Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/21/2000 09:01 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 21, 2000
9:01 AM
TAPES
SFC-00 # 55, Side A & B
SFC-00 # 56, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 9:01 AM
PRESENT Co-Chair John Torgerson, Co-Chair Sean Parnell,
Senator Al Adams, Senator Pete Kelly, Senator Randy
Phillips, Senator Gary Wilken, Senator Green, Senator
Leman, Senator Donley.
Also Attending: WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game; SENATOR
JOHNNY ELLIS; KATHERINE REARDON, Director, Occupational
Licensing, Department of Community & Economic Development;
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation; VERN JONES, Chief
Procurement Officer, Division of General Services,
Department of Administration; ELMER LINDSTROM, Special
Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Health and
Social Services; AL ZANGRI, Chief, Vital Statistics,
Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social
Services; SHARI PAUL, Staff, Alaska Children's Trust.
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: KENDALL
THOMAS, Board President, Alaska Hepatitis C Coalition;
LARRY ALLEN UNGERECH, owner, Anchorage Tattoo Studio; DAVE
LLOYD; MONICA MORTERUD; JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 267-SAME DAY AIRBORNE HUNTING
The sponsor testified, along with the Department of Fish &
Game. A committee substitute was adopted. The bill was
moved from committee.
SB 34-BD OF BARBERS ETC/TATOOS; BODY PIERCING
The sponsor testified, along with the Department of
Environmental Conservation, the Department of Community and
Economic Development and the general public. A committee
substitute was adopted. The bill was held in committee.
SB 220-PROCUREMENT PREFS:PARTNERSHP/LTD LIAB CO
The Department of Administration testified. The bill was
held in committee.
SB 249-DEPT NAT RES & AK HARD ROCK LAND EXCHANGE
The Department of Natural Resources testified. The bill
was moved from committee.
SB 254-HEIRLOOM MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES
The Department of Health and Social Services testified.
The bill was held in committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 267(RES)
"An Act relating to management of game."
Senator P. Kelly made a motion to move SB 267, version 1-
LS1430\K for consideration by the Senate Finance Committee.
Hearing no objection, it was so moved.
Senator P. Kelly, as sponsor to this committee substitute,
explained some concerns with the previous version of this
legislation, more specifically with Section 1. He reported
that this section had asked the Department of Fish and Game
to prioritize their activities around intensive management
issues. He noted that the department had some concerns
with the language, as well as related fiscal concerns and
this section was removed.
Senator Wilken stated that he had a couple of concerns as
well. He noted that he would not object to moving the bill
from committee, but he was concerned about how this
legislation flew in the face of the referendum that was
composed a few years ago and the related public perception.
He felt as though there were other ways to control wolf
populations that do not carry the burden of public
perception.
Senator P. Kelly responded that the referendum for predator
control was initiated four years ago. He added that the
public wanted predator control as a management tool in
whatever form possible. He referred to a poll taken to
substantiate this sentiment. He stated that this present
administration refuses to implement wolf control practices
based on the separation of powers. He added that the
administration is willing to use sterilization and
relocation practices, but noted that this was extremely
expensive and not that effective. He declared that the
community of McGrath needs help with their wolf problem.
He reported that this legislation puts the power to
institute a program for wolf control into the hands of the
Board of Game.
Senator Wilken asked why they could not recognize the
program of "fair chase" and proper trapping principles.
Senator P. Kelly responded that there was a problem with
"fair chase" as a means of predator control, since the
problem has become bigger than these efforts could rectify.
He then gave examples of how the wolf problem has escalated
in McGrath.
Senator Phillips stated that the moose population in
McGrath was at 1200 rather than 2500, a more optimum level.
He continued that the Board of Game has made a decision to
allow for trapping and shooting of these wolves to cull the
population to a sustained yield, which should be around 20.
He referred to language in this new version that allows
taking a wolf, same-day, as a hunter is airborne and felt
as though the public would have a problem with this
allowance. He stated that he could not support this
legislation.
Senator P. Kelly responded that the absolute minimum to
bring the moose population back is 2500, but he did not
think this low number was acceptable. He continued that
this process could take 10 years without instituting more
severe management practices. He referenced money raised by
environmental groups for media purposes, efforts that are
most times misleading and inaccurate.
Senator Phillips asked what the sustained yield for moose
population was in the McGrath area.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game responded that in early 80's,
there was probably any where from 4,000 to 5,000 moose in
the area. He continued that presently there is about 1,400
of these moose now. He added that the board agreed to
build this population to a minimum number of 2500.
Senator P. Kelly made a motion to move SB 267 from
Committee with individual recommendations and a zero,
Department of Fish and Game fiscal note.
Senator Phillips objected. A roll call vote was taken on
the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Green, Senator Donley,
Senator Leman, Senator Adams, Senator Wilken, Co-Chair
Parnell, Co-Chair Torgerson.
OPPOSED: Senator Phillips.
The MOTION PASSED: (8-1)
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 34(L&C)
"An Act relating to tattooing and body piercing;
relating to fees charged by the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers; and providing for an effective date."
Senator Ellis as sponsor, gave a synopsis of this
legislation. He noted that this legislation would protect
Alaskan consumers by increasing the safety and health
standards of tattoo and body piercing artists by licensing
these practitioners through the Division of Occupational
licensing. He explained that these activities are not
currently licensed in Alaska and added that the impetus of
this legislation came about because of an Anchorage
practitioner and a constituent, which resulted in
infections. He continued that the fiscal note is
negligible with costs fully covered by the licensure fees.
He added that the committee substitute before the committee
simply conforms language due to a change in statute with no
substantive change regarding intent.
Senator Green asked if there was a figure of how many
people have their body pierced or tattooed on a yearly
basis. She wondered about the necessity for this
legislation due to the numbers of individuals affected,
especially by placing one of the associated practitioners
on the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.
Senator Ellis responded that there are 10 legitimate
practitioners in the State of Alaska. He gathered that
there are thousands of people in Alaska per year that
receive tattoos and body art. He stressed the public
health concerns as versus the raw number of people affected
by this legislation. He stressed the associated disease
factor through these activities.
Senator Leman asked if enough investigation had been
conducted to ascertain whether barbers or hairdressers
take offense with the assimilation of tattoo artists and
body piercers under their jurisdiction.
Senator Ellis responded that the barbers and hairdressers
are not opposed to this legislation, but they are not
excited about taking on other classifications. He noted
that these same individuals understand the public safety
issues involved.
Senator Green asked what the increase of liability would be
to this board.
Senator Ellis responded that the department could speak to
this possible increased liability. He pointed out that
there were enough legitimate operators that feel as though
this legislation is long past due.
Senator Green stated that there was nothing to prevent this
particular mother, whose daughters were harmed through body
piercing, to sue this unlicensed practitioner. She also
wondered if medical doctors do body piercing, mainly, ear
piercing. If so, she wondered if medical doctors needed an
exemption from this legislation.
Senator Ellis answered affirmatively to this latter
concern.
Senator Green expressed that she thought this legislation
legitimized the act of body piercing and tattooing.
KATHERINE REARDON, Director, Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development stated that
the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers supports this
legislation. She added that there was a drafting error on
page two, line 20. She noted that the number of Barbers
and Hairdressers board members should be six instead of
five. She pointed out that the number of representatives
comprising this board should be two barbers, one tattooist
or body piercer, two hairdressers and one public member.
Senator Adams made a motion to adopt SB 34, version 1-
LS0279\K as the committee substitute. Hearing no
objection, it was so adopted.
Ms. Reardon gave her reasoning why an even number of board
members outlined in this legislation would be effective.
She explained that since none of the present board members
has experience with tattooing or body piercing, they
thought it would be helpful to have someone with experience
join their ranks.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to page 7, line 25, the
following language:
If the licensee is nonpracticing, the licensee
shall inform the board.
He wondered if this was standard procedure.
Ms. Reardon responded that this section was unique to the
field of tattooing and body piercing. She explained that
if a questionable shop exists, the division should have
knowledge of who is the licensee in charge of this
establishment. She felt as though this language would go a
long way in determining whether someone is practicing
without a license. She referred to language on page 8,
line 4 and again on line 9 as follows:
(11) "body piercing" means puncturing the
body of a person for a fee by aid of needles or other
instruments designed to be used to puncture the body
for the purpose of inserting jewelry or other objects
in or through the human body, except the, for purposes
of this chapter, "body piercing" does not include
puncturing the external part of the human ear for a
fee;
(12) "tattooing" means the process by which,
for a fee, the skin is marked or colored by insertion
of nontoxic dyes or pigments under the epidermis
portion of the skin into the top quarter of the dermis
so as to form indelible marks for cosmetic or
figurative purposes.
She continued to note that the medical profession does not
allow someone to conduct medical procedures on an
individual for free. She remarked that this body piercing
and tattooing legislation covers those individuals engaged
in these activities if they charge a fee.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to page nine, Section 25,
specifically line 16 - 18, where it is required for the
practitioner to keep records for five years. For
specifically it states:
(3) a practitioner in the establishment may
use only tattooing and body-piercing instruments that
have been sterilized in accordance with methods
approved by the department.
He felt as though this was a bit excessive.
Senator P. Kelly asked if a provision was included in this
legislation to require the signature of a parent for a
minor.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted that the powers given to
Department of Environmental Conservation under this
legislation is more than other oversight powers given the
department, including food service.
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, responded to a
concern lodged by Co-Chair Torgerson about the word
"supervised" on page 7, line 10. She outlined how the
department treats the barbers and hairdresser
establishments. She remarked that sanitary standards have
been developed in statute and the department will conduct a
review of each establishment once they commence their
businesses. She explained that after this initial
supervision, the department will respond to complaints if
any.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to page five, line six, which
states:
Sec. 08.13.150. Grounds for refusal,
suspension, or revocation of a license or permit. The
board may refuse, suspend, or revoke a license,
student permit, temporary license, or temporary permit
for failure to comply with this chapter, with a
regulation adopted under this chapter.
He asked if this was standard authority to give to the
department regarding other permitting activities.
Ms. Adair responded that to the extent the department
permits facilities, they certainly have the power to
withdraw this permit.
Ms. Reardon explained that the board can revoke a permit if
the practitioner violates a Department of Environmental
Conservation regulation. There was further discussion
between Co-Chair Torgerson and Ms. Reardon regarding the
procedure for reporting such violations. She noted that
this revocation would be true for all licenses issued by
the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked what current actions could be
taken against barbers and hairdressers who practice in
unsanitary conditions.
Ms. Reardon responded that the board could take action
against the licensee related to how they practice, not to
whether or not they do so safely or competently.
Tape: SFC - 00 #55, Side B, 9:47 AM
Co-Chair Torgerson voiced his concern about the Department
of Environmental Conservation adopting a regulation that
the board has no control over. He understood the need for
sanitary operations, but noted several arguments about one
agency adopting regulations that could potentially affect
another, with boards in the middle of potential frays.
Ms. Reardon referred to language on page 8, line 30, which
states:
Sec. 44.46.020. Duties of department. The
Department of Environmental Conservation shall (5)
adopt regulations for (B) the regulation of sanitation
and sanitary practices in the interest of public
health;
She noted that because of this language, the Department of
Environmental Conservation's authority is not being greatly
expanded.
Senator Green asked what procedures were currently in place
to respond to a complaint about a shop being unsanitary.
Ms. Reardon responded that if it were a tattoo or body
piercer nothing could be done. She continued that for a
hairdresser, the Department of Environmental Conservation
could tell the board about this situation. She added
though, that it does not appear the board could follow
through on this complaint because the only authority the
board has right now is to revoke licenses, if someone fails
to comply with a hairdressing statute. She continued that
these particular statutes do not include sanitary language.
Ms. Adair clarified that the Department of Environmental
Conservation considers cosmetology a low risk, while
tattooing and body piercing has a higher risk attached to
it. If the department received a complaint about a
cosmetology facility, the department would work with this
entity to fix the problem. She suggested that language be
drafted with the effective industry concerns included.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to his previous concern
regarding records be kept for five years.
Ms. Adair referred to information about hepatitis C, a
disease that should be considered when drafting this
legislation. She felt as though this was why five years of
records were required for documentation of transmission.
She stated that she would research this issue further.
KENDALL THOMAS, Board President, Alaska Hepatitis C
Coalition stated that the transmission of Hepatitis C is
strongly associated with the practice of unclean body
piercing and tattooing. She stated that the association
believes that licensing and inspection of sites will reduce
the risk of individuals becoming infected by Hepatitis C
and other blood borne pathogens. She explained that at
least 11,000 Alaskans are infected with Hepatitis C,
although it is not known how many of these contract this
condition through unclean techniques used through tattooing
and body piercing. She then gave a history of her
background as a Registered Nurse and the regulation this
profession comes under for any invasive procedure.
LARRY ALLEN UNGERECH, Owner, Anchorage Tattoo Studio
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated
that he advocated the licensing of this industry. He was
skeptical that this requirement should come under the
auspices of barbers and hairdressers though. He noted that
all other states are licensed through the health department
except for Idaho and Alaska. He added that his studio
tattoos 8,000 individuals per year. He referred to page
five, Section 13 - 20, language that exempts licensing
individuals in small communities. He pointed out that in
these areas there is a high rate of problems with people
who have no training.
Senator Ellis responded that this exemption for small
communities only applies to barbers, hairdressers and
estheticians.
Mr. Ungerech continued to note that his business keeps
business records for three years, in case a client has a
particular color that eventually fades. He added that this
way, they know what color not to use again. He asserted
that he did not quite understand the reason for keeping
records for a period of five years, although he said he
would not oppose this requirement. He added that he could
provide documentation showing that there have been no cases
of HIV transmission related to tattooing in the United
States. He revealed that his establishment does not
administer tattoos to anyone under the age of 18, parental
permission or not.
DAVE LLOYD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
described how he is a union carpenter and a reformed drug
user. He explained that after being tested for Hepatitis
C, it was determined that he carries the antibodies for it
and attributes his exposure to having been tattooed earlier
in his life. He then read a fact sheet to the committee
regarding this disease.
MONICA MORTERUD testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She stated that she was the mother of twins
violated by an unlicensed body piercer. She gave the
details of how this man made contact with her daughters.
She noted that because presently, there is no oversight
regarding these activities, she has no recourse. She
responded to earlier comments made about the possibility of
suing this individual, a person who has no viable assets.
She gave details about the injuries inflicted on her
daughters as a result of these body piercing and
experiences of other establishments piercing her daughter's
ears without parental consent.
Senator Leman asked if Ms. Morterud would support the
inclusion of language requiring parental permission for
children under 18 years old for any body piercing,
including those for earrings, as well as tattooing.
Ms. Morterud responded that she would appreciate these
efforts.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to page two of the related
fiscal note regarding $3,000 for the development of a
written exam.
Ms. Reardon responded that test takers will pay the
division and this money will be applied to purchase copies
of these written exams. She noted that this $3,000 would
be a one-time expense.
Senator P. Kelly suggested that a system for penalties be
included in this legislation for perpetrators who inflict
injuries related to health considerations.
Senator Ellis responded that this legislation takes into
account a complaint driven system, but the related statutes
do not have a lot of enforcement ability. He felt as
though a penalty system outlined in this legislation would
be justified.
Co-Chair Torgerson ordered the bill HELD in committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 220
"An Act clarifying the requirements for limited
liability companies and partnerships to qualify for
the Alaska bidder's and disability preferences under
the State Procurement Code; and providing for an
effective date."
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration stated that SB 220
clarifies the Alaska bidder and disability preferences
related to state procurement statutes regarding limited
liability partnerships and limited liability corporations
(LLP and LLC). He noted that the department's procurement
code was written in 1987 before the exceptions of an LLC
and an LLP. He explained that these entities were allowed
to organize in the mid-1990s, so the preference section in
their procurement code does not reference these. He
continued that this legislation inserts specific language
referencing these types of businesses in the preference
sections of the code, as well as stipulating the qualifying
factors required for receipt of preferences. He added that
this language would clarify the existing statute and
enhance the objective that Alaska businesses receive these
preferences.
Co-Chair Torgerson clarified that limited liability
partnerships do not have to be Alaskan residents.
Mr. Jones responded that there is a new class of businesses
that should be given a preference, but the existing statute
does not allow for these types of businesses. He continued
that the department has no vehicle to give the Alaska
bidder preference and other residency based references to
these Alaskan businesses.
Mr. Jones clarified that this legislation is a technical
amendment to the department's procurement code. He noted
that the department has been giving these entities the
Alaska bidder preference by policy, but they feel as though
they are on shaky ground doing this, so hence the
codification.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked about the residency requirements
regarding managing directors of an LLC or an LLP. He
wondered about awarding LLC or LLP status to a business
with only one managing director in Alaska.
Mr. Jones responded that if one managing director is or all
managing directors are Alaskan residents, then this would
be considered an Alaskan business.
Senator Green asked if the title of managing director was
unique to these types of companies. She asked why these
entities fall outside the current statute.
Mr. Jones responded affirmatively to the first question
posed by Senator Green and explained that the legal
definition of a LLP is different than that of either a
partnership or corporation by virtue of the enabling
legislation that deals with these entities.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if an LLC could have as many board
of directors as stipulated in their bylaws.
Mr. Jones responded that he assumed so, yes.
Co-Chair Torgerson pointed out that, if this were so, then
their bylaws could designate just one managing director as
being an Alaskan resident and qualify for the bidding
preference.
Mr. Jones responded that he could not confirm this
absolutely.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked what this legislation allowed for
as a definition of "resident."
Mr. Jones responded that this definition was contained in
AS 36.3170. He continued that a company, as defined under
this section, must hold a current business license, submit
a bid or a proposal under this license and maintain a
business in the state six months prior to a particular
procurement.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to page two, line 20 regarding
the following language:
(2) partnership under AS 32.05 or AS 32.11 if
each of the partners is a person with a disability;
Co-Chair Torgerson wondered what individuals this
legislation was attempting to include.
Mr. Jones responded that in order to qualify for the
disability preference, the company must also qualify for
the Alaska Bidder Preference. He added that these
individuals would all have to be residents of the state.
Co-Chair Torgerson stated that the language dealing with
managing director should be clarified to either "one" or
"all" managing directors and ordered the bill HELD in
committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 249
"An Act authorizing a land exchange between the
Department of Natural Resources and Alaska Hard Rock,
Inc.; and providing for an effective date."
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks & Outdoor
Recreation, Department of Natural Resources testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that the
Independence Mine State Historical Park is located about 90
miles from Anchorage, past Palmer. He continued that this
is an historic mining operation closed down during WWII.
He noted that this area receives 250,000 visitors each
year. He declared that maintaining this park's facilities
is expensive and it was decided that an adaptive reuse was
the only way to ensure that these buildings remained
standing. He explained that this would entail the reuse of
structures as visitor destination facilities that could
include such things as overnight lodging, food service,
gift shop and tours.
Mr. Stratton divulged that there is not enough cash flow in
lodging and food service alone to support the investments
needed to adapting and reusing these facilities. He
pointed out that another attraction was necessary, such as
underground mine tours, but the state does not own beyond
200 feet of the tunnel. He informed that committee that
this tunnel is owned by Alaska Hard Rock Incorporated. He
concluded that both the state and this entity was
interested in exchanging land, more specifically, Alaska
Hard Rock was interested in pursuing an exchange for
property the state owns on the Willow Creek side of Hatcher
Pass for the underground tunnel property. He went into
specific detail about how this land exchange was initiated
and the terms of the associated agreement, which included
unequal land values of the parcels involved, requiring
legislative approval.
Senator Phillips noted some complaints earlier in the
process regarding this exchange and wondered if there had
been anymore since.
Mr. Statton said that there had been no more complaints,
other than two during the public comment process. He
reported that these were vastly outweighed by the support.
Senator Green made a motion to move SB 249, version 1-
GS2071.A from the Senate Finance Committee with individual
recommendations and an attached zero, Natural Resources
fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so MOVED.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 254(HES)
"An Act relating to heirloom certificates of
marriage."
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services stated that this
bill was in addition to legislation, which passed several
years ago creating the heirloom birth certificate program.
He added that at an extra charge an individual is able to
purchase a birth certificate that is basically a work of
art, suitable for framing. He added that this program has
generated over $50,000 for the children's trust so far. He
pointed out that this present legislation allows for
marriage heirloom certificates, following the same model as
the birth certificate program, with a surcharge added to
the cost of obtaining a certificate. He informed the
committee that the funds from this program would also go
into the Children's trust.
Senator Phillips objected to adding more employees to the
state budget, something this legislation proposes to do.
He stated that he did not think the state could afford this
program presently.
Mr. Lindstrom responded that this was a self-supporting
program, as well as generating significant revenue for the
Children's Trust.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked what the new employee would do in
the capacity of carrying out their duties.
AL ZANGRI, Chief, Vital Statistics, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services stated
that this additional employee would conduct computer
research and generate the actual certificates, including
making sure the individuals who apply, are eligible to
receive a certificate. He noted that the employee who
generates the birth certificates, as mentioned previously,
is a three-quarter-time position.
Senator Phillips said he would not support this legislation
if it created another position.
Mr. Zangri stated that a volunteer could not conduct these
tasks as a paid employee would, since the information they
would deal with is confidential.
Senator Green asked if the listing of grants generated from
the fund since 1998, at the inception of this program, was
included in a list provided to the committee.
SHARI PAUL, Staff, Alaska Children's Trust noted that this
grant list is for the current year. She added that she
could provide a list for the fiscal year 2000 grantees and
the annual report for the trust is forthcoming.
Co-Chair Torgerson ordered the bill HELD in committee.
ADJOURNED
Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 10:45 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|