Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/16/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB53 | |
| HB268 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 16, 2016
1:32 p.m.
1:32:47 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cathy Munoz
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Sponsor; Gene Therriault, Deputy
Director, Statewide Energy Policy Development, Alaska
Energy Authority, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development; Michael Lamb, Chief Financial
Officer, Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority; Representative Liz Vasquez.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Carrie Doyle, Adult Health Clinical Nurse Specialist,
Alaska Clinical Nurse Specialists Associations; Laura
Sarcone, Certified Nurse-Midwife and Past Co-Chair,
Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Alliance; Gail Bernth,
Executive Administrator, Board of Nursing; Tracey Wiese,
Family and Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, and Co-Chair
Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Alliance.
SUMMARY
HB 268 AIDEA: DIVIDEND TO STATE; INCOME; VALUATION
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 53 ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the meeting for the day. He
reviewed legislative procedure and decorum regarding the
committee and legislation process.
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to advanced practice registered
nursing; relating to certified direct-entry midwifery;
and providing for an effective date."
1:35:12 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, SPONSOR, thanked the chair for
hearing the bill. She explained that the legislation would
update the state's 34-year-old statute titles pertaining to
nurse practitioners. The existing title was "advanced nurse
practitioner (ANP)" and "nurse anesthetist (NA)" The bill
would implement the updated term of "advanced practice
registered nurse (APRN)." The bill did not change the scope
of practice performed by advanced practice registered
nurses. She referred to a chart in members' packets
illustrating title changes the bill would put in place
(copy on file). She detailed she had served on the National
Council of State Boards of Nursing in the past; during her
time on the council the title for advanced practice
registered nurses was standardized in a consensus model
document agreed to by all of the states. She elaborated
that prior to the change, each state had its own title for
advanced practice registered nurses. The top portion of the
chart showed ANP and NA, which were the old terms. Three
subspecialties fell underneath the ANP umbrella including
nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife (responsible
for delivering babies), and certified clinical nurse
specialist (employed in hospitals).
Senator Giessel continued to address the title chart. The
proposed statute change was represented in the lower
portion of the chart. The title would change to APRN and
four subcategories included certified nurse practitioner,
certified nurse-midwife, certified registered nurse
anesthetist, and certified clinical nurse specialist.
1:37:51 PM
Senator Giessel relayed that the bill's only function was
to transform state statutes to reflect the updated APRN
title change. Part of the reason for the change was due to
confusion within insurance companies. She detailed that
each state had been using a different title; therefore,
sometimes reimbursements were denied because insurance
companies (including Medicare and the Veterans'
Administration) did not recognize the credential of the
person who provided the service. The bill would make Alaska
in uniform conformity with other states. Currently there
were 1,000 advanced practice registered nurses in Alaska;
therefore, the change would impact a large number of
clinicians.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to Senator Giessel's testimony
there had been reimbursements based on confusion about
service providers. He asked for examples and the associated
value.
Senator Giessel explained that a primary care provider
could bill insurance for services just like a family
practice physician. She was personally an APN or NP under
the current category. She detailed if an insurance company
did not recognize what ANP stood for, it would question
what kind of reimbursement the she would be entitled to for
the care of a patient. The bill would standardize the
title.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if Alaska was behind other states in
making the changes.
Senator Giessel answered that 13 states had implemented the
change in title. Additionally, there were currently about
29 states (including Alaska) working on making the change.
Co-Chair Thompson noted Representative Gara had joined the
meeting.
1:40:05 PM
Representative Gattis asked if the label changes would
force any kind of wage change paid by hospitals. She
wondered if the bill would make a difference from the
hospitals' standpoint. Additionally, she wondered if the
change would result in different costs to patients.
Senator Giessel responded that it would make no difference
in the reimbursement or wage for any of the categories of
APNs. In terms of hospital practice, the certified nurse-
midwife and the certified registered nurse anesthetist were
the two categories that would be practicing both inside and
outside hospital facilities. The nurses had been doing so
for numerous years if they had hospital privileges. The
clinical nurse specialist practiced almost exclusively in a
hospital. She relayed the bill should not change their pay
category at all.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if additional
credentials would be necessary if a nurse practitioner's
title changed to certified nurse practitioner. Senator
Giessel answered that the requirements for certification
would remain the same. She detailed that since ANPs had
been recognized in Alaska (for 34 years), national board
certification was required to receive a license in advanced
practice. The bill would not change the requirements. The
same national certifying boards would still administer the
same examinations and certified in the same way.
Representative Guttenberg observed the title chart showed
nurse anesthetists as separate under existing law, but it
included them under APRNs in the proposed law. He wondered
about the bill's impact on nurse anesthetists and asked if
they were supportive of the legislation.
Senator Giessel explained that the reason ANPs and NAs were
separate on the upper portion of the chart was due to the
way the statutes had been originally written. The new title
would put everyone under the APRN title. All four of the
categories under APRN were part of a coalition, which
unanimously supported the legislation.
Representative Guttenberg appreciated the answer. He
commented that sometimes alliances did not always speak
out.
Co-Chair Thompson called for invited testimony.
1:44:31 PM
CARRIE DOYLE, ADULT HEALTH CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST,
ALASKA CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALISTS ASSOCIATIONS (via
teleconference), read from a prepared statement:
I am Dr. Carrie Doyle, I am an adult health clinical
nurse specialist and represent the Alaska Clinical
Nurse Specialists Association. I'm also a member of
the Alaska APRN Alliance, which is comprised of all
four advanced practice registered nurse specialties,
AANA, and the University of Anchorage Alaska, as well
as the Board of Nursing. I'd like to thank you for
allowing me to testify in support of Senate Bill 53,
which is an act related to advanced practice
registered nursing that will align Alaska statute with
the nationwide movement called the consensus model.
Currently, as a clinical nurse specialist I am called
a nurse practitioner legally, which is not the role
that I perform and can be confusing to patients. So as
noted, there are four different specialties. That
being the nurse practitioner, the clinical nurse
specialist, the nurse-midwife, and the CRNA or nurse
anesthetist. The statute will separate these
categories. As I mentioned, the consensus model is a
nationwide movement that includes all four
specialties. It was comprised or built by the National
Council of State Boards and Nursing in conjunction
with an APRN workgroup that comprised of 48 different
national nursing organizations.
The consensus model does seek uniformity in APRN
licensure, accreditation, certification, and
education. Uniformity will expedite insurance
reimbursement as noted by Senator Giessel and by
eliminating confusion about service providers, which
in turn, eliminates the confusion with our patients.
It will also allow APRNs from other states to more
easily obtain Alaska licensure. Senate Bill 53 does
not change the scope of practice for ANPs and nurse
anesthetists who will still be able to continue to
provide that same high-quality, safe, accessible care
that they have provided to Alaskans across the state
for the last 34 years. It will just have a new name:
APRN. I thank you for your time today and ask that you
support Senate Bill 53.
1:47:02 PM
LAURA SARCONE, CERTIFIED NURSE-MIDWIFE AND PAST CO-CHAIR,
ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE ALLIANCE (via
teleconference), read from a prepared statement:
Good afternoon. My name is Laura Sarcone. I am a
certified nurse-midwife and I am the immediate past
co-chair of the APRN Alliance. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify in support of SB 53. The four
advanced practice nursing groups have been working on
this issue for nearly five years.
The APRN Consensus Model is a national "best practice"
act. It puts consumers, employers, APRNs, the Board of
Nursing, insurance companies, and the legislature on
the same page. It standardizes licensing,
accreditation, certification, and educational
requirements for APRNs. Thirteen states have already
fully implemented the Model. Another 29 states plus
the District of Columbia are more than fifty percent
implemented. Only 8 states are less than 50 percent
implemented and 33 states use the title "APRN."
The APRN Alliance has reviewed the fiscal note. We
understand that the $7500 cost will be recovered
through licensing fees and not general funds. We would
like to thank Senator Giessel for sponsoring this
bill, and for championing this issue on behalf of her
fellow APRNs. I urge you to vote in favor of SB 53.
Thank you.
Representative Gara asked Ms. Sarcone about why it took
five years for the various nursing groups to come together
on the issue. He wondered what the dispute had been. Ms.
Sarcone corrected that the nursing groups had been working
on the issue for nearly five years; it had not taken the
groups that time to come together. She explained it had
taken five years for the groups to work through the Board
of Nursing, getting language together, and requesting the
bill through Senator Giessel.
1:49:47 PM
GAIL BERNTH, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR, BOARD OF NURSING (via
teleconference), read from a prepared statement:
Thank you for hearing this bill and for permitting me
to address this hearing. The Board of Nursing has
requested that I voice their support of this bill to
update our regulations. This will help to bring Alaska
into compliance with the national consensus model
developed by the National Council of State Boards of
Nursing. I thank you.
1:50:19 PM
TRACEY WIESE, FAMILY and PSYCIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONER, and
CO-CHAIR, ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE ALLIANCE (via
teleconference), urged support of the bill.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to the bill's sectional analysis
(copy on file) and observed that Section 10 deleted
vocational nursing and added a paragraph requiring the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
to set fees to practice registered nursing. He asked about
the reason for the change.
Senator Giessel relayed that the bill would remove the term
"vocational" because it was no longer used; it had been
removed from most of the state's statutes by legislation
approximately five years earlier; the term that would be
deleted in the current bill had been missed when the
changes had been made in the past.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for verification it was conforming
language. Senator Giessel answered in the affirmative.
Representative Neuman remarked that Section 13 would amend
statute to add advanced practice registered nurses to the
persons authorized to supervise a practical nurse. He did
not know what the current qualifications were. He believed
the bill seemed to do more than merely change the name. He
observed the bill provided for more services or duties
nurses could do. He asked for detail on the change in
Section 13.
Senator Giessel explained that a practical nursing degree
was typically two years. She read from Section 13 of
existing statute: "a practical nurse shall work under the
supervision of a licensed registered nurse..." She
explained that a registered nurse was a higher level
licensure that qualified a registered nurse to supervise a
licensed practical nurse (LPN). She elaborated that an
advanced practice registered nurse was at minimum a
master's degree (most of the education was moving towards a
doctoral degree). The section added the doctorally prepared
nurse who would also supervise the LPN.
1:54:01 PM
Co-Chair Neuman referred to Sections 52 through 54. He
stated that the bill would add APRNs to the list of
practitioners who may, under statutory provisions
concerning mental health commitment, determine if a person
may be administered psychotropic medication without a
person's consent. He remarked that in other occurrences
pertaining to the medical industry, doctors were sensitive
to the ability to administer different prescription drugs
because of the amount of education they received,
particularly with the use of psychotropic drugs. He
wondered why the language was needed and believed it
advanced a nurse's authority substantially.
Senator Giessel began with Section 52. She clarified that
the underlined words in the bill draft represented areas
that would change current statute. The existing statute
read "as determined by a licensed physician or a registered
nurse..." She emphasized a registered nursing degree was
either two to four years (a bachelor's degree) and an
advanced practice registered nursing degree was a master's
or doctorate. Under existing statute an advanced practice
registered nurse could administer psychotropic medication.
The language simply clarified the statute by inserting
"advanced practice registered nurse" as well. She specified
that an advanced practice registered nurse was a higher
level registered nurse with prescriptive authority; a
registered nurse did not have prescriptive authority.
Senator Giessel moved to Section 53 related to the
definition of a mental health professional. The existing
statute applied to a registered nurse with a master's
degree in psychiatric nursing, which was the definition of
an APRN. She stated it was possible for an RN to have a
master's degree in psychiatric nursing, but not be an APRN.
She detailed it clarified that a nurse with a master's
degree or a doctorate could also be categorized as a mental
health professional. She referred to testimony by Dr.
Tracey Wiese who is a doctorally prepared mental health
professional. The definition did not extend or expand the
scope of practice.
Senator Giessel moved to Section 54 on page 25 of the
legislation. The original language had been "...reviewed by
a registered nurse licensed under..." The section pertained
to reviewing a residence assisted living plan. She
explained that an APRN was also an RN (the individuals held
two licenses and paid twice to the State of Alaska). The
language had been updated to clarify the inclusion of
APRNs.
1:57:34 PM
Co-Chair Neuman assumed that specific training would be
required for an APRN to administer psychotropic medication.
Senator Giessel answered that a nurse practitioner held
either a master's or doctoral degree and were currently
statutorily authorized to prescribe. She furthered that
with drug enforcement authority, nurse practitioners also
prescribed controlled substances should they decide to
apply for the authorization. She explained that nurse
practitioners had full prescriptive authority just like a
family practice or other physician.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that nurses performed some of the
clinical work in villages and some health centers without
doctors. He believed the bill would provide increased
opportunities within the state. He asked if it was part of
the reason for the legislation. He spoke to the need to
continue to reduce the budget, while ensuring medical
services were available throughout the state.
Senator Giessel answered that he was speaking to her heart.
She clarified that the bill did not change anything that
did not currently exist. She elaborated that many APRNs
practice in rural areas where no other healthcare was
available (including an Indian Health Service clinic). She
detailed that one of the provisions in another bill that
would come before the committee related to Medicaid would
allow nurse practitioners (particularly practitioners in
mental and behavioral health) to expand their ability to
practice. She thanked him for the question. She reiterated
SB 53 did not expand work performed by APRNs in rural
Alaska or in any other venue.
2:00:03 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the bill changed the membership
of the Board of Nursing such that it would impact the
professional licensing fee.
Senator Giessel replied in the negative. She explained
there was currently a seat on the Board of Nursing for an
APRN and the bill would make no changes to the area.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked which professional board would
regulate APRNs. He wondered if it would change the
"universe of license fee payers" and the required rate.
Senator Giessel responded that the bill would make no
changes to the area. She explained that currently APRNs
fell under the Board of Nursing; the board regulated about
12,000 licensees from certified nurse aides up to a
doctorally prepared APRN.
Senator Giessel thanked the committee for its time.
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:01:54 PM
AT EASE
2:02:51 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to the dividends from the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; relating
to the meaning of 'mark-to-market fair value,' 'net
income,' 'project or development,' and 'unrestricted
net income' for purposes of the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority; and providing for an
effective date."
2:03:16 PM
GENE THERRIAULT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE ENERGY POLICY
DEVELOPMENT, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, directed
attention to page 2 of the legislation. He addressed the
existing statutory language (implemented in 1996), which
required Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA) to pay a dividend to the State of Alaska. Shortly
after the statutory sections had been added, the
legislature had realized there were certain things that
happened as the enterprise achieved or received their
audited financial statement on a yearly basis. He detailed
that adjustments were made to net income in order to
receive the audited financial statement. He continued there
were certain things it made sense to back out, to get
closer to a true picture of the net income for the year
before the dividend was calculated for the state (in order
for the dividend to be calculated on income received by
AIDEA). He referred to the inclusion of the word
"excluding" on page 3, lines 3 and 21 of existing statute.
He explained it was a recognition of the legislature that
while certain things needed to be done to receive the
audited financial statement, certain accounting adjustments
needed to be backed out to get to true net income before
calculating the dividend to the state.
Mr. Therriault continued to address page 2 of the
legislation. The bill would expand the language (following
the word excluding) to include a couple of new accounting
rules and address a couple of problems AIDEA had identified
that were bringing unnecessary volatility to the
calculation of the AIDEA dividend. He elaborated there were
two problems the legislation aimed to fix. First, related
to mark-to-market adjustments that were required in order
to get the financial audited statement. Second, in
instances where AIDEA was tasked with looking at a project
and given an outside source of money (e.g. an appropriation
from the state or receipt of federal funds to look at a
specific project), previously the legislature instructed
AIDEA to disregard those receipts when they came in. For
example, if the legislature gave AIDEA $1,000 to look at a
project, it did not expect AIDEA to give half the money
back in the calculation of the dividend. The bill aimed to
fix the specific problem when any project had a component
that got written off. Additionally, mark-to-market
adjustments would be excluded.
Mr. Therriault pointed to the language on page 2, beginning
on line 5 and explained that losses on a project or
development to the extent it was financed with state or
federal grants (money appropriated to AIDEA outside of its
revenue stream) were to be disregarded. Line 7 specified
the mark-to-market adjustments done for accounting purposes
were to be excluded. He referred to a presentation his
colleague would provide momentarily and noted he had gone
through an abbreviated version with each committee member
or their staff. He believed the presentation included some
examples that would help committee members understand the
impact of the adjustments needing to be made in order for
AIDEA to get its audited financial statement and why it
made sense to back the items out to get back to true net
income in order to calculate the AIDEA dividend.
2:08:26 PM
Co-Chair Thompson referred to page 2, lines 8 and 26 where
a reference to AS 44.88.172 (the economic development
account) was removed. He wondered how the omission of the
account would impact the AIDEA dividend.
MICHAEL LAMB, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY, answered that there were
two [statutes] "155 and 172"; AS 44.88.172 pertained to
projects. To some extent the removal did not really have an
effect. Some of the language changes in the bill had gone
through Legislative Legal Services for clarification. He
explained that the bill included language specifying if
there was any financing for a project that came from the
state or the federal government "it comes out." He detailed
that part of the problem with AS 44.88.172 was it only
picked part of the projects that AIDEA actually did. He
explained the presentation noted that under the right set
of circumstances or an AS 44.88.172 project, it would have
an effect under current statute; however, under an AS
44.88.155 the language did not apply. The goal had been to
clean up the language by removing AS 44.88.172. Under
either case or type of project (even if it was an AS
44.88.155 project) if the money came from the state or the
federal government it would not affect the dividend. He
believed an example he would provide would clarify the
issue.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked there were quite a few projects
under AS 44.88.172.
Mr. Therriault believed AS 44.88.172 had existed when the
exclusion had first been added to the statute, but the
Sustainable Energy Transmission and Supply (SETS) funds and
other funds had not existed at that time. It had been very
specific that federal or outside grants that came into that
fund were to be excluded; by removing the language the
exclusion would apply to AS 44.88.172 and the other funds
that had been created since that time.
2:10:56 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Mr. Lamb to explain the term mark-
to-market fair value. Mr. Lamb replied that mark meant
adjusting to market. For example, if a stock had been
purchased for $1,000 and one year later it was worth
$1,100, the value was marked up to $1,100.
Vice-Chair Saddler had understood the term to mean "from
this to that, from mark to the market." He understood Mr.
Lamb's explanation to mean "ascertained it according to, in
reference to the market."
Mr. Lamb responded that the mark-to-market would be book
value on the financial statements according to what the
market deemed something to be worth as of a point in time.
Mr. Therriault relayed that Mr. Lamb would continue with
the presentation.
2:12:46 PM
Mr. Lamb introduced the PowerPoint Presentation, "Alaska's
Development Finance Authority" (copy on file). He indicated
that the bill was really about accounting. He relayed the
legislation was not overly complicated and the concept
would be clear to accountants. He had tried to develop
analogies in order to explain the cause and effect of the
legislation. He asked how much time the committee had.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated that there was about an hour
and fifteen minutes.
Mr. Lamb requested to hold questions until the end of the
presentation.
Mr. Lamb addressed slide 2 titled "AIDEA's Dividend:
History, Goal, Statutory Language, and Two Accounting
Problems Working to Fix." He relayed that the existing
statutory language was perfectly good; however, accounting
authoritative guidance had changed. He elaborated that the
impacts of the original language now had different
consequences if adjustments were not made. The primary
purpose of the bill was to fix the issue.
Mr. Lamb turned to slide 3: "AIDEA Dividends to State of
Alaska." He explained that the dividend process covered a
three-year period. He pointed to a chart on slide 3 and
specified the columns were year, year payable, and dividend
amount. The first row began with 1995, which was payable in
FY 96. He elaborated the books were closed and the audit
process was undertaken. Somewhere around December of each
year the staff recommended the dividend be declared by the
board based on audited results and then the checks became
payable in the third year. He relayed that the first
dividend was $15 million. He stated that ideally the
schedule would keep going into the future and more
dividends would be paid by AIDEA and received.
Approximately $380 million in dividends had been declared
over time. The original capitalization had been about $332
million. He stated there was time value, but in essence the
money that had been made available had been repaid through
the dividends, which would ideally persist perpetually into
the future.
2:16:41 PM
Mr. Lamb slide 4 titled "AIDEA's Dividend & Language Change
Goal":
Goal:
Share with the State, through an annual dividend (that
is stable and more predictable), the financial
benefits of AIDEA's actual results of operations.
Mr. Lamb discussed the goal of bringing stability and
predictability to the dividend. He recalled the first year
he had worked at AIDEA there had been a huge swing in the
net income (and dividend) and the board had specified an
explanation was needed to inform legislators about why the
dividend had dropped significantly. He had explained the
answer was easy - the unrealized losses had reduced the net
income. He reasoned the concept was easier said than
understood. He stated the stability and predictability "in
fixing it was partly driven by not having to deal with that
question."
Mr. Lamb turned to slide 5 titled "Dividend Statute
Language Needs Modernizing, As Accounting Rules Have
Evolved over Time." He detailed there were three types of
transactions (only the third one was really a problem,
which the bill addressed). The first pertained to real
transactions that actually occurred - real revenues were
earned, checks were written, and equipment was purchased.
The second pertained to estimates and allocations (i.e.
booking depreciation on purchased equipment, amortizing
intangibles, and etcetera). The third transaction type
related to entries from market value adjustments. He
detailed the entries were related to transactions that did
not occur, but were required to book and adjust the
records. He furthered that in order for AIDEA to be in
compliance with the audit it needed to be GAAP (Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles) based, which meant it was
necessary to follow the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) - the highest authoritative body. He explained
that AIDEA wanted to modernize the exclusion language [in
statute] to do a bit of cleanup, which was the essence of
the legislation.
2:19:31 PM
Mr. Lamb advanced to slide 6: "Payment of dividend to
state." He referred to statutory language specifying the
authority shall adopt a policy for payment of a dividend,
which may not be less than 25 percent of the net income. He
pointed to language at the bottom of the slide, which
pertained to the reason for the legislation. Net income was
statutorily defined and meant the change in net position or
the equivalent [term under GAAP]. He noted that in the past
net income had also been termed results of operations (the
terms were the same label for the difference between
revenues and expenses). He explained the statutory net
income had to be GAAP based; the net income number was the
result of the audited financials, meaning an audit that
followed authoritative guidance. He referred to the
additional language pertaining to exclusions [see slide 6].
Mr. Lamb continued to slide 7: "Dividend Calculation Stack
Visual." He noted the dividend to the state was at the top
of the slide, which was based on statutorily defined net
income. He continued that a GAAP based audited financial
statement was required and was accepted by the board. He
furthered that the financial statements had to include
applicable market value and/or write-down or loss entries
as required by GAAP, which in turn required GASB. He
relayed that HB 268 merely modified "excluding" language
from the audit results so that statutorily defined net
income would not include any market value and/or state or
federally funded write-down activity, when calculating the
dividend. Once the statutorily defined net income had been
determined the board was given a recommendation by staff
pertaining to the dividend amount (between 25 to 50 percent
of net income).
2:22:39 PM
Mr. Lamb read from slide 8: "Dividend Problem No. 1:
"Market Value" Adjusting Entries":
Problem 1:
1. G.A.A.P. keeps evolving, requiring booking/recording
"market value" adjusting entries. Essentially, act
like something happened that didn't happen, and book
it as though it did…
2. The result: AIDEA's "net income" swings, sometimes
materially, which means the State's dividend swings
sometimes materially yearoveryear, we want to fix
this.
3. And in the end, ultimately, the dividend payment is
a cash based transaction. (Paying it when cash
hasn't been earned is a problem for AIDEA, but
likewise, not paying it when it has been earned, and
is available, is a problem for the State.)
Mr. Lamb advanced to slide 9: "Problem No. 1 Analogy of
"Market Value" Entries Impacts" and slide 10: "$ Based Tax
Payer Analogy." Slide 10 showed a copy of the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) 1040 income tax form. He referred to
individuals as cash-based tax payers. He discussed that
individuals applied their final net income number to the
federal government's tax tables, which resulted in the
amount owed to the government. Likewise, AIDEA went through
a process to come up with a net income number, at which
point the board applied a tax or dividend rate of 25 to 50
percent.
Mr. Lamb moved to slide 11 and addressed an extract of the
income section 1040 tax form (shown on slide 10). He
reviewed the example depicted on the slide, which included
$100,000 net income. The example assumed a brokerage
account containing $250,000 earning 3 percent in the form
of interest and dividend, which would be declared under
lines 8 and 9 at $7,500. Line 21 reflected a $1,000
Permanent Fund Dividend. The total revenue number on the
slide was $109,000.
2:26:03 PM
Mr. Lamb addressed slide 12: "GASB Statements 31, 68, 72, &
75." He continued with the example and asked members to
suppose an individual had to apply the mark-to-market fair
value adjustment GASB standards. He spoke to volatility
brought on by GASB statement 31. He believed it was fair
and accurate to anticipate a compounding effect, which
would make volatility even greater. He detailed that GASB
statement 68 was related to recording the unfunded
obligation related to pensions. The pension unfunded
obligation had two sides to the balance sheet: assets and
liabilities. He furthered that much of the asset side
included investments (marketable securities). He elaborated
that GASB statement 31 would drive the gain and loss on the
retirement funds and the number would end up following
through to the income statement of all the local entities
(including AIDEA).
Mr. Lamb turned to slide 13: "Form 1040 Analogy - Add GASB
Impacts." He continued to address an example where the four
GASB statements applied to individual tax payers. He used
the IRS 1040 form and spoke to the various GASB statements
(31, 68, 72, and 75). He detailed that GASB 31 related to
marketable securities. He explained that anyone with a
portfolio where no sales or purchases were made within a
year, but the stocks were worth $25,000 more because the
market value had increased, the gain would have to be
recorded as if it had been sold to recognize an increase in
wealth. He elaborated it was an unrealized increase in
wealth, but it would have to be recorded. He relayed that
GASB 68 related to the pension side of the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) component. He spoke to
IRAs and 401k retirement plans. He furthered that
retirements account were worth about $200,000 and in the
example increased by about 5 percent over one year; the
increased adjustment would be claimed on the IRS form. He
relayed GASB 72 was a fair value adjustment and went into
effect for AIDEA at the end of the tax year June 30, 2016.
He provided an analogy of owning a rental property worth
$400,000 that had increased 5 percent over the year
($20,000). He specified that GASB 75 was not yet into
effect, but began for years ending June 30, 2018 (the item
pertained to the fair market value for other post-
employment benefits such as healthcare, disability, and
other); the example used an amount of $5,000. He explained
that due to the increases the total revenue on the form was
$60,000 higher. He detailed the adjustments could go in any
direction.
Mr. Lamb scrolled to slide 14: "HB 268's / SB 149's Impact
to 1040 Analogy." He addressed the proposed modification to
the excluding language - from AIDEA's perspective the
market value adjustments would be removed from its net
income. He referred back to the example on slide 13 and
explained the net income would be back down to $109,000 for
purposes of determining the dividend.
2:31:47 PM
Mr. Lamb advanced to slide 15: "AIDEA's Net Income, Pre-
G.A.S.B. 31 "Market Value" Adjusting Entries." The chart
depicted 25 years of AIDEA's net income from 1991 to 2015.
He remarked the income fluctuated - the largest swing had
been in 2003 to 2004 from about $35 million down to $25
million (each of the points on the chart represented the
year-end). He moved to slide 16: "GASB 31"Market Value"
Impact to Net Income" that showed what AIDEA's actual
audited financial statement numbers looked like when
factoring in GASB 31. He had used audited financial numbers
and had backed out GASB 31 unrealized gains and losses to
come up with the green line on the chart. The chart
indicated GASB 31 had begun in 1997; the yellow line on the
chart, which fluctuated substantially, reflected net income
post GASB 31 entries. He explained that AIDEA had been
required to calculate a dividend based upon the yellow
line. He discussed that most individuals were cash-based
tax payers; whatever the tax bill was, in theory, the
individual had the cash to pay the taxes, which was the
reason accrual was not used on personal income taxes. He
pointed to 2010 and relayed the net income had been
approximately $41 million; with GASB 31 it had increased to
close to $58 million. He explained it was a substantial
chunk to apply a 50 percent dividend to, while the money
had not actually been received in the bank. Blue lines on
the slide specified instances where GASB 31 made the
statutory net income number and dividend lower. He pointed
to 2013 and explained the audited net income prior to the
impact of GASB 31 had been about $44 million, whereas, the
mark-to-market effect (acting as though AIDEA had sold all
of the investments at June 30) had reduced the net income
to just above $20 million. He emphasized the scope of the
impact.
2:35:23 PM
Mr. Lamb continued to address slide 16. He explained that
2013 was an instance where AIDEA had the ability to write a
larger check, but the check was less because of the impact
of GASB 31 on the financial statements. He expounded that
if GASB 68, 72, and 75 were stacked on top of GASB 31, the
line would become even more volatile. He moved to slide 17:
"Problem No. 2 "Dividend Penalty" Adjusting Entries" and
slide 18: "Dividend Problem No. 2: "Dividend-Penalty"
Effect Adjusting Entries." He discussed that when AIDEA was
given money from the state or federal government (cash was
converted to build an asset), the asset was written off the
books (an asset that really did not have the value could
not be reported on financial statements). To get the asset
off the books the asset was reduced and it had to flow
through the income statement as an expense (basically a
write down), which resulted in less income. He addressed
that the dividend penalty could be 25 to 55 percent, which
AIDEA wanted to fix.
2:37:54 PM
Mr. Lamb turned to slide 19: "Potential Effect of an
Adjustment to State Funded Investment (Project X
Hypothetical)." Under the current statute the example would
be an AS 44.88.155 project; it was part of AIDEA's
revolving fund. He explained the computation of statutory
net income for the FY 17 dividend came out of the back of
the audit (Schedule 7). The total began at about $28
million; after adjustments (for existing statutory
language) the net income was reduced to $25.3 million. He
stressed that the specific issue was not consistent like
the annual GASB 31. They had determined the issue should be
brought forward for the legislature to rectify if the
legislature chose to do so. He continued to address
"project x" and discussed a circumstance where the
legislature or federal government chose not to invest any
more money and determined there was no future value and
that the item required a write-down. All of a sudden the
$25.3 million in net income was reduced to $16.5 million,
which would be the audited net income number. At a 50
percent dividend the net income number would mean a
reduction of $4.4 million to the dividend. He provided an
example where the federal government had given the $8.8
million to AIDEA, which had been eroded off. The state
would actually be out $4.4 million of the dividend due to
current statute that did not exclude the specific item.
2:39:56 PM
Mr. Lamb continued that in the example the state was
penalized for a project funded with federal dollars. He
furthered that AIDEA had received the money, followed GAAP,
reported it, determined there was no value, wrote the item
down, and the dividend was reduced. He spoke to an
alternative scenario where the state provided $8.8 million
to AIDEA for a project, but then determined the project
would not move forward and subsequently the dividend was
reduced. He explained it had seen like a good idea, but all
of a sudden the $8.8 million project really cost the state
$13.2 million in cash; the dividend penalty occurred solely
because of following the reporting criteria. If the
language was altered to exclude projects or write downs
financed with federal or state money would eliminate the
dividend penalty.
Mr. Lamb turned to slide 20: "Hypothetical State Funded
Non-172 Project, if Stopped, Impact to "Net Income"." He
referred to the green line [pre-net income] for GASB 31 and
pointed to an excerpt on the right of the slide. The green
line was about $28 million he had addressed in the Schedule
7. The yellow line in the excerpt represented net income
post GASB 31; the net income reduced to $16.6 million if
the $8.8 million if the loss was reflected. The excerpt
provided a visual of how the lines would change if the $8.8
million was added to the net income number. He noted the
unrealized losses changed to include the reduction of $8.8
million for a net income of around $16 million. He
continued that 50 percent of $8.8 million meant the
dividend would be $4.4 million smaller. He noted the
situation did not happen frequently, but it could happen;
therefore, AIDEA believed the problem should be fixed.
2:42:59 PM
Mr. Lamb moved to slide 21: "Proposed Statutory Language
Explanation" and slide 22: "Language Changes - Selected
Highlighted":
· BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
ALASKA:
· Section 1. AS 44.88.088(b) is amended to read:
· (2) "marktomarket fair value" means fixing the value
of an investment as its market value as of the
financial reporting date;
· (3) "net income" means the change in net position, or
the equivalent term under generally accepted
accounting principles, of the revolving fund, the
change in net position of the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority sustainable energy
transmission and supply development fund (AS
44.88.660), or the change in net position of the
Arctic infrastructure development fund (AS 44.88.810)
as set out in the audited financial statements of the
authority for the base fiscal year, excluding amounts
attributable to intergovernmental transfers, capital
contributions, grants, [OR IMPAIRMENT] losses on a
project or development to the extent [DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS] financed with state or federal grants or
appropriations, marktomarket fair value based
accounting entries, and noncash accounting entries
related to retirement obligations [UNDER AS
44.88.172];
Mr. Lamb explained that the language "excluding amounts
attributable to intergovernmental transfers, capital
contributions, grants, [OR IMPAIRMENT] losses on a project
or development to the extent [DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS]
financed with state or federal grants or appropriations..."
would fix problem 2 that he had discussed. The language
"marktomarket fair value based accounting entries, and
noncash accounting entries related to retirement
obligations" fixed the impact of GASB 31, 68, 72, and 75.
He elaborated AIDEA had tried to make the language broad
enough that whatever GASB decided it wanted to adjust to
(if it was market value), the language should fix the
issue. He continued that it would enable AIDEA to pay on
the $109 million, not $169 million or whatever the number
turned out to be.
2:44:43 PM
Mr. Lamb reviewed slide 23: "Summary":
The proposed statutory change of HB 268 / SB 149:
1) Removes the "market value" entries that impact the
dividend, thus better stabilizing the dividend amount
paid to the State yearoveryear.
2) Removes the "dividendpenalty" result on the
financier of an investment project that did not
materialize as originally planned.
3) Modernizes and aligns statutory language to the
fact that the dividend is a check to the State, and
thus, is a cash based transaction. Language changes
better connect the payment to the actual realized
results of operations. Paying it when cash hasn't been
earned is a problem (for AIDEA), and not paying it
when it has been earned, and is available, is a
problem (for the State).
Mr. Lamb explained the bill simply tried to modernize the
old language to the fact that reporting requirements under
GAAP had evolved and changed. He believed there would be a
compounding effect.
Representative Wilson understood the bill would entail a
different accounting method. She asked if the change would
impact the state's bond and credit rating.
Mr. Lamb responded in the negative. He explained that the
audited financials would still be the audited financials.
He detailed in order to get to the statutory defined net
income it was necessary to get to the audit. He furthered
that rating agencies always looked at the financials. He
had previously worked for the [Fairbanks North Star]
borough and had been through 12 to 18 bond sales with
numerous rating agencies. He stated they were very smart
people who understood financials and accounting with the
ability to make adjustments for the type of adjustments
[the bill would implement]. He concluded the changes in the
bill would have no impact [on the state's bond and credit
rating] because an audited financial statement would still
be required. The statutorily defined net income used for
the dividend was post the audited number. To his knowledge,
the statutory net income number was not used for anything
other than the dividend calculation. He referred to Mr.
Therriault's testimony related to appropriations from the
state. He explained if the appropriation was included it
would be like the state giving AIDEA money and AIDEA
writing a check back to the state for the dividend. He
noted the method did not make sense.
2:47:30 PM
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the bill
would not impact the state's bond rating in any way.
Mr. Lamb agreed. He noted that AIDEA's AA+ rating had been
reaffirmed in a recent update by Standard and Poor's (he
had received the update on March 3, 2017).
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if any other state corporations
paid dividends based on the same calculation. He wondered
if the legislature should expect to see similar legislation
come forward for entities such as Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), the Alaska Railroad Corporation, and
the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
Mr. Lamb replied that he had no knowledge of how the other
agency's dividends were calculated or what they were based
on. He detailed it had taken him a year or two to
understand the ramifications of the current statutory
language. He expounded AIDEA had to sign a letter of
representation annually specifying actions that had been
taken. He explained it took time to understand the cause
and effect of the accounting records, ordinances, and
other. He shared that he was still a licensed CPA and would
not compromise his livelihood. He believed the statutory
language should be fixed. He elaborated the glaring problem
related to the swings in the dividend. He concluded that at
least AIDEA was doing what it believed was the right thing,
which was identifying the problem that needed to be fixed.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if there was any correlation
between the proposed accounting change and the governor's
executive order considering consolidation or efficiencies
between AIDEA, AHFC, and AEA.
Mr. Lamb replied that he did not believe so. He detailed
the issue had been brought up by AIDEA around July 2015
when it had been going through an audit. He furthered that
recommendations for statutory changes were due to the
administration around December each year. He stated he had
no idea how the world would unfold in the future. He
explained the end of 2016 would come quickly and AIDEA
would be in the same circumstance - it would conduct an
audit, consider exclusions, and determine the dividend.
2:51:01 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for the current balances of the
SETS, revolving, and Arctic Infrastructure Development
Funds.
Mr. Lamb believed no funding had ever been put into the
Arctic fund. The balance in the SETS Fund was not
substantial; the available money was primarily directed to
the IEP [Interior Energy Project], so he did not believe
there was anything there. He reported that AIDEA's net
assets for the revolving fund were approximately $1.2
billion.
Co-Chair Thompson asked AIDEA to follow up with the
information. Mr. Lamb complied.
Representative Kawasaki asked how many AIDEA development
projects currently existed that would be impacted by the
change in law proposed under the legislation.
Mr. Lamb responded that the legislation would have zero
impact on the issue. He explained that AIDEA had three
primary revenue sources: direct loans, return from its
eight or so projects, and its own externally managed
investments used to stabilize the agency's cash (the
investments were also a big deal with rating agencies for
general obligation bonds). The bill would have no impact on
the projects, but it could have an impact in the other
direction. For example, the Coast Guard had been thinking
about leaving Anchorage because they did not have a
facility, so AIDEA had built a facility on Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson for 30 years. He explained that if the
project was on AIDEA's books for $13 million and for some
reason the project went away and the federal government
exercised imminent domain and gave AIDEA $5 million, there
would be $8 million difference between AIDEA's book value
and money it received. The difference would have an effect
on net income and subsequently the dividend. He summarized
that the bill would have no impact on projects, but the
projects could impact the result of the legislation.
2:54:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about writing assets off of
the books for a project that was not moving forward. He
wondered how the entries were configured.
Mr. Lamb replied it was an accounting term of art. He
furthered that AIDEA's balance sheet had to reflect owned
and owed amounts. He continued it was wrong to claim owning
something worth "x" dollars when it was not worth that
amount. The way to change "x" was to do a write down, which
essentially credited the asset account (i.e. write down or
loss in value) - the debit was shifted from being an asset
to an expense "and it's gone." Under the example he had
provided, it was exactly what would happen. Auditors worked
to determine whether an entity had followed authoritative
guidance and whether items on the financial sheet were
materially accurate. He referred back to his example where
a $5 million purchase was made by the federal government;
the $5 million would be recorded and a write down would
occur. Secondly, the financial statements would recognize
depreciation or amortization - the value of the asset was
recorded year-over-year (it was basically wearing out over
time).
2:57:16 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the Ambler mining road
project, which had started out as an $8 million Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities project and had
shifted to AIDEA for surveys. He asked if the specific
project would have a bookable value. He about the ability
for a private entity to build a road.
Mr. Lamb replied in the affirmative. He furthered that
AIDEA had conversations about whether there was still value
in the specific project. He elaborated that the legislature
had appropriated money for the project, the governor's
office had approved it, and AIDEA was moving forward with
the assumption that if a viable route was found, all of the
associated permits and work to get from "point A to point
B" had value. He explained that the project was considered
an asset because they were paying for things that would be
necessary to build the road; conduct permitting,
engineering, and environmental impact statements (EIS); and
other. The reason the cost had been incurred was to end up
with an asset; therefore, it became a part of the basis of
the asset until it had been determined there was no asset.
Representative Gattis asked if there was a point in time
the cost of the EIS, record of decisions, or other could be
backed out because they had expired as the asset
depreciated over time.
Mr. Lamb replied in the affirmative. He referred to the
Ambler project. He stated that at one point the governor
had put Susitna and Ambler projects on halt, partially due
to a shelf-life to EIS studies (at some point there was no
value). Part of AIDEA and AEA's communications to the
governor's office was about the shelf-life and need to
finish some of the work in order to avoid losing all of the
value. The question became that he and AIDEA's controller,
who were responsible for signing the letter of
representation related to the asset values, ensured the
values were fairly represented. Much of the process was not
black and white; there was significant subjectivity about
what someone thought or did not think would happen. At the
current point the legislature had not stopped the Ambler or
Susitna projects; therefore, there was still value. He
noted that at some point there may not be value. At some
point items with a shelf-life had to be written down at
some point when they no longer had value, otherwise the
value of the assets were misstated and financials were
falsified.
3:02:04 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to Mr. Lamb's example of
the 1040 IRS form, which essentially included future
unrealized losses (not gains). He remarked that there could
be unrealized gains or losses. He surmised AIDEA did not
anticipate future dividends to be any larger or smaller due
to the legislation. He believed the legislation would mean
the dividend would be flatter over time.
Mr. Lamb responded that over the 25-year life of the
dividend the average was just under 50 percent. He detailed
that if the dividend was based on 50 percent of the net
income pre-GASB 31 (green line in presentation charts) it
swung from year-to-year, but the changes were not as
significant as those post-GASB 31 (there was currently no
exclusion in statute). He agreed that the dividend would
flatten out a bit. He explained AIDEA's goal was to share
its earnings, create jobs, and to provide stability and
predictability at the same time. He stated the same
dividend amount did not necessarily occur over a period of
time if the items were excluded [from net income]. There
was still the issue about when the check could be written.
He referred to his earlier analogy about cash-based
taxpayers - they received the money and if they were not
able to write a check they had to explain why. He shared
that when he had worked for the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, their investments had always been in government,
safety, liquidity, and yield. Generally most investments
(AIDEA had an investment resolution for internally and
externally managed funds) were in safe assets. He stated
"then you really look to liquidity of when you go out and
buy." For example, if he had $10 million and needed it back
in 60 days, he would specify that for all the things he was
authorized to buy, he wanted the $10 million back. He
believed at the borough the amount would ebb and flow over
time, but the net number would turn out to be the same in
the end. The difference for AIDEA (and probably AHFC or
other) was it had two outside entities that externally
managed investments, which included buying and selling (the
average life was around five years). He could not say the
net number would turn out to be the same because the
managers were buying and selling, and the timing for what
was going on in the market changed things.
3:05:55 PM
Representative Edgmon summarized his understanding of Mr.
Lamb's testimony by referring to slide 23, point 3. He read
from the slide: "Language changes better connect the
payment to the actual realized results of operations." He
asked for verification AIDEA would essentially be paying
its dividend off of its audited financial statements if all
of the GASB requirements [listed in the bill] were taken
out. He asked for confirmation that the issue was that
simple.
Mr. Lamb responded that [currently] AIDEA paid off the
audited results adjusted for the items.
Representative Edgmon clarified he was referring to what
would occur if the bill became law.
Mr. Lamb answered in the affirmative. He referred back to
the analogy related to individual tax returns. He explained
that if individuals had to specify how much their wealth
increased and included their gain or loss over a year -
"you take all that stuff out." He believed what
Representative Edgmon was saying was correct.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that the unrealized gains and
losses were taken out. Mr. Lamb answered in the affirmative
and that it was the mark-to-market.
Representative Edgmon surmised that essentially the bill
would put AIDEA on equal footing as a public/private entity
with a private sector corporation. He reasoned that private
sector corporations paid their dividends from audited
financial statements.
Mr. Lamb agreed that private sector corporations paid their
dividends from audited financial statements. However, the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which
pertained to the private sector, had mark-to-market too.
There was a reason GASB had the adjustments, but the
question for a legislative body was to consider whether it
really wanted the items to be a part of the dividend
calculation. The money given for a project was part of the
audited financial statement. The other large number on the
balance sheet was for the dividends paid to the state. He
believed the current year operations should not be reduced
by the fact AIDEA was paying a dividend that showed up as
an expense on AIDEA's books. He concluded that
Representative Edgmon was essentially correct.
3:09:00 PM
Representative Edgmon thought the bill made good sense and
wanted to see it move forward.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how much discretion there was in
determining the dividend amount AIDEA paid to the state.
Mr. Lamb answered that per statute AIDEA was required to
pay a dividend, which was no less than 25 percent and no
more than 50 percent of the statutorily defined net income.
Historically, over the 25 years the dividend had been
provided, the number was an average of 47 or 48 percent. He
was proud of AIDEA's work. The current conversation was
only related to the dividend. He spoke to the significant
number of jobs created and all of the financing offered by
the agency.
3:10:32 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised there was some discretion, but
someone had exercised the discretion to be much closer to
50 percent than 25 percent. He asked about the board's
criteria used to determine the dividend amount.
Mr. Lamb referred to an extract from a December 19th board
resolution, which specified AIDEA's mission was established
by statute. He read from the document:
The authority was created by the legislature as a
public corporation to advance the economic prosperity
of Alaskans by diversifying the Alaska economy,
promoting the creation and retention of Alaska jobs.
The dividend did not change the authority's mission,
in fact, in establishing the dividend requirement, the
legislature stated it's intend that the financial
integrity of the authority remain secure so the
authority can continue to fulfill its vital economic
development mission for the state. Thus, the
legislature made clear that although a dividend must
be made available, the dividend must not be determined
in a manner that does not impede the authority's
ability to fulfill its mission; and with this
background in mind, the staff believes the board must
counterbalance two competing interests: provide an
adequate financial return to the state in the form of
a cash dividend as contemplated by the state versus
ensure the authority retains the financial capability
to achieve its economic development mission for the
state.
Mr. Lamb looked at AIDEA similarly to the federal
government. He detailed the federal government had the
employment counterbalance against inflation. He
acknowledged that sometimes the two things were in
competition. He furthered that AIDEA's mission for
employment and economic activity balanced against providing
financing for development projects. The entity was also
expected to be self-sustaining and to pay a dividend. He
explained those items were given consideration - "can we
pay as large of a dividend as possible without jeopardizing
our ability to do our mission and have the cash." His
recommendation to the board was based upon future cash
projections.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for final comments.
Mr. Lamb was in favor of the bill and appreciated the
committee's support.
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:14:27 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB268 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| HB268 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| HB268 031616 HFIN Presentation.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SB 53 NEW FN DCCED-CBPL 3-11-16.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |