Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
02/21/2018 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 | |
| HB321 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB96 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 321 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 21, 2018
1:34 p.m.
1:34:36 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joan Brown, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Representative Adam
Wool, Sponsor; Rob Earl, Staff, Representative Adam Wool;
Representative Steve Thompson, Sponsor; Forrest Wolfe,
Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Ghert Abbott, Self,
Ketchikan.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Margaret Brodie, Director, Division of Health Care
Services, Department of Health and Social Services.
SUMMARY
HB 96 TAXES;DEDUCTIONS;FEES;TAX STAMP DISCOUNT
HB 96 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 176 GROUND EMER. MEDICAL TRANSPORT PAYMENTS
HB 176 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 321 APPROP: SUPPLEMENTAL OP.; FUND; AMENDING
HB 321 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 321
"An Act making supplemental appropriations and other
appropriations; making an appropriation to capitalize
a fund; amending appropriations; and providing for an
effective date."
1:35:38 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 321, Work Draft 30-GH2781\O
(Wallace/Martin, 2/20/18).
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
JOAN BROWN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, explained
the changes in the work draft. She read from a prepared
statement:
The Administration included supplemental requests in
the operating and capital budget bills released on
December 15th. The Administration's stand-alone
supplemental bill was introduced as HB 321 on January
31st. OMB described the December 15th supplementals
when they presented their budget overview on January
18th, the supplemental bill requests on February 1st
and then went through the supplemental amendments last
Friday, February 16th.
The four finance co-chairs, with the assistance of the
Legislative Finance Division, have been analyzing the
supplemental requests with the goal of having a "fast
track" supplemental bill. It's been several years
since a separate supplemental bill has been adopted,
but it used to be the norm. There are a couple of
reasons why earlier passage of at least some of the
supplemental requests is a good idea:
1. Agencies that are requesting supplementals
know their final current fiscal year budget more
timely, alleviating uncertainty for the program
managers and for those that benefit from the
programs.
2. Shortening the list of supplementals that
get added to the capital budget at the end of the
legislative session (or special session) reduces
the size of the actual capital budget bill making
it easier to track the items that should be in
the bill. When many items are being added or
deleted in various bills and between the bodies,
items can be inadvertently dropped. That happened
last year. Line 21 adds a supplemental that was
inadvertently dropped last year. This Fast Track
eliminates 9 pages out of the capital budget
bill. This allows Legal Services to get a bill
out more quickly.
Requests that didn't make it into the "fast track"
just mean that at least one finance co-chair had a
concern or question that was not answered timely or
satisfactorily. Any remaining supplemental requests
will be considered for inclusion in the capital budget
bill. Tomorrow the other finance committee is also
introducing an identical version of the "Fast Track"
supplemental.
1:39:36 PM
Ms. Brown continued to read from her prepared introductory
remarks:
In addition to the O version of HB 321, you have
before you:
1. The legal-sized spreadsheet of all the
supplemental requests.
a. The lines that are shaded green in the first
column means those items are included in the Fast
Track supplemental. So all of the items on pages
1 through 7 ? are included. You'll find the
Supplemental Bill total on page 6 of the
spreadsheet: $49.5 million of Unrestricted
General Fund, $5.1 million of Designated General
Funds, and $13.1 million of Other Funds for a
total of $67.7 million.
b. The remaining page and a half are the
accounting system ratifications for prior years,
which don't add to the bill total. (Ratifications
are entries adding authorization to zero out
accounting system errors. The funds were already
spent in the prior years.)
c. The second "Bill" column indicates in which
bill the supplemental was requested.
d. The middle columns of the spreadsheet:
Department through Fund Source are unchanged from
the OMB version of the spreadsheet.
e. On the right side of the spreadsheet, the
yellow highlighted Modification column notes
what, if any, changes the Finance Committee
chairs have made to the original requests.
i. For example, on lines 2-4, these items are
now in the numbers section instead of language.
ii. On line 8 there's a new supplemental request
from the legislature for $121.3 General
Fund/Program Receipts related to the extension of
the Anchorage Wells Fargo lease in the Benson
Blvd.
iii. There are a variety of other changes noted
in this column as well.
f. On the far right side of the spreadsheet,
the yellow highlighted Legislative Finance
Division or LFD Notes column includes explanatory
notes.
2. You also have a 3-page Legislative Finance
operating supplemental report with red boxes on it.
The numbers in the boxes correspond to the line
numbers on the legal-sized spreadsheet.
3. A Multi-year Agency Summary report that shows the
Fast Track supplementals by agency and whether they
are operating or capital.
a. There's only one capital item included: the
$8,125.0 Statutory Designated Program Receipts
Volkswagen settlement. It is described on line
14 of the legal-sized spreadsheet.
b. You may notice that the total on this report
is less than the $67.7 million I just mentioned.
That's because on the Agency Summary Report, the
Fund Transfers are not included in the Statewide
Total. However, the Fund Transfers are shown on
the report and if one does the math, the totals
do match.
[Secretary Note: All the documents Ms. Brown referred
to are on file.]
1:42:44 PM
Co-Chair Seaton recognized that Representative Kawasaki and
Representative Guttenberg had joined the meeting.
Representative Pruitt asked if the $30 million increment
was switching the fund source from the Power Cost
Equalization (PCE) Endowment Fund to the Alaska
Comprehensive Health Insurance Fund (ACHI).
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, replied
in the affirmative. He detailed that the governor's
original budget funded the Community Assistance Fund (CA)
from PCE in FY 2018, which informed communities of the
amount of their FY 2019 distribution but left the FY 2020
amounts unknown. The supplemental CS proposed to use the
reinsurance refund from Premera to ACHI on line 13 of the
spreadsheet ["FY2018 Supplemental Bill"] (copy on file) in
the amount of $25 million. The balance of the ACHI fund was
somewhere between $80 million and $90 million. The purpose
was to allow the PCE earnings to be used in FY 19; the
transaction occurred in the operating budget. The
transaction put the PCE earnings used for community
assistance back on the original track the legislature
intended; prefunding CA rather than using the supplemental
process. The governor's budget disregarded one year's
deposit therefore, in order to save the $30 million PCE
withdraw for FY 19, the ACHI fund source was chosen for FY
18. One-time funding was chosen for the one-time fund
source, which was a reimbursement for reinsurance
overpayment.
1:46:35 PM
Representative Pruitt recalled that the PCE fund earned
$112 million the past year and a formula determined the
amount available to spin off for PCE. Legislation in the
prior year allowed an amount of money above what was
necessary to fund PCE to be used for CA. He asked how the
change impacted the overall value of the fund and the two
distribution calculations. Mr. Teal replied that the
purpose of funding from the ACHI fund was to leave the
value of the PCE fund unaffected. Funding both the FY 18
and FY 19 CA expenditures from the PCE was possible because
the PCE earnings were so high. However, the option reduced
the value of the fund and jeopardized future earnings and
was not favored by the co-chairs.
Representative Wilson pointed to lines 3 and 4 of the FY
2018 Supplemental Bill spreadsheet pertaining to the
Department of Corrections (DOC). She offered that the
offender population trend was leveling. She asked for a
breakdown of SB 91 - Omnibus Crim Law & Procedure;
Corrections [ CHAPTER 1 SLA 17 -03/21/2017] funding for
population management based on how the legislature was
going to "re-disperse moneys into those specific
institutions." Ms. Brown did not have the breakdown on hand
but would follow up. Representative Wilson pointed to line
4 of the spreadsheet [inmate healthcare]. She reported that
she had been unable to determine in subcommittee how the
health needs were being met. The department had sent
several inmates out of state because healthcare was more
affordable. She had received information from DOC but the
breakdown of the $10 million supplemental expenditure was
incomplete. She noted an additional $10 million increase in
the FY 19 budget. She requested more information regarding
the increases in inmate health care.
1:50:00 PM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION to the
adoption of the work draft.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for further discussion.
Representative Ortiz pointed to page 5, line 20 and asked
why the transaction was necessary. He was in favor of the
appropriation. Mr. Teal asked for confirmation that he was
referencing the $23.9 million appropriation for the Alaska
Marine Highway System (AMHS). Representative Ortiz replied
in the affirmative. Mr. Teal responded that in the prior
session general fund (GF) money was reduced and offset by
additional spending from the AMHS fund that was authorized
due to a supplemental deposit from a prior year. However,
the deposit occurred at a much lower amount than
anticipated. The AMHS fund ended up short by almost $24
million. The system could not schedule without the funding.
The appropriation was a primary reason for the fast track
supplemental; to ensure the AMHS could maintain operations
and schedules.
1:52:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg pointed to page 5, line 22 of the
spreadsheet [University of Alaska Bargaining Unit
Agreements]. He asked if the legislature still had to
ratify the contract even though the contracts had no
monetary terms requiring supplemental appropriation. Ms.
Brown replied in the affirmative. Representative Guttenberg
pointed to line 37, page 8 item for the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED)
[Financial Examiner I/II for Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act Filings and Support]. He asked if there was
a reason why the second position had not been added to the
original budget. Ms. Brown could not recall the original
issue. Representative Guttenberg pointed to page 13 and
spoke about changing the appropriation and transfers of
funding between the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
(AGDC) and Alaska LNG Project Fund. He asked whether the
transaction was the authorization. Ms. Brown answered that
if the item was not shaded green in column one it was not
in the supplemental CS. The supplemental items he noted
were presented for a decision in the future.
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 30-GH2781\O was ADOPTED.
HB 321 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton handed the gavel to Co-Chair Foster'
Co-Chair Foster indicated that HB 176 was previously heard
in committee on February 16, 2018.
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act relating to medical assistance reimbursement
for ground emergency medical transportation services;
and providing for an effective date."
1:54:34 PM
ROB EARL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, reviewed a flow
chart titled "HB 176; IGT Flow Chart" (copy on file). He
noted that the providers signified as a blue circle
encompassed municipalities, fire departments, and tribal
organizations. He exemplified a scenario of a patient
transport cost of $1 thousand that was reimbursed via state
Medicaid for $400 leaving $600 in uncompensated costs. He
indicated that the scenario represented the current
reimbursement schedule. The blue circle to the right of the
provider's circle represented state Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) supplemental reimbursement
proposed in HB 176. He expounded that the provider [in the
scenario] would submit a total of $300, which represented
half of the uncompensated cost or non-federal share plus a
20 percent administrative fee charged by DHSS totaling
$360. He remarked that the CS language specified "up to" 20
percent for the administrative fee. The department
submitted a bill to federal Medicaid who would reimburse
the department for $360. He referenced page 2, lines 3
through 7 of the legislation that delineated that "the
provider may not exceed the provider's actual cost for
providing emergency medical transportation?." He noted that
the reimbursement provision was explained in a box on the
lower right of flow chart. He pointed to what the provider
would recoup under the scenario. The department kept the
$120 in administrative fees and the provider recouped $640
out of $1,000 total cost.
1:58:46 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked how the administrative fee
was calculated and who received the fee. He believed the 20
percent fee was high. Mr. Earl answered that the fee was
higher than the actual administrative cost. He explained
that federal rules allowed the embellished administrative
fee. He pointed out that under the scenario the
administrative fee was matched by the federal government.
Representative Kawasaki wondered why the state did not
charge an even higher administrative fee. Mr. Earl
responded that the amount was determined by the amount the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would likely
allow under the state plan amendment negotiations.
Representative Kawasaki asked for the reason the fee was
set at 20 percent. He wondered if it was linked to the
ambulance fee. He asked whether there was a nexus between
the administrative fee and the total amount. Mr. Earl
replied in the negative and added that the 20 percent was
predicated on a guess regarding a likely allowable amount.
The actual administrative cost was roughly 2.6 percent.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that the state was
"getting more money from the federal government" at 20
percent.
2:02:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, concurred that the
actual administrative cost was quite a bit less than 20
percent. He elaborated that consultants in other states had
relayed that 20 percent was common, with some states
charging 27 percent. He presumed that 20 percent would be
approved by CMS. The extra money would help the department
and "relieve pressure on the UGF the state was currently
providing." The idea was to not "look a gift horse in the
mouth."
Representative Kawasaki asked how much of the reimbursement
funding would go to the provider doing the transportation.
Mr. Earl answered that under the scenario none of the
administrative fee reimbursement was given to the provider.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that even if a cost of the
ambulance run was more expensive than the amount of
reimbursement the state would not distribute any of the
administrative reimbursement money to the providers.
2:04:04 PM
Representative Wool answered that the administrative
reimbursement did not go back to the provider, it went to
the state. He mentioned that one of the amendments
addressed the issue and allowed the provider to add the 20
percent administrative fee to the overall bill and then
would be reimbursed.
Representative Tilton was concerned about setting a
precedent for a 20 percent administrative fee that seemed
arbitrary. She had previously been involved in DHSS and
recounted discussions regarding administrative fees. She
supported getting as much money back as possible, but she
was concerned over setting a 20 percent precedent that
could apply to other grants and items. Representative Wool
understood the point. He reiterated that the precedent had
already been set in other states and the bill mirrored the
amount. He mentioned the state's obligation to pay
according to Title 19 of the Social Security Act. He agreed
that he would not favor a 20 percent administrative fee
charged "across the board" for every state department
including DHSS. He thought the department could address the
issue. He clarified that the bill proposed "up to" 20
percent. Representative Tilton requested an answer from
DHSS.
2:07:23 PM
MARGARET BRODIE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), replied that she had conversations with
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid recently and
discovered that the administrative fee could only cover the
cost of the administrative position.
Representative Tilton wondered about the state's obligation
to continue the program if the federal government ended its
funding. Mr. Earl referred to page 1, lines 9 through 11
and read: " the amount of the supplemental reimbursement
paid to a provider must be equal to the amount of federal
financial participation?" He declared that if the federal
financial participation went away the program would end.
2:08:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS0705\O.7
(Glover, 2/20/18) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "expenses"
Insert "fee described in (d) or (e) of this
section"
Page 2, lines 19-22:
Delete oil material and insert:
"(d) If the department authorizes the use of
intergovernmental transfers under the program, the
deportment shall charge on administrative fee to a
provider to cover the deportment's costs of
administering the program. The administrative fee must
be to equal up to 20 percent of the non-federal share
the provider pays to the department. A provider may
include the administrative fee in the provider's
cost for providing an emergency medical transportation
service to a medical assistance recipient.
(e) If the department authorizes the use of certified
public expenditures under the program, the department
may establish an administrative fee for a provider. If
the department establishes an administrative fee under
this subsection, the department may allow a provider
to include the administrative fee in the provider's
cost for providing an emergency medical
transportation service to a medical assistance
recipient."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Earl explained the amendment. The amendment did three
things. First, the fee was changed to equal to 20 percent
versus "up to." Second, the amendment allowed the provider
to add the administrative fee to the cost of the medical
transport. Thirdly, amendment 1 separated out the
Intergovernmental Transfers (IGT) method and the Certified
Public Expenditure (CPE) methodology and allowed the
department to choose the methodology and not the providers.
He pointed to the flow chart and furthered that the
amendment allowed the providers to add the administrative
fee to the total cost of transport. Therefore, under the
scenario the provider would receive a reimbursement of $660
from the department, of which $330 was the federal
supplemental reimbursement. He cited page 2, lines 3
through 7 of the bill that delineated that the amount the
provider received may not exceed actual costs.
2:11:25 PM
Representative Wilson asked who was charging the fee. She
wondered why the bill specified what the provider had to
charge. Mr. Earl answered that the department charged the
provider the fee.
Representative Wool elaborated that he wanted an amendment
to Amendment 1 that would revert to "up to 20 percent." He
confirmed that the charge was from the department to CMS.
Representative Wilson stated that she did not have the
amendment.
2:12:48 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1:
Lines 9 and 10, delete "must be equal to" and insert
"may not exceed."
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Wilson asked Ms. Brodie to add clarification
to the administrative fee and what amount was allowable to
charge. Ms. Brodie replied that the federal government
would only allow to charge for actual costs. The department
would estimate the total costs and divide it by the cost of
the administrative position divided by 2 to calculate the
percentage the department would charge at the beginning of
the fiscal year. The calculation would monitor and likely
amend the percentage as the fiscal year progressed.
Representative Wilson asked if the provider could only
charge their actual administrative fees. Ms. Brodie
answered that they could only charge the actual costs that
may include administrative fees.
2:15:16 PM
Representative Wilson surmised that the amendment allowed
providers to recoup their actual administrative and service
costs. Ms. Brodie answered in the affirmative and qualified
that it was permissible as long as the provider did not
charge the administrative fees to another program.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:16:07 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-LS0705\O.5
(Glover, 2/19/18) (copy on file).
Page 2, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read :
"(e) This section authorizes the department
to provide supplemental reimbursements for
ground, water, or air emergency medical
transportation service provider only if the
United States Department of Health and Human
Services approves payments to that type of
emergency medical transportation service
provider."
Re-letter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 2, line 30, through page 3, line I:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 3, lines 8 ? 25:
Delete all material and insert:
"*See. 2.This Act takes effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c)."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Earl explained the amendment. He reminded the committee
of the concern that adding air transport might jeopardize
the entire program through rejection by CMS. The amendment
separated ground, water, and air transport to allow the
program to continue if federal Medicaid rejected the air
portion. In addition, the amendment deleted the conditional
effective date language on page 2 of the prior version and
added an immediate effective date.
Representative Wilson asked Mr. Earl to restate his
explanation.
Mr. Earl replied that the CS included air transport. He
reiterated that concerns were expressed that federal
Medicaid may deny coverage for air transport. He pointed to
subsection (f) on page 3 of the CS and restated that
ground, water, and air transport were separated and read
the following:
?reimbursements to a ground, 1 water, or air emergency
medical transportation service provider only if the
United States Department of Health and Human Services
approves payments to that type of emergency medical
transportation service provider.
Mr. Earl outlined that if CMS approved any specific type of
emergency transport the program could move forward with the
approved methods of transport.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:18:56 PM
Co-Chair Foster reported that the bill would be held in
committee for an updated fiscal note.
Co-Chair Seaton requested more analysis on how the law was
applied in other states. He noted the earlier discussions
regarding the state's ability to charge more and were
currently not accepting federal dollars that other states
were collecting.
Representative Wool agreed with Co-Chair Seaton. He relayed
that he had been assured by his consultant that other
states were charging a fee of 20 percent and 27 percent.
The department was using the ITE and CPE methodologies,
which might be the source of the discrepancy between Alaska
and the other states. He would follow-up with answers.
Representative Guttenberg asked for clarification about
whether it was a new administrative charge on top of what
was currently being done. He wondered whether the state was
receiving reimbursement differently under the bill. He
asked whether the prior method charged less than 20
percent. He asked if the program was displacing one set of
money for another.
2:21:44 PM
Ms. Brodie replied that there were two different payments:
the initial billing went through the Medicaid Management
Information System with all other weekly bills. She
delineated that subsequently, the department billed the
provider the difference between what they claimed in total
cost and the amount the provider initially received from
DHSS plus the administrative fee. The department made two
payments to the providers. The first payment was the
initial allowable amount. The second payment included a
manual process where the state calculated the amount the
provider owed the department. Once the provider paid the
department it would release the supplemental reimbursement
and the providers own funds.
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether the department employed the
IGT methodology or the current method of payment. Ms.
Brodie answered that the current methodology was used for
the initial payment and the second payment used the new
methodology.
Co-Chair Seaton requested the sponsor speak with the
state's CMS to fully understand what the bill would do.
Representative Wool reminded the committee that the goal of
HB 176 was to obtain more medical transport reimbursement
regardless of the administrative fee.
HB 176 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 96
"An Act amending the calculation of adjusted gross
income for purposes of the tax on gambling activities
aboard large passenger vessels; repealing a provision
allowing an investigation expense under the Alaska
Small Loans Act to be in place of a fee required under
the Alaska Business License Act; repealing the amount
that may be deducted from the tobacco excise tax to
cover the expense of accounting and filing for the
monthly tax return; repealing the discount on
cigarette tax stamps provided as compensation for
affixing the stamps to packages; and providing for an
effective date."
2:24:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill. He detailed that an
indirect expenditure was a state discount or tax credit
that was never tracked and did not show up in the budget.
During a prior session the legislature established a way to
track indirect expenditures. The Department of Revenue
(DOR) must provide a report every two years on all the
state's foregone revenue. The information was subsequently
turned over to the Legislative Finance Division (LFD) who
examined the data and published a printed report for every
legislator. He noted that some of the indirect expenditures
had sunsets. The items in HB 96 did not contain sunsets.
He indicated that there were four items that amounted to
over $350,000 in lost revenue to the state.
FORREST WOLFE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
provided further detail about the bill. He read from
prepared remarks as follows:
House Bill 96 repeals or removes four minor indirect
expenditures from state law, all of which should
provide more income for the state of Alaska. First, HB
96 removes the deduction of federal taxes from
adjusted gross income when calculating the state tax
collected on gambling aboard large cruise ships.
Next, HB 96 repeals a provision allowing an
investigation expense under the Alaska Small Loans Act
to replace a fee required under the Alaska Business
License Act.
Finally, HB 96 repeals allowing the costs of
accounting and filing monthly tax returns to be
deducted from the tobacco excise tax, as well as the
$50 discount on cigarette tax stamps intended to be
compensation for affixing the stamps to packages.
Mr. Wolfe reiterated that the bill was estimated to
increase revenue in FY 19 by at least $339,500 thousand of
which $219.1 thousand would be appropriated into the
general fund.
2:29:12 PM
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to a handout that contained three
components to the bill and not four as stated earlier
[titled "Bills Related to Indirect Expenditures" dated
February 3, 2017 (copy on file)]. Mr. Wolfe replied that
the document had been compiled the past year that included
three of the four items in the bill. The third item
contained two indirect expenditures.
2:30:20 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
GHERT ABBOTT, SELF, KETCHIKAN, spoke in support of the
tobacco tax portions of the bill. Eliminating the indirect
expenditure saved the state a small amount of money and
slightly increased the price of a pack of cigarettes. She
pointed out that foregone revenue only provided a
"miniscule" amount of revenue relative to the entire budget
and was no substitute for what she deemed was necessary; a
broad based progressive tax on income and capital gains.
She hoped the committee would not spend much time on
indirect expenditure legislation.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster relayed the amendment deadline.
HB 96 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following day.
Representative Wilson hoped to receive answers regarding
the supplemental bill prior to reporting it out of
committee.
Co-Chair Foster agreed.
Co-Chair Seaton noted that some of the questions may have
been more policy related than numerical.
ADJOURNMENT
2:34:08 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:34 p.m.