Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/25/2009 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB35 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to commercial fishing loans for
energy efficiency upgrades."
TIM CLARK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGEMON, discussed
the CS of HB 20, which amends the Commercial Fisheries Loan
Act. He elaborated on the sections with amended language
(Copy on File).
2:31:41 PM
Mr. Clark finished with the Retroactivity Clause in section
3. Section 4 sets an immediate effective date for the bill.
2:32:32 PM
Representative Foster wondered about preferential treatment
for people in rural areas. He voiced the need for loans to
be made available to other Alaskans, such as Alaska Native
artisans, as well as fishermen.
2:33:53 PM
Mr. Clark replied that he believed that artisans may be
eligible for loans under the Rural Development Initiative
and possible small business or economic development loans.
Representative Foster wondered why the loans were not coming
from a bank, as would a car or home loan.
2:34:45 PM
Mr. Clark explained that the Commercial Fishing Loan Act was
established in early 1970, at a time when the industry
needed state assistance. He said the program was a different
way for fishermen, who may not have had a credit history, to
acquire loans. Representative Foster pointed out that there
used to be small loans available for miners. He stressed
that not only fishermen needed loans to operate.
2:36:49 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze said that these loans were available only
to commercial fishermen. Representative Foster maintained
that there are banks available to provide loans for viable
businesses.
2:37:31 PM
Mr. Clark explained that the criteria for the loans are
directly related to the needs of fishermen. The loans that
are approved are directly related to commercial fishing.
2:38:18 PM
Representative Foster wondered if the loans are only
available to Alaskan residents. Mr. Clark replied yes.
GREG WINEGAR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INVESTMENTS, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, stated
that DCCED supports the bill with amendments. He felt that
the amendments were consistent with the mission of the
Commercial Fishing Loan Act.
Co-Chair Stoltze moved Amendment 1, 26-LS0124\P.1, Kane,
6/26/09 (copy on file):
Page 2, line 1, following "permits;":
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 2, line 4, following "efficiency;":
Insert "or
(iii) for new construction related to a vessel for
the purpose of improving energy efficiency in a loan
amount not greater than $100,000;"
Vice-Chair Thomas OBJECTED.
2:40:11 PM
BEN MULLIGAN, STAFF REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, stated that
the amendment puts a clause in place to cap loans for new
vessel construction at $100,000. He explained that in some
cases replacing an old vessel is more efficient than
investing in repair on the old vessel.
Co-Chair Hawker wondered what would happen to older vessels
if replaced by new vessels. Mr. Mulligan replied that the
vessel owner could sell the vessel outright or for scrap. He
said that it would be up to the owner of the vessel. Co-
Chair Hawker felt that there was a gap in the logic of
replacing an old vessel that could be repaired with an
entirely new vessel.
2:41:04 PM
Representative Foster questioned the practicality of the
amendment.
2:41:57 PM
Mr. Mulligan replied that the amendment left it up to the
individual boat owner to decide the best course of action
when upgrading vessels.
Vice-Chair Thomas explained how the fishing industry works.
He relayed that he personally would not qualify for a state
loan because he could qualify for a bank loan. He stressed
that the loans are meant for fishermen who are struggling
financially. He told of the cost of fuel and the burden it
can place on the fishermen. He explained that boats are
often recycled among fishermen.
2:43:52 PM
Representative Kelly remarked that he read the amendment in
a different way. He hoped that the loans were going to be
issued to upgrade old boats and not to buy new vessels.
2:44:59 PM
Representative Fairclough referred to page 2, line 4 of the
bill. She understood that the amendment does not pertain to
new vessels. Co-Chair Stoltze clarified the intent of the
amendment was to not put energy efficiencies on a deficient
boat. Representative Fairclough maintained that the language
was unclear.
2:45:52 PM
Mr. Winegar understood that the amendment did pertain to new
vessels. He remarked that the purchase of new vessels would
be limited.
Vice-Chair Thomas WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
2:46:56 PM
Representative Kelly maintained that the language in the
amendment was unclear.
2:47:27 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas reiterated his support of the amendment.
2:48:17 PM
Representative Kelly felt that some vessels had been left
out of the bill altogether.
2:49:14 PM
Representative Foster asked about the delinquency rate on
the loans. Mr. Winegar explained that the rate was 7
percent. Representative Foster thought that the rate was
high. Mr. Winegar thought the rate would decline throughout
the year. He pointed out that the fund has performed well
from a financial standpoint. Representative Foster
maintained that the rate of return was disappointing. Mr.
Winegar assured that the overall numbers speak favorably for
the program.
2:50:51 PM
Representative Kelly thought there was still a
misunderstanding of whether or not the bill applies to new
boats. He requested clarification from the Department of
Law (LAW).
Co-Chair Hawker understood that the bill addresses new
vessels. He requested clarification. Mr. Winegar said he
could not answer the question. Co-Chair Hawker thought
clarification was warranted.
2:52:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze contended the bill should be held until the
language could be clarified by LAW.
Representative Foster expressed frustration with special
interest groups. He felt that fishermen are given
preferential treatment that is not extended to miners. Co-
Chair Stoltze responded that he understood Representative
Foster's concerns.
2:54:21 PM
Representative Gara reported on constituent comments about
expanded eligibility for the loans. He understood that there
was a class of people that did not qualify for the loans.
2:55:56 PM
Mr. Winegar explained that there are separate sections in
the statute that addressed the issue. Under Section A the
applicant does not have to have been turned down by a bank.
Section B requires that the applicant has tried to qualify
for a bank loan and has been turned down. A lower interest
rate distinguishes the difference.
Representative Gara commented that his constituents wanted
loans to improve energy efficiency.
Mr. Clark explained that the intent of the bill is to
correct inequities, widen eligibility, and to encourage
conversion of vessels to prevent high energy costs.
2:58:53 PM
Representative Kelly reported that he had similar
constituent concerns.
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB35 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 03 HB35 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 04 Bellotti v Baird.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 05 State v. Planned Parenthood.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 06 Court Forms re Bypass.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 11 HB35 Backup.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| Amendment 1 to HB 20.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| Amendment 2 to HB 20.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB 35 Overview by Rep. Coghill.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |