Present: Gail Dawn, Tom Charron, Laura Woitte, Rebecca Dykema, Jeff Holcomb, and Joyce Vos, Executive Secretary (staff).
Guests: Mary Potter, Dennis Potter, Gloria Nichol, Susan Clift, and Rhanda Heller.
The hearing was called to order at 2:00pm. It was explained that Staff would read each proposed Administrative Rule, explain the changes, then the audience would have an opportunity to address the changes and to be specific to just that Rule.
Staff read and explained the changes to both ARSD 20:76:02:01 and 20:76:02:02 since they were relatively the same subject. Susan Clift asked the board what criteria they used to determine the $65 license fee, which is the maximum allowed in Statute. She said she could probably support the board’s decision if she could see budgets and determine that the board needed the money. Staff explained she didn’t bring any budgets to this hearing. Clift also stated that K Mueller and D Hollingsworth from the Dept of Health stated that the massage board could function with a $50 license fee during the past legislative session and wouldn't they know? Staff noted that DOH did develop the initial budget and the board had followed their recommendations. She also stated that there isn’t enough budgetary history to study yet in order to predict the future. It’s all still in the development stage. She noted that she and her assistant just submitted the FY09 budget and felt it was a lean as possible. After a lengthy discussion about the budget, number of licensees, not receiving any renewal income until after July 2008, general expenses in running a board office, etc., Jeff Holcomb provided some rough numbers he penciled together. It was presented that the $65 fee was required in order to sustain a responsible budget. Clift requested a $50 fee unless the board could definitely show a need otherwise.
Rhanda Heller spoke against the $65 fee based on the testimony she has presented in the past. She asked if the board had trimmed the budget from the previous Executive Secretary’s tenure and asked what the new Staff was getting paid. Staff offered that her contract was less and at $24,000. Heller thanked her for the information and noted she could have found out anyway. More discussion ensued but when pressed to stay on the topic, she stated $56 was an average of all the States that require a fee and requested the board shoot for something less than the proposed $65. Staff noted that the board was appointed by the Governor and charged with its fiscal responsibility, and some trust has to be involved. Gloria Nichol stated that she felt that $50 was enough to charge for a license fee and asked that the board consider it.
Staff explained that the proposed 20:76:03:02 was repealed since the change is newly addressed in Statute and Statute cannot be repeated in Rule.
Staff explained why she’s suggesting the slight changes in 20:76:03:03, how she foresees the renewal process will take place, and how licensees will complete the continuing education reporting process. She stated that she plans to send out a newsletter to licensees after the Rules are approved explaining the processes they will need to know, and hopefully answering many questions they may have. The audience thanked her for that.
Staff explained the slight changes in 20:76:03:05.
Staff explained that she suggested repealing 20:76:03:06 requiring an audit since the continuing education requirement was newly reduced in Statute from 16 hours to eight. She felt that licensees could easily provide proof of eight hours of CE every two years with copies of their certificates of completion without a need for an audit. The audience agreed with the suggested process.
Staff explained that the suggested changes in 20:76:03:07 were merely grammatical in nature.
Staff explained that since the inactive status was newly added to Statute it had to be addressed in Rule. Rhanda Heller asked if there was a fee to go inactive. Staff explained that SDCL 36-35-18.1 states a licensee may go inactive upon payment of an application fee and that ARSD 20:76:02:02(3) proposes it be $65. Staff stated that “upon payment of an application fee” could imply the already existing $100 application fee, but felt that paying a $65 fee to go inactive indefinitely was fair while other licensees are paying it annually as a renewal. Plus the office has the responsibility to keep the inactive licensee file open indefinitely. Heller spoke out against a fee. Then she presented a scenario: what if she waits until July 1, 2008 to go inactive for an undetermined length of time, can she still be grandfathered in for a license when she doesn’t want to be inactive anymore? It was explained that only licensees can go inactive so she would need to get a license first, and prior to July 1, 2008 if she wants to be “grandfathered”. Staff explained how the inactive process works. A license is good, or active until renewal time. The office doesn’t need to know mid-year that the licensee isn’t working or needing to go inactive. Renewal time is when the licensee needs to make the choice to go inactive and notify the office. The office will have the licensee complete a form documenting their choice to go inactive, and collect the $65 fee. When the licensee chooses to reactive their license in order to practice massage therapy again, they would need to follow ARSD 20:76:06:01. Heller maintained that the $65 fee was still too high.
President Dawn asked if there was any more testimony on the proposed Rules that had not been previously heard. Hearing none, a motion was made by Woitte, seconded by Dykema and passed by the board to adjourn further hearing input at 3:05pm.
At 4:00pm the Board convened its discussion of the Rules taking into consideration the public input. The board discussed the $65 fee renewal fee, budget revenue and expenses, etc. Holcomb’s estimated budget figures were considered. Tom Charron proposed a one-time extension of an extra year for the licensees that paid the initial $200 for a two-year license, making it a three-year license renewal period before they’d have to pay a $65 renewal. Staff wasn’t sure if that was legal since Statute and Rules speak about annual renewal, and that perhaps a moratorium or waiver would have to be instituted. Staff also noted it would greatly reduce the board’s income since the majority of the initial licensees (approximately 500) would get the extension.
Staff explained that she had to complete a Fiscal Impact Statement for these proposed Rules. The estimated figures indicated the savings to the licensees with the decrease in the license and renewal fee, as well as the decrease in the required number of continuing education hours. The first year and continuous yearly savings for the licensees is estimated at $43,750. The first year and continuous yearly decrease to the board budget due to the fee decrease is estimated at $17,500.
President Dawn presented figures that indicate our fees, when combined with the continuing education requirements, place SD 29th lowest out of the 37 states that require licenses, and that $56 was only the average of all the license fees without the continuing education taken into account.
Staff asked if the board wanted her to call and try to get budget figures from her office at this time and they said yes. Her assistant relayed the following numbers from a current DOH report:
FY06 yearend = ($21,914)
FY07 yearend = $60,890
FY08 yearend proposed at $35,567
FY09 yearend proposed at $3,385
Staff expressed that her office had calculated a lean year for 2009 but didn’t remember it being that lean. Staff wanted to emphasis that FY08 and 09 were figured on the $65 license and renewal fees and anything less would mean a deficit budget.
Hearing these figures Holcomb made a motion to accept the proposed Rules as presented and proceed with the Rules process. Woitte seconded the motion and the motion was passed unanimously.
M/S/P to adjourn the Rules Hearing at 4:50pm.
