Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2016 08:30 AM 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 | |
| HB300 | |
| SB32 | |
| SB145 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 2016
8:35 a.m.
8:35:36 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:35 a.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 Cathy Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt
ALSO PRESENT
Kevin Brooks, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fish and
Game; Forrest Bowers, Deputy Director, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game; Samuel
Rabung, Aquaculture Section Chief, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game; Ginny Eckert,
Associate Director of Research, Alaska Sea Grant and
Professor, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,
University of Alaska Fairbanks; Chris Maisch, Director,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources; Sean
O'Brien, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Heather McCarty, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association, Anchorage; Julie Decker, Executive Director,
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, Wrangell; Nancy
Hillstrand, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, Seldovia; Owen
Graham, Alaska Forest Association, Ketchikan; Carl Portman,
Resource Development Council, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 300 FISH/SHELLFISH HATCHERY/ENHANCE. PROJECTS
CSHB 300(FSH) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "no recommendation" recommendation and with one
new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Fish and Game, one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue, and one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN2 (DFG).
CSSB 32(RES)
TIMBER SALES
HCS CSSB 32(RES) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal impact note: FN2
(DNR).
CSSB 145(FIN)
RECOVERY OF PUB. ASSIST. OVERPAYMENTS
CSSB 145(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN2 (REV);
and one previously published fiscal impact note:
FN3 (DHS).
Co-Chair Thompson addressed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 300
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of
fish; authorizing the operation of nonprofit shellfish
hatcheries; relating to application fees for salmon
and shellfish hatchery permits; and providing for an
effective date."
8:36:44 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, relayed that the bill would enable the commissioner
of Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to manage fish stocks
for the purpose of supplying shellfish to an aquatic farm.
The bill was inspired by stakeholder interest and had
support from the industry. He relayed that the bill was
virtually identical to the companion bill on the Senate
side.
FORREST BOWERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, provided background
on the bill. He relayed that there were a number of
shellfish fisheries that had been closed for several years.
There were other depressed shellfish stocks including
abalone, sea cucumber, and other. He remarked that some had
failed to rebuild the populations to a level of harvestable
surplus. Current statutes did not give the authority to
permit shellfish for restocking. The bill was modelled
largely after the existing salmon law for consistency. He
went through a sectional analysis:
Sec. 1
Provides the Alaska Board of Fisheries authority to
direct the department to manage production of enhanced
shellfish stocks, beyond broodstock needs, for cost
recovery harvest.
Sec. 2
Increases the permit application fee for new private
nonprofit salmon hatcheries from $100 to $1,000.
Sec. 3
Adds a new Chapter 12 to Title 16, "Shellfish Stock
Rehabilitation Efforts, Enhancement Projects, and
Hatcheries. Provides direction to the commissioner on
issuance of permits for private nonprofit shellfish
stock rehabilitation and fishery enhancement projects
and associated shellfish hatcheries and establishes a
$1,000 permit application fee. This section directs
the commissioner to consult with technical experts in
the relevant areas before permit issuance. This
section provides for a hearing prior to issuance of a
permit and describes certain permit terms including
cost recovery fisheries, harvest, sale, and release of
hatchery-produced shellfish, and selection of
broodstock sources. This section describes reporting
requirements and terms for modification or revocation
of a permit.
Sec. 4 Provides the commission authority to issue
special harvest area entry permits to holders of
private nonprofit shellfish rehabilitation,
enhancement or hatchery permits.
Sec. 5
Defines legal fishing gear for special harvest area
entry permit holders.
Sec. 6
Exempts shellfish raised in a private nonprofit
shellfish project from the farmed fish definition.
Sec. 7 and 8
Establish tax exemption for a nonprofit corporation
holding a shellfish hatchery, rehabilitation, or
enhancement permit.
Sec. 9
Exempts shellfish harvested under a special harvest
area entry permit from certain taxes.
Sec. 10
Establishes an effective date of the fee for salmon
hatchery permits described in sec. 2.
Sec. 11
Authorizes the department to adopt implementing
regulations.
Sec. 12
Establishes an immediate effective date for sec. 12
pursuant to AS 01.10.070(c).
Sec. 13
Establishes an effective date for sec. 9 concomitant
with sec. 2 effective date.
8:43:41 AM
Representative Wilson asked about the support of industry.
She thought fishermen were not excited about it.
Mr. Bowers replied that the department had received broad
support from the United Fisherman of Alaska.
Representative Wilson asked if the department had received
any opposition to the bill.
Mr. Bowers replied that the department had not received any
opposition.
Representative Wilson asked about the opposition in public
testimony.
Mr. Bowers replied that the opposition was concerned about
hatcheries in general.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the sectional analysis. He
asked who the technical experts would be.
Mr. Bowers replied that the panel had not yet been
appointed. It was a group the department would put together
and would describe the number of seats and makeup in
regulations.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the size of the shellfish
industry currently.
Mr. Bowers answered that the shellfish industry was about a
$400 to $500 million commercial fishery.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if nonprofits receiving the
permits, and expanding their business or limiting to only
shellfish.
Mr. Bowers answered that there were currently a couple of
projects in the research stage.
8:48:15 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if new fisheries were anticipated.
Mr. Bowers provided stated that rehabilitation would take
place of some depressed stocks. There were existing
populations at a very depressed level. Enhancement would be
beyond the natural productivity level. He did not know that
there would be additional fisheries.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to a letter in support of
the bill.
Mr. Bowers replied that the group was operating under a
research permit.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the words
rehabilitation and enhancement were mentioned multiple
times in the letter.
Mr. Bowers answered that a hatchery could open, but the
bill was not necessarily about hatcheries.
8:52:19 AM
Representative Kawasaki was confused about the bill. He
wondered if the hatchery was the only new allowance in the
legislation.
Mr. Bowers answered that under the existing permit for
research small scale projects were allowed.
Representative Kawasaki wondered how the science or
research would take place prior to approving a large scale
operation.
Mr. Bowers answered that the department would engage its
research lab, and maintain integrity. The department would
look at the habitat, the dynamics of the stock, the
population level that would be supported, and how the
project would impact other animals.
Co-Chair Neuman asked what a nonprofit meant in the bill.
He asked if it was an entity that made a profit by selling
fish, but did not pay taxes.
Mr. Brooks deferred the question to a colleague.
SAMUEL RABUNG, AQUACULTURE SECTION CHIEF, DIVISION OF
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, answered
that the bill designed to be not for private ownership,
rather the private nonprofit model, the entities were
registered with Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development made up of boards with stakeholders.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about nonprofit or a shellfish
hatchery harvest and sell for a profit.
Mr. Rabung replied that cost recovery was a funding
mechanism, but was not the only one.
8:57:54 AM
Co-Chair Neuman assumed the reports were audited.
Mr. Rabung nodded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the original version of the bill.
He discussed fish or shellfish, and he asked why it had
been removed.
Mr. Rabung answered that it was the exact language in
statute for salmon. The department had overlooked
additional shellfish issues.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked on budget concerns. He asked if
the state was putting money into the project.
Mr. Brooks replied that there was a staff of five that ran
the aquaculture program; the department envisioned using
the existing staff for the project. There was one-time
permit fee of $1,000 and only expected a few permits per
year.
Co-Chair Neuman believed it had been the intent of the
legislature to direct the departments, and he hoped the
state would recoup the costs
Mr. Bowers replied that if they were successful the state
could do cost recovery on test fishing.
Co-Chair Neuman would like to see a mechanism for cost
recovery.
Co-Chair Thompson directed the department to work on the
issue.
Representative Gara wanted to ensure there was no
contamination of wild stocks. He asked if all of the
shellfish would be from the area.
Mr. Bowers answered in the affirmative.
9:02:30 AM
Representative Gara stated that currently one of the
largest marketing of Alaska shellfish was the allure of a
wild product. He asked what the companies would have to do
to market their wild product.
Mr. Bowers answered that it was enhancement or
rehabilitation of wild stocks; similar to that of salmon.
Representative Gara did not know how to analyze the risk.
He did not believe they were wild. There was risk in his
mind that people who want to undermine the sale of wild //
He asked about the danger.
Mr. Rabung answered that the department utilized local
stock.
Representative Gara stated that wild shell fish would be
more concentrated. He asked about more waste contaminate in
the water.
Mr. Rabung replied that the project would be limited to
millions of juveniles and would not result in a waste
issue.
Representative Gara asked about the danger to any other
species. The bill contained a provision about destroying
diseased shellfish.
Mr. Rabung answered that it was standard and had been in
place since 1974. He announced that regulation pathology
required fairly strict quarantine.
9:08:30 AM
Representative Gara asked what the danger would be to
disease of other wild shellfish.
Mr. Rabung replied that the department had discussed the
issue with its pathologist who was not concerned as long as
current regulations were adhered to.
Representative Gara wondered what individuals who were not
champions of the bill would say.
Representative Guttenberg expressed concern about Alaska
wild salmon. He had seen criticisms of hatchery fish from
competing markets. He was concerned how it would impact
wild products. He pointed to a letter in the packet
mentioned the mariculture taskforce - he asked about
criticisms.
Mr. Rabung replied that the governor's mariculture
taskforce had been established but had not yet met; it was
seen as a companion bill.
9:12:28 AM
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the taskforce. He
believed it was probably a good thing to be doing, but he
would like a better picture about expanding the program.
GINNY ECKERT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, ALASKA SEA
GRANT AND PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, thanked the
governor's office and believed the bill served the need.
She spoke to king crab, which were native to Alaska and
were seriously overfished. She stated that the population
had not recovered. She was conducting research to determine
why they had not recovered.
9:16:36 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler was given the gavel.
Representative Kawasaki expressed concern about ensuring
that the stock would not harm the ecology.
Ms. Eckert answered that they were valid concerns. The goal
of the bill was to take stocks from an area as close to the
area where rehabilitation would occur. She stated that if
the native stock was not available, they would go to the
next closest source. She stressed that, with crab,
everything was much more localized with salmon than
shellfish.
Representative Kawasaki asked Ms. Eckert to address the
concern about mixing, because he did not want to introduce
something new that may damage the ecology.
Ms. Eckert replied that there were criticisms of salmon
hatcheries. She stated it was necessary to think about
where the bottleneck occurred. There were not enough adults
to produce the offspring to rehabilitate the stock on its
own.
9:21:46 AM
Representative Kawasaki spoke to overharvesting in the
1980s - he wondered why the solution was not harvesting for
some time. He recognized a commercial fleet depended on it
for money.
Ms. Eckert replied that the industry had been closed since
the early 1980s, but it had not been effective.
Representative Guttenberg addressed the moratorium on the
fisheries. He asked if there had been any research on
something that had replaced the species.
Ms. Eckert did not know that enough about the ecology was
known to know if something had replaced them.
Representative Guttenberg asked if someone had studied the
ecology of the regions. He wondered why the species had not
come back. He wondered if there was a reason that the
species could not live in the areas any longer due to a
habitat change.
Ms. Eckert answered that it was necessary to think about
the bottleneck in the fishery. He stated that habitat was
not limiting, the ocean was compatible for king crab to
live in regions, but overfishing had caused the decrease in
king crab.
Representative Edgmon supported the bill. He believed
concerns had been assuaged by the expert testimony
9:25:58 AM
HEATHER MCCARTY, CENTRAL BERING SEA FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), she relayed
that the group was comprised of different stakeholders.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the testifier was in support of
the bill.
Ms. McCarty replied that they strongly supported the bill.
They had been working with the Department of Fish and Game
and believed they were superb guardians of the fisheries
resources of Alaska.
JULIE DECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, WRANGELL (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She spoke to a recent
taskforce established by a governor order.
9:32:21 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Ms. Decker to provide written
testimony if available.
NANCY HILLSTRAND, PIONEER ALASKAN FISHERIES, SELDOVIA (via
teleconference), was worried that the state was using
legislation that was 40 years old. She felt that there was
not enough monitoring in the hatcheries. She shared that
there was one stream that had 90 percent hatchery fish
replacing the wild stocks, and 87 percent were from Prince
William Sound traveling all the way to Kachemak Bay. She
stressed that there were many problems with the hatchery
system, even with the help of pathology and genetics. She
felt that there should be a pilot program, because the
legislation proposed was still in the research phase. She
remarked that the interaction between species. She stated
that in the 1960s, in the Bering Sea, king crab was
introduced; but king crab was now considered an invasive
species. She stressed that the American Fishery Society
must be contacted. She urged the committee to research the
issue further.
9:35:33 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler CLOSED public testimony.
Mr. Brooks appreciated the public testimony and had noted
Ms. Hillstrand's concerns. The department believed it had
the safeguards in place to address concerns.
Representative Wilson believed the testifier had raised
serious issues.
Mr. Bowers answered that the department had heard the
issues in the past. He was not trying to discount them, but
the department believed the safeguards were in place. He
pointed to examples in different regions. He spoke to the
commercial fishery on the Russian side of the Bering Sea,
and that he did not view the project as a failure.
Representative Gara wondered if there were dissenting views
from biologists regarding safety.
Mr. Bowers replied that the same request had been given in
the prior committee. He stated that a small group had
developed the bill. He shared that not all staff biologists
were not consulted on the bill. He felt that there may be
individuals who may be against the bill.
Representative Guttenberg requested a written comment in
reply to Ms. Hillstrand's testimony. He felt that Mr.
Brooks seemed flippant.
Mr. Brooks answered that there was no intent to be
flippant. He stated that he would provide written answers.
Representative Kawasaki wanted to ensure that the bill
would not destroy the ecology of a specific area.
9:42:27 AM
Mr. Rabung replied that, in the event that local stock was
extirpated, no longer existed, or in insufficient numbers
to provide adequate root stock to meet genetic minimum
effective population numbers, the nearest stock to be
sought to be the most compatible.
Vice-Chair Saddler agrees.
Mr. Brooks added that it had been a concern in the Senate.
He announced that the language had been removed to address
the concern.
Representative Edgmon supported the bill and viewed the
legislation as economic development. He did not find any of
the department's comments to be dismissive. He believed the
bill had been vetted. He felt any hiccups or problems along
the way would be noted by the department.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the funding issues. He asked if
there would be federal funds coming in.
Mr. Brooks replied that the program would pay for itself.
He explained that there was a contract that brought in
federal funds for managing crab.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that management would be reduced
in the state because of budget reductions. He felt that the
program would have a good benefit to the state, but noted
the current programs that require funds. He wondered if any
of the funds for the project must be dedicated to
shellfish.
Mr. Brooks replied none of the programs would be displaced
to manage the program. He stated that primary funding for
shellfish management was federal receipts.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that his concern was that it took
department staff, and the department was already extended
thin. He would like to see the funds coming from industry
to support it.
Co-Chair Neuman addressed the three zero fiscal notes.
9:48:54 AM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 300(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Gara OBJECTED. He wanted to know about
dissenting biologists who were concerned about the safety
of the program. He wanted to ensure that he was not only
hearing one side of the story. Representative Gara WITHDREW
his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She felt that the people
who had offered concerns, were valid individuals. She
wanted to further understand the process. Representative
Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Saddler stressed that there was never 100
percent unanimity.
Representative Gattis believed everyone was aware of the
"fish wars" but she believed it was important to recognize
the underlying problem.
Co-Chair Neuman also had concerns with the department's
actions. He believed it was incumbent on the department to
visit members to discuss the matter. He stated that the
committee would watch the issue.
9:53:55 AM
Representative Edgmon remarked that the department no
longer had a legislative liaison. He recommended the
department to visit committee offices.
CSHB 300(FSH) was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Fish and Game, one new
zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue, and one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN2 (DFG).
9:54:45 AM
AT EASE
9:56:50 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 32(RES)
"An Act relating to the sale of timber on state land;
and providing for an effective date."
9:57:17 AM
CHRIS MAISCH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, provided a quick overview of the bill.
The bill would change the authority process of timber
sales:
The bill would amend AS 38.05.110 and 38.05.118 to
expand the authority of the Commission of Natural
Resources to negotiate the sale of timber at appraised
value.
The Department of Natural Resources may offer timber
sales either through competitive bid or through
negotiation. Currently under AS 38.05.118, the
Commissioner of Natural Resources may negotiate the
sale of timber to a local manufacturer at appraised
value. However, negotiated sales larger than 500,000
board feet may only be offered in areas of high
unemployment, excess manufacturing capacity, and an
underutilized allowable cut of timber. These criteria
prohibit larger negotiated timber sales in many areas
of the state that are actively managed for forestry,
and where there is high demand for wood for timber
products and biomass energy. The proposed bill would
provide that, in addition to sales to local
manufacturers of wood products, sales may also be
negotiated with users of wood fiber. This change
clarifies that negotiated sales may be used to support
wood energy production as well as traditional
products. In addition, the bill would eliminate the
current limitations that negotiated timber sales be
based on a finding that in the area of the sale there
is a high level of unemployment, an underutilized
manufacturing capacity, and an underutilized supply of
timber that will lose value if not cut. The
requirement that al three conditions be met
substantially limits the Commissioner of Natural
Resources' authority and flexibility to approve
negotiated sales that would be in the best interest of
the State.
Competitively bid timber sales are the preferred sale
method under most conditions. However, negotiated
sales provide the ability to tailor some sales to the
needs of local processors in areas that lack
competitive interest or where there is competition
from round log export markets in a region with a
constrained timber supply. The latter situation exists
in Southern Southeast Alaska where the State of Alaska
is small landowner compared to the Tongass National
Forest, and the State of Alaska's full allowable cut
is a critical source of logs for the remaining
sawmills.
10:04:26 AM
Representative Wilson relayed that the pellet plant was in
North Pole.
Representative Kawasaki remarked that there was concern
about the ability of the commissioner to engage in the 25-
year process. He requested an explanation of the 5-year
appraisal process.
Mr. Maisch replied that sales occurred at a base rate. The
rate was determined by an appraisal that covered the cost
of the division to offer and administer a sale. The
division negotiated from the base rate point. He stressed
that the 25 years was the maximum, and the commissioner
determined the best interest for the state. He remarked
that financing was the most important reason for longer
term sales. He explained that there were no restrictions in
the 120 sales to any particular length of time. He stated
that, as a matter of practice, those sales were typically
three to five years. He remarked that there was a
reappraisal clause in both the contact and legislation.
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether, under the
reappraisal, there would be another submitted best interest
finding.
Mr. Maisch replied in the negative, and stated that it
would be a part of the contract.
Co-Chair Neuman noted that the legislation considered
negotiated sales with areas with high unemployment, and
wondered how those areas were identified.
Mr. Maisch replied that it was 125 percent of the statewide
average. He shared that the statewide average was published
by the DLWD was currently 6.5 percent. He stated that the
level must be above 7.6 percent to employ the authority.
The current unemployment rate in Ketchikan was Ketchikan.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the Fairbanks and Mat-Su
boroughs qualified for the sales.
Mr. Maisch answered that currently the areas did not, but
the bill would allow for the authority consistently
statewide.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the timber sales must be
added value sales, where they process the log.
Mr. Maisch answered in the affirmative. He shared that it
had long been the department's policy to encourage managing
in Alaska.
10:09:28 AM
Co-Chair Neuman wondered if the funds would be directed
into forestry management in Southeast Alaska.
Mr. Maisch replied in the affirmative, and explained that
currently all the forestry positions in Southeast Alaska
were funded under the timber sale receipt authority.
Vice-Chair Saddler queried what would occur without a
timber source for the Viking Mill.
Mr. Maisch replied that the mill was currently operating
one forest service sale to big foreign sales, so there was
roughly one year of timber under contract. He stated that
it was likely that there would not be enough timber to keep
the mill open, without the ability to negotiate sales.
OWEN GRAHAM, ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He remarked
that it was very difficult to have two operators operating.
10:12:52 AM
CARL PORTMAN, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. The
basic premise of the bill was to allow long-term sales
where appropriate.
Vice-Chair Saddler CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Kawasaki had originally thought the bill may
have been related to special interest, but he had come
around and believed it was good policy.
10:16:28 AM
Representative Wilson supported the bill. She remarked that
the bill provided another way to best utilize the timber.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the department had the
opportunity to offer the high value processing timber or
logging companies to enter into contracts for up to $10
million board of feet a year consistent with principles for
a term of up to ten years. He did not believe that the
department had every utilized that allowance.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that it occasionally
paid off to "not be first."
Co-Chair Thompson addressed the zero fiscal note from the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 32(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 32(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal impact note: FN2 (DNR).
10:21:21 AM
AT EASE
10:22:46 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 145(FIN)
"An Act relating to benefits for public assistance
programs administered by the Department of Health and
Social Services; and providing for an effective date."
10:23:10 AM
SEAN O'BRIEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, provided
information about the bill. He stated that the bill would
extend the ability for the division to collect on
overpayments through Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
garnishment. He shared that the bill was initiated because
of the child care assistance block grant changes that
required more aggressive attempts to collect the
overpayments. He stated that there was a recognition of the
opportunity to see that the PFD garnishment option was
available for all of the division's programs. He stated
that the bill allowed for the ability to utilize the
garnishment option, to provide that the funds would be
returned. He stressed that without the garnishment tool,
general funds would be used. He remarked that the fiscal
note allowed for collection of the PFD garnishment funds,
and allow for the receipt of the funds to the division.
Representative Wilson wondered if there was $500,000 that
had not yet been collected.
Mr. O'Brien replied that $500,000 was established as an
estimate of how much was needed to allow for receipt of PFD
remittance. He stated that there was no plan to ask for
general funds.
Representative Wilson queried the outstanding balance.
Mr. O'Brien replied that the division had calculated
approximately $331,578 in overpayments in state fiscal year
2015, which were in various stages of repayment.
Representative Wilson wondered if the bill addressed
providers, those who received the benefit, or both.
Mr. O'Brien answered that the bill addressed providers who
were receiving child care assistance funds on behalf of
parents; and child care grants paid to license providers
for specific purposes.
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether there was an order
in which PFD garnishments operate.
Mr. O'Brien replied in the affirmative. He stated that the
bill would fall into 9th in the order. He stressed that the
bill depended on the demands on PFD garnishment that were
ranked at a higher level.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Mr. O'Brien appreciated the committee's support.
Co-Chair Neuman addressed the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSSB 145(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 145(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN2 (REV); and one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN3 (DHS).
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:33:52 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 a.m.