HOUSE BILL NO. 239 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners in Optometry; and providing for an effective date." HOUSE BILL NO. 240 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners; and providing for an effective date." HOUSE BILL NO. 241 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy; and providing for an effective date." HOUSE BILL NO. 242 "An Act extending the termination date of the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; and providing for an effective date." 8:37:22 AM DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, referred to the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development Professional Licensing Program's Annual Report dated December 2013 (copy on file). He relayed that numbers in the fiscal notes had been derived from the annual report. He communicated that there were four replacement fiscal notes for HB 239, HB 240, HB 241, and HB 242. Mr. George addressed the fiscal note for HB 239. The analysis in the first three paragraphs on page 2 remained the same. New language had been added related to the extension of the Board of Examiners in Optometry including a summary of the board's FY 12 through FY 13 biennium data, revenues, expenditures, biennium surplus/deficit, and ending cumulative surplus/deficit. The analysis also included a description of the FY 08 through FY 11 cumulative data and number of licensees. The format was repeated in the fiscal notes for all four bills. He communicated that the board's revenues in FY 12/FY 13 were $74,540 and expenditures were $94,478. There was a biennium deficit of $19,938 and a cumulative surplus deficit of $44,755. 8:39:49 AM Mr. George discussed the fiscal note for HB 240. The second page of the note reflected the FY 12/FY 13 biennium data for the extension of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The board's data included revenues of $179,215, expenditures of $168,800, a surplus of $10,415, and a cumulative surplus of $80,344. 8:40:29 AM Mr. George pointed to the fiscal note for HB 241. The second page of the note reflected the FY 12/FY 13 biennium data for the extension Board of Marital and Family Therapy. The board's data included revenues of $63,165, expenditures of $85,197, a deficit of $22,032, and a cumulative surplus of $112,195. 8:41:11 AM Mr. George addressed the fiscal note for HB 242. The second page of the note reflected the FY 12/FY 13 biennium data for the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board. The board's data included revenues of $250,000, expenditures of $325,365, a deficit of $75,365, and a cumulative deficit of $55,238. Representative Guttenberg noted that the OMB component number [at the top right of the first page] on each of the fiscal notes was the same. He wondered how the numbers were determined. Mr. George deferred the question to the department. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the question would be addressed later in the meeting. He relayed his intent to address the bills one at a time, beginning with HB 239. He added that the bills had been previously heard and public testimony had been taken. HOUSE BILL NO. 239 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners in Optometry; and providing for an effective date." 8:42:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, SPONSOR, briefly discussed the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the sponsor's vision for the legislation. Representative Reinbold wanted to keep the examiners in optometry in business. Representative Costello noted that the board was carrying forward a deficit. She wondered what the legislature would be communicating by extending a board with a deficit. 8:45:36 AM Representative Costello reiterated her question. Additionally, she wondered how the deficit would impact the department's actions moving forward related to setting board fees. DON HABEGER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, replied that the division recognized that some boards were in a deficit position; the information had been communicated in a report provided to the legislature. The department was cognizant of the business environment and was working to make licensing fees less onerous. Some of the programs had seen 100 percent fee increases; the increases represented a hardship for members. The department was taking some of the programs into compliance over a couple of cycles. Representative Costello asked for verification that the department planned to adjust fees if the legislation passed. Mr. Habeger believed that the fees for the Board of Examiners in Optometry had been adjusted 100 percent in the last cycle to help the board catch up. Representative Costello asked about efforts to increase board transparency. She wondered if there was an effort to share information pertaining to a board's fiscal status online. Mr. Habeger replied that the department was working to increase transparency. He spoke to various actions the department had taken towards the goal. He required an executive member of the division staff to present information to a board at every meeting; many boards met quarterly. Additionally, the information was discussed 6 months before a board's fee adjustment time. Lastly, the division posted the information online on a quarterly and year-end fiscal basis; the data was available to the public on the division's website. 8:49:02 AM Representative Guttenberg noted that the OMB component number on each of the fiscal notes was the same. He asked what the number indicated. Mr. Habeger deferred the question. ARNOLD LIEBELT, POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, answered that the OMB component number referred to how the funding would flow through the budget. The boards under discussion were all within the same OMB component number and would be broken out into detail within the department's budget. Representative Guttenberg asked how the debts were handled at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Habeger answered that the operating budget included specific language that carried forward a negative and positive balance; per statute, the division tracked and carried the balance as well. Representative Gara wondered how shifting to board meetings by teleconference would impact the state. He noted that members wanting to travel on their own could choose to do so. He spoke to the idea as a cost savings measure. Mr. Habeger answered that boards currently utilized teleconferences in conjunction with in-person meetings. For example, the medical board felt that it was necessary to meet in urban and rural communities to ensure that it was in touch with its constituency. The division honored the desire of the board. Representative Gara wondered if the division would have power to keep fees down by asking boards to hold meetings via teleconference. Mr. Habeger replied that he could make the determination, but did not believe it was always wise. 8:53:21 AM Representative Gara asked the division to maximize the use of teleconference meetings when possible. He referred to boards in deficit and asked if the division had the discretion to let them catch up over a two to three year cycle. Mr. Habeger replied in the affirmative. There were currently several programs catching up over multiple years. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that members were volunteers donating their time. He surmised that they did not enjoy taking time away from their profession. He believed the larger cost problem was related to investigations that may not be as well-rounded. He believed the members were judicious related to cost. Representative Thompson noted that most of the boards had the best intentions to avoid deficits; members raised their own dues for meeting travel. He stated that most of the deficits were caused by investigations and law suits. He did not believe members could be told how to spend their money. Representative Gara agreed with statements made by Co-Chair Stoltze and Representative Thompson related to travel. He asked if the Department of Law (DOL) conducted the investigations. Mr. Habeger replied that the division had its own investigators charged with investigating business and professional licensing. There were enforcement staff for Title 8. 8:57:00 AM Representative Gara pointed to costs charged to boards resulting from investigations. He noted that DOL sometimes billed an hourly rate that was much higher than the rate its employees were paid. He wondered if the boards were charged the actual cost of the investigator. Mr. Habeger replied that the board was charged an hourly rate. The division's investigators positively kept their time; if they were working for several programs they kept the information on their time sheets by the half hour as well. He added that the investigators were only charged for the time they worked. Representative Gara asked if the hourly rate was an accurate reflection of the cost of the investigator. Mr. Habeger answered that there was no markup charged. 8:58:37 AM Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 239 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 239 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the House Finance Committee for the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.