorage; Stacy Kraly, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Law
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Sherry Mettler, Assisted Living Industry, Fairbanks
SUMMARY
HB 37 An Act relating to public access to fishing
streams.
CS HB 37 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the
Department of Fish & Game and a new zero note by
the House Finance Committee for the Department of
Natural Resources.
CS SB 102(FIN) am
An Act repealing the Alaska coastal management
program; relating to an extension for review and
approval of revisions to the Alaska coastal
management program; relating to reviews and
modifications by the Department of Natural
Resources; relating to coastal resource district
policies; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 45, ch. 24,
SLA 2003; and providing for an effective date.
HCS CS SB 102 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero note
#2 by the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, zero note #3 by the
Department of Administration, zero note #4 by the
Department of Environmental Conservation and
fiscal note #5 by the Department of Natural
Resources.
CS SB 124(L&C)
An Act relating to requirements to obtain and
maintain a fisheries business license; relating to
security required of fish processors and primary
fish buyers; and providing for an effective date.
HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "no recommendation" and with zero note #2
by the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, zero note #3 by the
Department of Fish & Game, zero notes #4 & #5 by
the Department of Labor & Workforce Development
and zero note #6 by the Department of Revenue.
CS SB 125(JUD)
An Act relating to the licensing, regulation,
enforcement, and appeal rights of ambulatory
surgical centers, assisted living homes, child
care facilities, child placement agencies, foster
homes, free-standing birth centers, home health
agencies, hospices or agencies providing hospice
services or operating hospice programs, hospitals,
intermediate care facilities for the mentally
retarded, maternity homes, nursing facilities,
residential child care facilities, residential
psychiatric treatment centers, runaway shelters,
and rural health clinics; relating to possession
of a firearm at licensed entities and facilities;
relating to criminal history requirements, and a
registry, regarding certain licenses,
certifications, approvals, and authorizations by
the Department of Health and Social Services;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date.
HCS CS SB 125 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "individual" recommendations and with zero
note #2 by the Department of Health & Social
Services and zero note #3 by the Department of
Law.
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
An Act relating to public access to fishing streams.
6:13:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, SPONSOR, noted that Alaska's rivers
are a treasured resource for fishermen, boaters, hunters,
hikers and people of all walks of life. It is important to
protect the public's access to them. HB 37 attempts to
ensure future public access to Alaska's fishing streams by
putting in place a mechanism for voluntary land exchanges
(or purchases) between the State and private owners along
important recreational rivers. The program would be
facilitated by the Department of Natural Resources and would
be completely voluntary. The purchases or trades would only
occur if a landowner was willing to engage in trade or sale
voluntarily.
Representative Gara stated that there are large stretches of
private land on streams such as Anchor River, Deep Creek,
Parks Highway Streams, the Salcha River and others. The
public currently uses the streams and once they are
developed, public access will never get them back. HB 37
requires the State to identify private lands along certain
high value recreational waters for possible easement, land
purchases or trades.
Representative Gara continued, to avoid costly litigation,
the State must use its expertise within the Department of
Fish and Game and the Department of Natural Resources to
identify the most desirable lands for purchase or trade,
after public input. The bill does not allow for legal
challenges of those determinations.
Other states have waited too long to take steps as proposed
in HB 37. In Montana, for example, fishermen have to pay
for public access to some rivers and one hundred eighty
miles of the Missouri River has been lost to public access.
Now that state budgets $300 thousand dollars per year to buy
back parcels of riverbank land.
Representative Gara concluded that HB 37 would help insure
that unparalleled recreational opportunities in the river
corridors remain accessible. It provides that the State
maintain a registry of lands for possible trades or
purchase. The bill does not mandate any funding for trades
or purchases, and therefore would lapse once the State
determines there is no longer a need to trade or purchase
public access.
6:15:21 PM
Representative Joule asked how the legislation would apply
to Native land and allotments. Representative Gara stated
it would apply to everyone equally. The language clarifies
that if there is land along a fishing stream and land to
trade, it could be done. The State cannot take or demand
land, but could offer a land trade.
6:16:21 PM
Representative Hawker questioned the amount of fiscal effort
to implement the bill. Representative Gara explained that
the bill clarifies that the Department will create a list of
lands important for public access. It will take title
research work. Over the next few years, the State will
attempt to either purchase or make land-trades from that
list. He did not see much work happening after the first
year and believed it could be handled through existing
staff.
6:17:44 PM
Representative Kelly asked about possible easement right
backlash, acknowledging a conflict. Representative Gara did
not think that could change current concerns. At this time,
it is okay to close off sections of land. The State does
have the authority to negotiate certain places and/or to
purchase, while the legislation attempts to make a more
focused effort.
6:19:53 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if any designations had been
made. Representative Gara pointed out areas close to the
road system such as the Parks Highway and some on the Kenai
Peninsula had been selected. Much of that land is now
Native Corporation land. There is a provision protecting
that land and he clarified that the State would not be using
eminent domain power, only voluntary. Some lands are
private. Before the 1970's, the State did not guarantee
public access as it does now.
6:21:13 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze requested further testimony regarding
easements and federal provisions for access. Representative
Gara interjected that if federal easements already existed,
the State would not bother. The legislation only addresses
areas that the public does not have access to.
6:22:30 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze questioned the "voluntary situation" and
asked about a cost benefit analysis. Representative Gara
advised that the priority aims at lands with high value
fishery and where public access does not exist. There is no
formal appeal process.
6:23:33 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze worried about the areas chosen.
Representative Gara explained that the Kenai River Sport
Fishing Association has requested certain areas. HB 37
leaves it up to the Department of Natural Resources to
determine any access that is appropriate to enhance the
sport fishery. The factors used to make the decisions are
listed on Page 3, starting on Line 6.
6:25:08 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze noted that he is a member of an outdoor
group and asked if the Department of Fish & Game was already
doing that work. Representative Gara acknowledged that was
the intent, however, little progress has been made. The
Department has not made it a priority. The intent of the
bill is to "shake" the Department up so that public access
is not lost.
6:26:22 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired about the Department's budget
process. Representative Gara stated he had worked directly
with the Department and if it were not made a priority, they
would not do it.
Representative Holm acknowledged that there was no desire by
the Department to address anything that was not listed on
their priority list. He reminded members that the
Legislature cannot mandate, they can only appropriate.
6:28:15 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze voiced concern with the type of access
being proposed for fishing and hunting. Representative Gara
noted that he had voted for the University lands bill
because it required that the University not give away land
before knowing if there would be public access to any rivers
or streams that have fish. He claimed that there is not a
good land title system in the State.
6:29:41 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered if there was a conflict of
interest with his involvement with the Alaska Outdoor
Council (AOC). Co-Chair Meyer asked if that group supports
the bill. Vice-Chair Stoltze replied they have not to date.
Representative Gara pointed out that the largest sport
fishing groups statewide support the bill, but could not
speak for the Alaska Outdoor Council.
6:30:58 PM
Representative Holm pointed out statewide concern, as there
has not been a complete survey of those lands.
6:31:50 PM
Representative Kelly referenced Page 2, Lines 3 & 4,
regarding the protections. He thought that to get AOC's
support, insert, and "trapping "following" hunting and
fishing help. Representative Gara agreed.
6:33:06 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that "multiple-use" has varying
meanings depending on the group. Representative Gara
pointed out that Page 3, Lines 7-10, defines public access
broadly, including many purposes. He noted that it was not
his intent to divert the Department from waterways.
6:35:49 PM
Representative Kelly suggested amending the language by
adding other uses.
6:37:03 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to DELETE Section #1, the Findings
and Intent section, Amendment #1. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that Section #1 had been
drafted to give the Department guidance to alleviate concern
of private landowners and give those landholders comfort.
He reiterated that the bill only deals with voluntary land
trades and purchases.
6:38:59 PM
Representative Weyhrauch agreed with Vice-Chair Stoltze,
suggesting that the language could be added as a Letter of
Intent to accompany the bill rather than an actual bill
section.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
6:39:42 PM
Representative Kelly reiterated his recommendation that
multiple use language be added.
6:40:20 PM
Representative Hawker discussed the fiscal note and the cost
of operations and MOVED that the fiscal note be zeroed out.
There being NO OBJECTION, fiscal note #2 was zeroed out.
6:41:39 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 37 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 37 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Fish & Game and a new zero note by the House Finance
Committee for the Department of Natural Resources.
6:42:34 PM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 102(FIN) am
An Act repealing the Alaska coastal management program;
relating to an extension for review and approval of
revisions to the Alaska coastal management program;
relating to reviews and modifications by the Department
of Natural Resources; relating to coastal resource
district policies; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 45, ch. 24, SLA
2003; and providing for an effective date.
MELANIE LESH, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, noted that the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) is a partnership
between federal, state, and local governments providing a
voice in federal decision-making. Alaska is one of 34
coastal states that utilize the program, which annually
channels millions of dollars in federal grant money. ACMP
has helped guide coastal development in Alaska since it was
enacted in 1977 and without the program, State and local
governments lose their ability to control development on
federal land and the outer continental shelf. In addition,
the State will lose millions in federal coastal management
planning money.
In 2003, HB 191 substantially revised the State coastal
program. The federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM) must approve the revised program. The
2003 legislation included state-imposed deadlines for
revisions to local coastal programs. Coastal districts are
attempting to follow the statutory directive to revise
programs to meet the new requirements, but have repeatedly
said that they need more time to complete that process.
Ms. Lesh noted that the version before the Committee extends
the existing statutory deadline for district coastal program
submissions by eight months and a correlative delay in dates
annulling existing standards and program until March 1,
2007. The extensions would ensure an orderly and efficient
transition to the new program.
Ms. Lesh advised that the House Resources Committee amended
the bill setting a "kill date" ending the Coastal Zone
Program entirely if OCRM approval does not occur by January
1, 2006. That date is the deadline in which the Department
has assured the Legislature, OCRM will have approved the
(NEPA) National Environmental Protection Act or the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process of the new
State coastal program. That section puts in place the
repealing and sunset clauses. An amendment in the House
Resources Committee allowed those provisions to take effect
after May 10, 2006, which leaves the Legislature time to
act, if necessary, to extend the sunset dates of the old
coastal management program.
6:46:46 PM
JOE BALASH, STAFF, SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, pointed out that
the House Resources Committee substitute made five changes:
· Extends the deadline in accordance with what the
Governor indicated he would support;
· Provides for a sunset and audit four years after the
full implementation of the changes;
· Adds language regarding the adoption by reference of
State statute regulations as well as federal
regulations;
· Changed the old district programs; and
· Provides a specific deadline for the Department to
update their "ABC" list.
6:49:16 PM
Representative Croft questioned a provision indicating that
the entire program would be eliminated if the federal
government did not approve it. Mr. Balash explained that
st
the July 1 deadline was "keyed" from what the feds
indicated they intended to. It takes approximately 14-weeks
st
to complete an EIS. Given the January 1 date, there should
be enough time for Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM) to engage in the commitments they made to
the State of Alaska. The date that the sunset and/or appeal
th.
takes affect is May 10. That date provides the
Legislature an entire session to deal with the ramifications
if OCRM fails to approve the program. He indicated that it
resulted from Section 22, crafted in the House Resource
Committee.
6:51:47 PM
st
Representative Croft understood that the January 1 date was
not problematic. He asked why the State would want to be
placed in that consequence, given that the program is the
only way which the State can have impact on federal
decision-making. Mr. Balash explained that date had been
chosen because other dates in earlier sections of the bill
st
returned to March 1 either 2006 or 2007. In order to
satisfy the Governor's requirement for the 6-months, grants
additional time for districts to revise plans for review and
approval.
6:53:30 PM
RANDY BATES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
& PERMITTING, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, offered to
answer questions of the Committee.
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the fiscal note. Mr. Bates
explained that by extending the coastal district submissions
deadline, it would extend the time frame that it takes the
Department to review and approve plans. The revision was
th
supposed to occur June 30 2006. There are currently funds
to accommodate staff review coastal district plans. The
th
remaining money runs out June 6, 2006. In order to be able
to accommodate and review those decisions, the Division
needs three staff for eight months as requested in the note.
6:55:56 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted an amendment included in member's
packets, which would extend the program. He asked if that
would increase costs. Mr. Bates replied that Amendment #1
would not impact the fiscal note.
6:56:24 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned if the employees are currently
on staff.
6:56:43 PM
Mr. Bates corrected previous comments, noting that Amendment
#1 significantly impacts the note.
6:57:04 PM
Representative Holm asked if the employees were currently on
staff. Mr. Bates stated they are currently on staff and the
request keeps them there for an additional eight months.
JUDY BRADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OIL AND GAS
ASSOCIATION (AOGA), ANCHORAGE, stated that "they could live
with the version of the bill" adopted by the House Resource
Committee. She noted that AOGA had opposed possible
extensions for a number of reasons and that they would like
to see HB 191 implemented. Ms. Brady added that AOGO would
support the bill but could not support any other extension.
6:59:29 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired why they would not support any
further extensions. Ms. Brady advised that AOGA would like
to see OCRM finish their work. The initial program was
voluntary. The needs of the program have changed
dramatically in the past thirty years. Passage of HB 191
recognizes the differences and refocuses the program. She
noted delays on the State side. OCRM has not supported any
of the changes and has deliberately "dragged their feet" for
implementation.
Representative Croft inquired about the current need for
coastal zone management plans. Ms. Brady explained that the
State was interested in that program during the 1970's;
however, today, those needs have changed and HB 191 reflects
that. Some of the enforceable policies are now enacted in
State, federal and/or municipal law. There are
implementation questions; AOGA does not want to go another
three years before anything happens. She emphasized that it
should not be a federal program.
7:04:34 PM
Representative Croft inquired how did "threatening to
withdraw from the program" affect the relationship with the
federal government. He thought that would be illegal and
problematic. Ms. Brady commented that their attorney had
evaluated OCRM's arguments, finding them wrong in every
instance. No other state in the Union has been held to the
standard that Alaska has. The Alaska program is a "jewel in
the crown" of the federal agency and coastal management is a
big deal. She believed the federal government would never
let the program go and that a long implementation period
would negatively affect and jeopardize the program.
7:07:40 PM
Co-Chair Meyer summarized that AOGA supports the House
Resources Committee date and does not support the amendment.
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT a corrected
Amendment #1, Line 3 and Line 7, deleting "February" and
inserting "March" and Line 11, deleting "March" and
inserting "April". Vice Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Weyhrauch requested that the record reflect
the true and accurate costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON addressed Amendment #1. He spoke in
support of SB 102, which allows the State to impose their
standards on federal land. Current dates indicated in the
bill allow the Legislature time to act. If it ends on
st
January 1, the Legislature is removed from the loop.
Representative Seaton spoke to the fiscal note, clarifying
that the way in which the program works is in six-month
st
intervals. Beginning July 1, the money could only be used
for implementation of the preliminary approved plan. There
is nothing in regulation that prevents the local districts
from continuing to use funds for developing local district
plans. He highlighted the process of review and asked when
it "goes away".
7:15:45 PM
Representative Seaton observed it would leave without
approval. The federal money would remain and then could be
used for other activities for local costal district plans to
be written. The federal money cannot be used for approval
implementation after the initial six months.
7:17:56 PM
Mr. Bates added that the Amendment could result in the
fiscal note being increased by $467 thousand dollars. The
program received $2.8 million federal dollars. Amendment #1
would provide a two-month extension. He provided a brief
history. OCRA has been preparing for the past several
st
months for the preliminary approval of July 1, 2006.
Preliminary approval only extends the time for six months.
st
January 1 would be the date deadline in which the State
could no longer spend monies on the implementation of the
coastal program. By extending the deadlines as proposed in
Amendment #1, the State agency could access those funds. In
order to supplement the money to guarantee that the program
works toward change, the fiscal note represents the amount
needed by the Division to keep employees working.
7:21:46 PM
Representative Croft questioned why the federal government
would want to "shut off" the money.
7:22:52 PM
Mr. Bates responded it is a federal law, which only allows
for federal approval for the six months; there is no way to
bend that extension past the six months. He reiterated that
the State could no longer expend the federal funds.
In response to further queries by Representative Croft, Mr.
Bates pointed out that HB 191 change coastal management and
requires implementation of the regulations. The coastal
management program is codified in HB 191. The State cannot
choose to alternatively implement another program that
either the Legislature has not embraced or acted upon. If
st
OCRM does not finish their work by January 1, 2006, there
are no more federal funds to continue implementing the
program.
Mr. Bates added, the Administration opposes the amendment.
7:26:07 PM
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Mr. Bates
th
noted that on April 14, 2005, a letter was received
detailing the final changes needed for approval of the
coastal program. The Division is in the process of making
those regulatory changes. He provided information regarding
timelines needed for preliminary approval. Presently, the
program is basically approvable.
7:28:21 PM
Mr. Bates commented on why the Administration objects to the
time extensions. The Governor has committed to three
timeline extensions for coastal management:
· Extending the State standards
· Extending the revised coastal plan deadline by six
months
· Extending the district plan sunset deadline by six
months
The extensions were tiered off in HB 191 and included in the
House Resources Committee version, the one the supports. He
advised that the Division and the Administration do not
support Amendment #1.
· OCRM has been preparing for eight months and when
preliminary approval is offered, it would be within
thth
that time frame. On April 14 and 18, an agreement
was made regarding the need for additional steps to
get e ACMP into a form under federal law.
· It is expected that preliminary approval will be
st
made by July 1, 2005.
· OCRM has confirmed that they can and will approve
NEPA within the six-month time frame.
· Without a deadline, it is an invitation for the
federal government to delay approval and hold the
agency hostage.
· Extending the deadline will cost the State a
significant amount of money.
· The amendment forces the Legislature into emergency
action next year. It is important to recognize that
the structure of the committee substitute without
Amendment #1, provides the Legislature authority
needed for approval of the coastal program.
· The Legislature would have the session to evaluate
the position.
7:33:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Moses, Stoltze, Foster,
Meyer, Chenault
OPPOSED: Joule, Croft
Representative Weyhrauch was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
7:35:42 PM
Representative Croft stated for the record that
Administration's the position would hurt all the coastal
communities. He commented on the risk damage and hoped it
would survive without too much trouble for the State.
7:36:56 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB 102 (RES)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
HCS CS SB 102 (RES) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #2 by the Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, zero note #3
by the Department of Administration, zero note #4 by the
Department of Environmental Conservation and fiscal note #5
by the Department of Natural Resources.
7:37:22 PM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 124(L&C)
An Act relating to requirements to obtain and maintain
a fisheries business license; relating to security
required of fish processors and primary fish buyers;
and providing for an effective date.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-GS1013\L,
Utermohle, 5/6/05, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
JERRY BURNETT, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
stated that SB 124 requires, as a condition of obtaining and
maintaining a fisheries business license under AS 43.75.020,
an acknowledgment of the obligation to pay the taxes levied,
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) assessments under
AS 16.51, employment security contributions under AS 23.20
and Alaska Occupational, Safety, and Health Administration
(OSHA) fines under AS 18.60. The bill proposes to deny the
applicant a fisheries business license until they have paid
in full, all those taxes, assessments, contributions, and
fines that are outstanding.
Mr. Burnett pointed out that the bill also repeals and
reenacts AS 44.25.040, requiring the filing of a performance
bond by fish processors and primary fish buyers. The bond
would be more accessible for collection of claims by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) for
unpaid employment security contributions. That action would
be achieved by providing a process for the Department to
file directly with the Commissioner of Revenue, a claim
against the bond instead of obtaining a court judgment.
Additionally, the bill preserves existing statutory priority
for use of the bond to pay fishermen and employees first.
In order to achieve that, the Department would be obligated
to return money collected from the bond if the processor or
buyer did not replenish it and the fisherman or employee
obtained a final judgment against the bond.
In conclusion, SB 124 provides that if a bond is depleted by
the Department's claim, the fish processor or fish buyer
would be subjected to an increased bonding requirement.
7:40:07 PM
AT EASE: 7:41:38 PM
RECONVENE:7:43:43 PM
Representative Moses MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
GS1013\I.2, Utermohle, 5/7/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
7:44:00 PM
MARK HICKEY, LOBBYIST, JUNEAU, explained that he represents
two rural boroughs with significant fishing activity. He
noted that both client's support and urge prompt passage.
The current bill deals with applicable local fishery taxes.
In effect, if the bill passes, in order to retain the
license, there are criterion the processor must be current
on and that includes local fishery taxes. The section the
amendment attempts to change is on Page 2, Lines 22-24.
Mr. Hickey explained why the amendment was needed. It
replaces current language with new wording that triggers a
decision relating to the processor paying taxes at the local
jurisdiction. One of two things could occur:
· Final judgment through the court; or
· An administrative determination made by the
municipality regarding the unpaid fishery taxes,
certifying due process.
Mr. Hickey stated without the provision, a final judgment
becomes a lengthy process to obtain. Incorporating the
amendment provides a quicker "trigger".
7:48:48 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the proposed language would
provide a final administrative determination challenge
during the legal process. Mr. Hickey said during a typical
process, payment would be held in escrow and the mechanism
would not be triggered. He had no idea what the end result
would be; however, the intent is to determine a reasonable
and useful structure.
Co Chair Meyer requested legal assistance in response to
Representative Hawker's query.
7:50:59 PM
CHRIS POAG, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
commented that an administrative appeal to the Supreme Court
would address if the administrative action was challenged in
the Superior Court and could result in a different finding.
He spoke to the State, not municipal law. If a license
action were taken, a final administrative decision could be
implemented.
Representative Hawker noted that if there were an
administrative determination made at the final level, it
could provide a strong base not taking that action. He
indicated support for Amendment #1.
7:53:14 PM
Representative Kelly agreed, noting it could help the
municipality and raise the trust level.
7:53:50 PM
Mr. Poag explained that the difference with the political
subdivision administrative process, the provision provides
administratively before the State taxes are used to deny a
license. There are processes used before the final penalty
affects the license. When the Department of Revenue
receives the notice from a political subdivision, they have
to refer that to the Department of Law to provide a case
analysis, which requires that the Department of Law
determine if the procedural safeguards were provided. It is
important that when an administrative process takes place,
taxes owing cannot be relied upon unless the taxpayer knows
that their license may be affected. Such action could
trigger a review necessary by the Department of Law.
Mr. Poag advised if the amendment were implemented, the
Department would need to deal with the State's hearing
process regarding unmet concerns.
7:56:52 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the process could be simpler.
Mr. Poag stated that the way the amendment was drafted, the
political subdivision presents the Department of Revenue,
the administrative finding. If there were a sufficient base
to deny that license, they would be afforded a hearing
before it could be denied. The burden falls upon the
Department of Revenue and that causes concern.
7:58:43 PM
Representative Hawker inquired if there was any reason not
to resolve the conflict through the regulatory process. Mr.
Poag explained that the Department of Revenue would be
denying the person the license and in order to do that, it
is important that procedural safeguards are in place. Such
action is done on a case-by-case base. The Department of
Law is responsible for each one.
8:00:16 PM
Representative Hawker recommended that the amendment should
move forward with the understanding of that intent. He
encouraged work to be done with the sponsor of the amendment
in order to resolve departmental concerns.
Representative Kelly commented on "good faith" during the
process.
8:01:50 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #1.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was adopted.
8:02:03 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero note #2 by the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, zero note #3 by
the Department of Fish & Game, zero notes #4 & #5 by the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development and zero note #6
by the Department of Revenue.
8:02:42 PM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 125(JUD)
An Act relating to the licensing, regulation,
enforcement, and appeal rights of ambulatory surgical
centers, assisted living homes, child care facilities,
child placement agencies, foster homes, free-standing
birth centers, home health agencies, hospices or
agencies providing hospice services or operating
hospice programs, hospitals, intermediate care
facilities for the mentally retarded, maternity homes,
nursing facilities, residential child care facilities,
residential psychiatric treatment centers, runaway
shelters, and rural health clinics; relating to
possession of a firearm at licensed entities and
facilities; relating to criminal history requirements,
and a registry, regarding certain licenses,
certifications, approvals, and authorizations by the
Department of Health and Social Services; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date.
DR. RICHARD MANDSAGER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, provided Committee
members a handout - Public Health, Protecting and Promoting
the Health of All Alaskans. (Copy on File).
Dr. Mandsager pointed out the three goals of the bill.
· The Department currently licenses or certifies 19
programs administered under at least 12 different
statutory schemes. The Division of Public Health
has been given the responsibility of managing the
licensure and certification of the programs. Dr.
Mandsager explained that each program has different
rules and the goal is to standardize and simplify
regulatory and statutory law.
8:05:16 PM
· The second goal is to determine how to minimize the
risk to vulnerable clients by utilizing background
checks as they work with the institutions. There
would be a two-part background check modeled on
existing programs.
· The bill envisions a private registry.
Dr. Mandsager noted that Amendment #1, clarifies the
immunity language. (Copy on File).
8:08:22 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the zero fiscal notes. Dr.
Mandsager explained that the original bill had a small
fiscal note from the Department of Law, however, that
Division received a large federal grant from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services to pilot the approach to the
background checks. There is money in the grant to pay for
regulation development; hence, the notes were zeroed out.
MICHAEL MACLEOD BULL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERITIES UNION (ACLU), voiced concern with how vague the
criminal registry was and the prohibition conflict with the
State's duty to provide service to prisoners.
Mr. Bull supported the link between the restriction imposed
on a person coming out of prison, who may or may not have
been rehabilitated. Basically, ACLU opposes implementing
more barriers for those re-entering society.
Mr. Bull proposed use of a mechanism to define the listing
process. If the name were on a registry then that person
would be barred from interacting with the entity.
Objections exist on two levels:
· Policy level - The more barriers placed on a person,
the more difficult it becomes to reenter society;
and
· Constitutional right for rehabilitation of
prisoners.
8:13:40 PM
MARIE DARLIN, COORDINATOR, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED
PERSON'S (AARP) TASK FORCE, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
legislation, which would put all regulations for assisted
living into one place.
AMY ONEY, ASSISTED LIVING HOME, ANCHORAGE, spoke in support
of the reorganization, but expressed concern with the
registry. She believed that the language was too broad.
8:17:10 PM
Representative Holm inquired if the proposed legislation
could level the playing field between profits and non-
profits. Ms. Oney agreed, pointing out that the bill has
brought attention to that matter, yet voiced concern that
licensing costs for funding would not be able to keep up
with regulation requirements.
8:19:24 PM
Ms. Oney discussed the regulations detrimental to the
existing homes because of extensive requirements for those
homes. There is no way for those costs to be recouped,
which places the home in a difficult position.
Representative Holm mentioned his concerns with the
regulation requirements. Ms. Oney explained that in the
proposed regulations, there are requirements on food
handling such as the number of times hand towels must be
laundered and how that is documented.
8:21:26 PM
Representative Holm felt that regulations could be onerous
in regard to family-style dinner situations. Ms. Oney
agreed.
Representative Holm reiterated his concern about the process
and asked if the elderly are threatened in the homes in any
way. Ms. Oney responded that in some homes, there are
existing beds. If there is no quality level of care, the
homes loose clients. There are regulations now regarding
the certification process; the next step proposed could
place a "huge burden" on the administrative process for the
smaller homes.
8:24:21 PM
Representative Holm recalled the arbitrary decision made to
cut back dollars allocated for each patient. Ms. Oney said
that resulted from refinancing room and board cap. It went
from beyond the indicated amount for Adult Public Assistance
(APA) and refinanced that into the Adult Medicaid funds.
The amount changed from $75 dollars per day to $18.54 per
day. She added, her business has experienced a net loss of
$4,000 to $5,000 per month. Homes have gone through the
regulatory review for those extra funds in order to meet
their business obligations.
8:26:32 PM
Representative Holm was disturbed with the way the State of
Alaska treats elderly. It is not in the best interest for
the State to make the regulatory practice so difficult that
it impacts providing consistent care.
8:27:44 PM
SHERRY METTLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTED
LIVING INDUSTRY, FAIRBANKS, addressed concerns of the non-
profit versus the profit playing field. Larger homes have
higher resources and time to review regulations, which total
230 pages. She addressed "safety issues" and how
regulations affect the simplest tasks.
Ms. Mettler commented on the registry and the process of
hiring. She indicated concern with misconduct and abuse
issues the registry proposes, pointing out that every person
working in the industry must have a criminal background
check. To create another level of criminal justice could
potentially destroy lives and discredit homes. It puts
everyone at risk working in that industry. She reiterated
her concerns regarding the registry, the burden on those
homes and cuts to administrative costs.
8:31:22 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
GS1016\L.1, Mischel, 5/7/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
STACY KRALY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
noted that Amendment #1 provides a technical correction.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
8:34:28 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. Vice-
Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Croft pointed out that there are different
classes of volunteers. He maintained the purpose of the
amendment was to remove the requirement for criminal
background checks for "supervised" volunteers in facilities
listed.
Dr. Mandsager agreed with the intent of the amendment. He
pointed out that problems arise where volunteers might form
a regular relationship with the home's clients and then
might take advantage of that client. Dr. Mandsager
suggested alternative language on Page 11, Line 15, deleting
"or" and inserting "and who have regular contact with
individuals who receive services from the entity or". That
language should cover volunteers that are coming on a
regular basis.
8:38:20 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that there could be a
regular volunteer group such as a Sunday church group. He
suggested that the Department provide guidance through the
regulations.
8:39:05 PM
Representative Croft reiterated his argument in support of
the amendment.
Vice-Chair Stoltze noted that he has regular contact with
the homes in his district, as do the Eagle Scouts and other
groups.
8:40:36 PM
Dr. Mandsager noted that the intent was to limit the number
of crime background checks on volunteers to those that spend
regular, unsupervised time with the clients. He hoped to do
that through regulation.
8:41:25 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze mentioned clerical visitations as being
one of the most regular-type of volunteer help.
Representative Hawker spoke in support of the amendment,
suggesting that "unsupervised" would be the correct
approach. Discussion followed between members regarding the
intent of "unsupervised".
8:43:59 PM
Representative Holm stressed the importance of encouraging
volunteers and cautioned against creating more bureaucracy
than necessary. He requested that the bill be held in
Committee.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
8:45:32 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Croft explained that the amendment would
insert language on Page 14, Line 25, "shall be notified of
such placement and", and on Page 14, Line 28 insert, "if the
department finds no relation between the information placed
on the registry and the risk of harm to the entity's
clientele".
Ms. Kraly noted that the Department would support that
language.
In response to Representative Hawker, Representative Croft
reviewed the definition of "substantial". Representative
Hawker questioned if "substantial" should be struck.
Representative Hawker MOVED to AMEND the New Amendment #3,
by deleting "substantial". There being NO OBJECTION, it was
amended.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the amended
amendment. There being NO further OBJECTION, amended
Amendment #3 was adopted.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT HSC CSSB 125 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Holm OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Joule, Stoltze, Croft, Hawker, Meyer,
Chenault
OPPOSED: Holm
Representative Kelly, Representative Moses, and
Representative Foster were not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-1).
HCS CS SB 125 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with zero note #2 by the
Department of Health & Social Services and zero note #3 by
the Department of Law.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|