Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/13/2025 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 | |
| SB95 | |
| SB96 | |
| SB97 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 13, 2025
3:01 p.m.
3:01:52 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 3:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Forrest Dunbar, Chair, Senate Health and Social
Services Committee; Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative
Neal Foster; Senator Bill Wielechowski, Sponsor; Sonja
Kawasaki, Senate Majority Counsel; IntiMayo Harbison,
Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel; Representative Julie
Coulombe; Representative Zach Fields; Senator Jesse
Bjorkman.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Megan Wallace, Chief Counsel, Legislative Legal Services;
Stephanie Berglund, CEO, Thread, Anchorage; Leah Van Kirk,
Policy Advisor, Department of Health, Juneau; Blue Shibler,
Executive Director, Association for the Education of Young
Children, Juneau; Emily Nauman, Director, Legislative Legal
Services; Brandon Spanos, Deputy Director, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY
SB 95 CHILD CARE: ASSISTANCE/GRANTS
SB 95 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and four "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(DOH).
SB 96 CHILD CARE: TAX CREDITS
SB 96 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 97 BIG GAME GUIDE PERMIT PROGRAM
SB 97 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and four "no
recommendation" recommendations and with three
previously published fiscal impact notes: FN4
(DFG), FN5 (DFG), and FN6 (DNR).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He explained
that the three bills were known as the single subject bills
that had passed the legislature the prior year. The
committee would hear from Legislative Legal Services on the
single subject lawsuit the bills were a part of.
MEGAN WALLACE, CHIEF COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), delineated that the three bills were
a part of SB 189 [SB 89-XtndBoards;Game Permits;Taxes;Child
Care, Chapter15 SLA 24, 07/22/2024] passed the prior year.
The bills took effect and were placed in statute.
Subsequently, a former representative (Representative David
Eastman) initiated a current lawsuit alleging that the bill
violated the single subject rule under Article 2, Section
13 of the Alaska Constitution specifying that all bills
shall be confined to a single subject. The Alaska Supreme
Court typically held that the provisions in a bill be
logically interconnected and be germane to one subject. The
lawsuit alleged that the contents of the bill did not meet
the standard. The bills before the committee would have the
effect of reenacting the provisions passed in HB 189. She
outlined that if all three bills passed, and if SB 189 were
to be struck down by the courts, re-passage of the bills
would ensure there was not a gap between the time the law
was eliminated and reenactment which would not affect the
laws. Passage of the bills also may have the possibility of
being construed as curative legislation by the court,
which had been upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court and in
other states to fix the alleged problem, resulting in
dismissal of the lawsuit. She informed the committee that
the lawsuit was filed in the fall of 2024. The plaintiff
had filed a motion of summary judgement. The state
requested the court stay the legislation during the length
of the current session to give the legislature the
opportunity to pass the legislation. There was a denial of
the stay on the current day by the Superior Court and the
case will remain on summary judgement. The state had been
ordered the plaintiff to respond to the summary judgement
within 15 days, on May 28, 2025, which was after the
legislature adjourned from its regular session. She
anticipated that the court would issue a decision on the
merits of the case on that date.
3:08:59 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Julie Coulombe
and Representative Zach Fields in the room.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if curative legislation could be
altered so it would not undermine the "cure" and "moot" the
litigation. Ms. Wallace replied that the issue had not been
specifically litigated in the Alaska Supreme Court. She
could not specify where the line was. She deduced that if
the goal of the legislature was to dismiss the lawsuit by
reenacting the legislation, she advised that the bills
largely went unamended and true to the provisions in SB
189. Otherwise, there was a risk the court could view them
as new bills and not relevant to SB 189. Conversely, if the
goal was to ensure there was no impact on the provisions of
the law enacted in SB 189, the risk was less important.
3:11:50 PM
Co-Chair Josephson pondered that if there were independent
unrelated reasons to reform a bill that had been a part of
SB 189 and found the lawsuit as immaterial to changes, it
fell under a completely different analysis.Ms. Wallace
answered that as a matter of law and legislative
prerogative, the legislature could change and amend and
pass whatever bills it wanted. The legislature was free to
make whatever changes it wanted but if the matter was
curing the litigation, the less the bills were amended, the
more likely the court would be to find the bills curative
and would moot the pending litigation.
3:13:36 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how many bills were in SB
189 that the legislature needed to cure. Ms. Wallace
answered there were currently four bills that contained all
of the provisions in SB 189 that included SB 80, SB 95, SB
96, and SB 97.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if they needed to cure all
four bills. He asked if they had to pass all four bills.
Ms. Wallace replied that if the goal was to have the best
chance to dismiss the legislation, all four would need to
be passed to cure all of the provisions. If the legislature
only passed three of the bills, there was still a benefit
to reenact the three bills. She elaborated that if SB 189
was struck down by the court it invalidated all of the
provisions. Therefore, passage of just a portion would
mitigate the consequences of those specific provisions
being validated.
3:16:13 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the consequences meant
that SB 189 only would be struck down. He asked if there
were monetary or other consequences that could occur if the
bill was struck down. Ms. Wallace answered that she spoke
specifically to the provisions being invalidated. She
indicated that there were other consequences that could
occur if the legislation was invalidated. There may be some
attorney fees awarded if the plaintiff prevailed. In
addition, if the bill made it to the Alaska Supreme Court
there may be some uncertainty if there was a negative
ruling on single subject and what was considered to be a
single subject could be diminished. However, the
consequence was not as significant as the uncertainty of
what would happen if the provisions were invalidated.
Representative Stapp asked for verification that the onus
of the lawsuit was on the single subject rule. Ms. Wallace
answered in the affirmative.
Representative Stapp provided a hypothetical where the
court ruled the single subject rule had been violated. He
wondered what the implications would be. Ms. Wallace
reiterated that the immediate consequence was that if the
court would invalidate SB 189 and the provisions in law
would be invalidated. The legislature would have to decide
whether it wanted to take action to reenact the provisions.
She could not speculate how the court might rule on the
matter. She informed the committee that historically, the
Alaska Supreme Court had given the legislature significant
discretion and a pretty broad interpretation of a single
subject. She was not sure if a ruling would significantly
impact the legislature.
3:21:11 PM
Representative Stapp asked about severability where the
court struct down only what it deemed to be
unconstitutional instead of the entirety of the bills'
contents. He wondered if it was applicable to SB 189. Ms.
Wallace answered that severability was likely not at play
in a single subject case. The court was likely not to
decide which provisions were in violation of the single
subject rule. She delineated that by doing so, the court
decided which provisions were more important than the other
ones. In other states that did not typically happen; the
courts struck down the entire measure and the action would
invalidate the entire act. Representative Stapp referenced
a ballot measure before the court where only some measures
were struck down. He wondered why. Ms. Wallace replied that
the ballot initiative was the first case where the Supreme
Court found a violation of the single subject rule. She
emphasized that it was difficult to speculate what would
happen since a legislative matter on single subject was
never heard in the Supreme Court. She opined that the
entire act would be ruled in violation.
3:24:17 PM
Representative Stapp thought her answer made sense. He
related that the only thing he had heard on the single
subject rule was related to the ballot initiative where
they had kept some provisions.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Wallace.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that he may recess the meeting
due to a conference committee meeting and return later.
SENATE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to the child care assistance program
and the child care grant program; and providing for an
effective date."
3:25:54 PM
SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, CHAIR, SENATE HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES COMMITTEE, relayed that the fundamental reason the
bill was before the committee was due to the single subject
rule litigation. He commented that the underlying substance
of the bill expanded childcare to roughly 18 thousand
children. He added that the bill aligned with the
Governor's Task Force on Child Care recommendations. He
reminded the committee that the bill was currently in
statute and SB 95 was a separate bill in case the lawsuit
struck down SB 189. He added that the funding was included
in the current governors requested budget. He summarized
that the bill reenacted a portion of SB 189 passed in the
prior year in hopes it rendered the lawsuit moot.
STEPHANIE BERGLUND, CEO, THREAD, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), thanked the committee for hearing the
bill. She shared that Thread was a 39 year old non-profit
organization providing services to strengthen access to
affordable, quality early childhood education with a focus
on childcare serving families, educators, and over 4
hundred programs each year. She delineated that the
childcare sector was fragile and had seen increased
challenges in the past five years. Since 2020, over 25
percent of licensed childcare centers closed. The childcare
workforce was struggling with low wages, few benefits, and
a highly competitive workforce. The state was ranked low in
state investments in childcare and in efforts to recover
post-pandemic. She commented that when the state lacked a
strong childcare sector, its economic infrastructure
struggled. Recent research and data, conducted in
partnership with the Alaska Chamber and the McKinley Group,
had shown that businesses are greatly impacted by families
struggling with childcare - including poor attendance and
loss in productivity. She communicated that childcare
challenges for working families result in absences and
employee turnover that cost businesses an estimated $152
million annually. She stressed that when Alaskans cannot
work, they lack the financial security to support their
families, and unable to achieve self-sufficiency goals nor
contribute to the economy. She believed that the situation
not only stifled the quality of life for families, but also
stalled Alaska's growth. The bill added incentives for
businesses to support childcare and strengthens the
childcare assistance and subsidy programs.
Ms. Berglund continued that while many areas of the
childcare system need support, SB 95 aimed to strengthen
childcare assistance by allowing more families, those
earning up to 106 percentile of median household income, to
participate in the program and created flexibility in
childcare resources and support programs with the targeted
supports they need. She emphasized that changes in
childcare assistance were needed. She related that
currently, too few families participate in the program
because they do not qualify or cannot access resources
under the current structure. She suggested changes like
increasing childcare assistance access and capping co-
payments required for families. She pointed out that the
bill allowed more families to qualify for assistance and
thus more families gain access to quality childcare. These
and other barriers were impacting families ability to
participate in the workforce. She detailed that just over
half of families (51 percent) report that household
members' ability to be employed or work more hours was
impacted by the quality, availability, or cost of
childcare, representing 25 thousand Alaskan parents who
could be working. The percentage demonstrated a large
change from the same survey conducted in 2019, where only
22 percent of families surveyed reported that childcare
barriers were impacting their ability to be employed
resulting in a 29 percent increase. The findings
underscored the need for the bill. The bill created a
program that partnered with businesses to create incentives
in developing onsite or near site childcare. Additionally,
childcare businesses were reimbursed at childcare
assistance program rates set by a market rate survey based
on the amount providers charge for care, not what the
actual costs were to provide quality care. Thread was
encouraged to see current research underway to understand
the true cost of care. She wanted to analyze the data to
determine how it can be used in conjunction with market
rate prices in policy and fiscal planning for childcare
support. She was pleased to see that the bill included
consideration of childcare reimbursement rates based on a
market rate survey and the true cost of care. Considering
the true cost of providing childcare in our policies would
inform a more stable childcare system. She relayed that
Thread endorsed SB 95 and SB 96 because the bills
represented a key step toward more affordable access to
childcare for families. Thread encouraged legislators to
support the bills with urgency. She requested that the bill
pass simply and move forward in recognition that it passed
with strong support in the prior session. She noted that
the fiscal note was already included in the governor's
budget. She urged passage of the bill.
3:33:24 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster requested a review of the fiscal note. OMB
component 1897 from the.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the fiscal note. He detailed that the Department
of Health (DOH) fiscal impact note (FN1(DOH) was allocated
to Child Care Benefits. He reiterated that the fiscal note
was reflected in the FY 26 budget. He reported that the
Personal Services line was $203.8 thousand, the Services
line was $28 thousand, Commodities were $2 thousand, Grants
and Benefits were $5.858.4 million totaling $6.092.2
million. The fund sources were as follows: Federal Receipts
$225.1 thousand, General Fund Match was $225.1 thousand,
and General Fund was $5.642 million. He referenced the
fiscal note's analysis on page 2 that showed the creation
of two positions. He delineated the following costs:
Services: $28 thousand annually or $14 thousand per
position for chargeback costs. Commodities: $2. thousand
annually or $1 thousand per position. Grants: $216.5
thousand to support grantee staffing to process additional
applications and $5,642 million additional increased
subsidy benefit.
3:36:36 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how a range 12 cost
$83,000 per year. He also wanted the hourly rate for a
range 18. Mr. Anderson replied that the amount included
base salary, and benefits.
LEAH VAN KIRK, POLICY ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, JUNEAU
(via teleconference), affirmed Mr. Anderson's answer.
Representative Tomaszewski asked what the hourly wage
amounted to.
3:39:09 PM
Ms. Van Kirk replied that the hourly rate for a range 12
was $24.15 per hour. She added that the hourly rate for a
range 18 was $36.30 per hour.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether there was initially $29
million in federal funding. He deduced that the federal
investment was eliminated for whatever reason and the
department substituted the amount with mostly state
dollars.
Ms. Berglund responded that Co-Chair Josephson was
referring to three different Congressional appropriations
of COVID 19 relief funding that was granted in an effort to
stabilize childcare in Alaska. She affirmed that all of the
three appropriations had been exhausted. She added that
childcare overall was primarily federally funded and
required additional state investment like the funding in SB
95 and SB 96.
3:42:27 PM
Representative Allard thought there were quite a few
vacancies in the department. She asked why they wanted to
add two new positions instead of using existing vacancies.
Ms. Van Kirk replied that the bill created a new program
and required new positions. She stressed that the Division
of Public Assistance needed to utilize all of its existing
allocated positions. The childcare program office was
separate and had a low vacancy rate. Representative Allard
asked for verification that there were no existing
vacancies in the specific office. Ms. Van Kirk replied that
there was a low vacancy rate in the Childcare Program
Office. The department had assessed its needs and because
it was a new program, new PCNs were required.
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT SB 95 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 95 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do pass"
recommendations and four "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (DOH).
SENATE BILL NO. 96
"An Act relating to education tax credits for certain
payments and contributions for child care and child
care facilities; relating to the insurance tax
education credit, the income tax education credit, the
oil or gas producer education credit, the property tax
education credit, the mining business education
credit, the fisheries business education credit, and
the fisheries resource landing tax education credit;
providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of secs. 1, 2, and 21, ch. 61, SLA
2014; and providing for an effective date."
3:45:02 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear an introduction from the bill
sponsor.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, explained that the bill
expanded the current education tax credit and had a $3
million limit. The legislation created a tax credit for
employers who incur childcare expenditures in the form of
cash or equipment, or payments to employees. He indicated
that a concern had arisen in recent days about the cost of
the bill due to the fiscal problems currently facing the
state. The bill had no discrete fiscal limits and could
potentially cost the state tens of millions in lost
revenue. He deduced that if the 20 largest employers took
advantage of the credit at $3 million it would total $60
million from the treasury. He highlighted other concerns
that had arisen: There was no definition of childcare and
payments might be used for babysitters. There was no method
of how employees spent the money. The lack of a definition
could lead to unintended consequences. He thought it was
important to pass the bill. He suggested potentially adding
a closer sunset date to keep track of the credits' fiscal
impact.
BLUE SHIBLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION FOR THE
EDUCATION OF YOUNG CHILDREN (AEYC-SEA), JUNEAU (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
shared that AEYC-SEA was a nonprofit serving childcare
providers, families and young children in Southeast Alaska
for the past 40 years. She offered that the shortage of
childcare in Alaska was a complex problem that needed
innovative solutions from multiple partners that included
the state, municipalities, and the business sector. She
relayed that her work allowed her to foster the growth of
childcare programs and she had seen tremendous interest
from the business sector in providing solutions who were
looking for concrete ways to act. She communicated that SB
96 incentivized investment from corporate taxpayers to help
expand access to childcare. She shared the example that
AEYC-SEA was currently in the process of building a large
scale childcare center in Juneau. The project was going to
be expensive and a handful of corporations in the region
were very interested in contributing; they had been
tracking the legislation closely. She stressed that the
bill needed to pass in the current session. She hoped that
the bill would spark similar interest across the state.
3:50:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster requested a review of the fiscal notes from
his staff.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the published zero fiscal note from Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) (FN3
(CED) allocated to Insurance Operations. The note was a
zero fiscal note with no regulation changes. The credit was
currently scheduled to sunset effective January 1, 2029. He
explained that the bill changed the sunset provisions to
January 1, 2028. Due to a sharp decline in credits being
claimed by insurance companies, the Division of Insurance
anticipated the trend over the last nine years to continue.
Therefore, the fiscal note projected no lost revenue nor
any fiscal impact from the legislation. The second
published zero fiscal note was from the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development (DLWD) (FN1(LWF), allocated to
Labor Market Information. He commented that the zero fiscal
was due to no revenue or regulation changes. The last
published fiscal impact note was from the Department of
Revenue (DOR) (FN2(REV), allocated to the Tax Division. The
expenditure was zero with an indeterminate revenue change
for FY 28 and FY 29.
3:55:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for the sponsor's comments regarding
the sunset issue.
Senator Wielechowski commented that the bill had been
rushed through the Senate. He thought it might be worth
considering shortening the sunset.
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Wallace for her opinion.
Ms. Wallace restated that the consequence of amending the
legislation was a policy call for the legislature. If SB 96
was amended and the court viewed it as new legislation
versus curative, there was risk that it would not be
sufficient and moot the litigation. She reminded the
committee that no definitive case law existed to assist in
the decision of whether to amend or not.
Representative Stapp voiced that he leaned towards not
amending the bill based on the explanation.
3:57:58 PM
AT EASE
4:01:44 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked about the difference in the sunsets.
SONJA KAWASAKI, SENATE MAJORITY COUNSEL, restated that the
question was how the sunset date in the current bill
applied to the bill and existing statutory education tax
credits. She explained that the education tax credits, and
the enacted SB 189 childcare tax credits were subject to a
sunset of January 1, 2028, on page 5, line 17 of SB 96. The
sunset applied to both the education and childcare tax
credits. Therefore, if the committee entertained an
amendment, it would only apply to the childcare tax
credits.
Co-Chair Schrage wondered what the soonest practicable date
was so the committee could set the sunset and make it work
with the current bill structure, effective date, or any
other potential issue.
Ms. Wallace deferred the question to a colleague.
Co-Chair Schrage clarified that his question was what was
the soonest the program could be sunset.
EMILY NAUMAN, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), answered that Section 16 of the bill made
the changes to the education and childcare tax credits
retroactive to July 23, 2024, which reflected that date SB
189 was passed. She recalled that the intention was that
the childcare tax credits would take effect on that day.
She calculated that if interested in learning how many
credits were claimed the bill would need a full year
sunset. Many corporations paid taxes on their own tax year
annual cycle, which varied. She believed that the decision
was a policy call. She suggested that the department may
have more insight on the corporate tax credit cycle
However, many use the calendar year, which was why she
suggested a full year.
4:06:17 PM
Co-Chair Schrage hypothesized proposing a sunset date of
September 1, 2025, and companies Had already earned tax
credits in the first quarter of the current year. He
wondered whether the companies would not be able to use the
tax credits at the end of the year. Ms. Nauman responded
that unless the legislature made a special provision
otherwise to the extent the law was in place, at the time
the taxpayer earned the credit they would be able to apply
it for activity during the time the law was active. She
opined that "it was a bit messy because of the situation
where the court could invalidate the law
Representative Bynum wondered whether the sunset date was
changed in SB 96 from 2029 to 2028, in an attempt to mimic
the original bill.
Ms. Kawasaki answered that the amendment on page 5 of the
bill was to recreate the law that was established in SB
189. She explained that a bill was enacted prior to SB 189
that extended the sunset of the entire education tax credit
program and included the prior childcare tax program to
2029. In order to copy what SB 189 put in place,
Legislative Legal Services drafters included the 2028
sunset date. She voiced that it was the reason there was a
shorter sunset date.
Representative Stapp thought that there was a practicality
in talking about a shortened sunset date that was being
missed in the discussion. He explained that the sunset date
was effective to provisions 1, 2, and 21 of the prior bill
and were for: "contributions of cash or equipment accepted
by a childcare facility in the state operated by a
nonprofit corporation and attended by one or more children
of the taxpayer's employees; and a payment to an employee
of the taxpayer made by the taxpayer for the purpose of
offsetting the employee's childcare costs incurred in the
state. He deemed that if there was an early sunset date it
would invalidate the tax credits and their effects which
was the purpose of the bill. He wondered why January 1,
2028, was in over 30 months and shortening it would
"liquidate" the chance to determine the efficacy of the tax
credits.
4:11:13 PM
Co-Chair Foster commented that trying to find consensus on
the issue may be challenging.
Representative Hannan asked if anyone from DOR was
available to find out if any businesses had taken advantage
of the tax credit.
BRANDON SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE (via teleconference), replied that the division
did not know whether anyone took advantage of the credit,
the first tax returns were due on April 15, 2025, and most
corporations applied for an extension to October 15, 2025.
He expected most of the returns would be received by that
date. He affirmed that most taxpayers use the calendar
year. He offered that the tax division published the
education tax credit report after October, and it would
breakout the childcare portion of the tax.
4:12:42 PM
Representative Hannan thought that if they were trying to
be cautious and change as little as possible, she would
look to change to January 2026, which offered a full year.
Representative Bynum viewed the situation as a curing
process and as a legal matter. He commented that whether or
not he agreed with the original bill was "a completely
different conversation." He felt that changing the date to
2026 was a significant change and would want a full
hearing. He was supportive of a minor sunset date
adjustment, but he was uncomfortable with killing the bill
and wanted to let the bill remain in statute as was
adopted.
4:14:56 PM
Senator Wielechowski remarked that it was a fantastic bill
in "a world of unlimited resources." However, he wanted to
manage the state's financial risk. He deduced that the
credits could climb as high as $100,000 or $100 million. He
expressed concern over how the state could afford it. The
impacts of the bill were unknown.
Representative Bynum pointed to the statute that had a $3
million cap. He wanted to ascertain how many affiliated
groups could afford the $3 million investment and he
doubted there were many in the state. Prior to altering the
bill, he would like to know who and how many potential
taxpayers there were and who was being impacted by the
bill. He maintained that childcare was a major issue in the
state.
Representative Stapp rejected Senator Wielechowski
speculative notion. He recalled that the committee
discussed the bill in the prior year and the loss of
potential revenue. He noted the $3 million cap and that
very few entities in the state even paid corporate income
tax. The state did not net hundreds of millions of dollars.
He noted a sunset as early as January 2026 and reminded the
committee that one of the key provisions was to allow an
employer to make expenditures to operate an onsite
childcare facility for children of taxpayers. He discerned
that no employer would invest into building a childcare
facility with such a short sunset date. He thought it was
imperative the legislature grant the bill the time to work
as intended. He suggested revisiting the statutes if the
state experienced a significant decrease in revenues, but
he did not foresee that scenario. The current sunset was
not far off. He noted that the bill was adopted in the
prior year because they all agreed the childcare sector was
in crisis. In addition, the legislation created a state
incentive that mirrored a federal incentive that allowed
employees to take pretax payroll deductions for the purpose
of dependent care. He believed the provisions were
productive. He encouraged the committee to leave the bill
as is to see if it worked.
Co-Chair Schrage agreed with a lot of what the prior member
said. He noted that the price of oil had also been
substantially higher at that time the original bill passed.
He needed more time to think about it.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee may come back quickly
after conference committee.
Senator Wielechowski clarified that the bill applied to not
only corporate taxpayers but 7 categories of taxpayers. He
noted correspondence from the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD) stating that oil companies could dip below the 4
percent minimum with the credit. He listed the potential
taxpayers eligible for the credit and judged that it was an
expansive list.
Co-Chair Foster RECESSED the meeting.
4:21:46 PM
AT EASE
5:04:56 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster stated that he did not want to be rushed.
His intent was to come back after 6:00 p.m.
5:06:20 PM
RECESSED
6:54:08 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster did not want to make any rash decisions on
SB 96 and wanted to sleep on it. He set the bill aside.
SB 96 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Representative Bynum asked a procedural question. He
recounted that there had been some conversations about
altering the sunset in SB 96, effectively killing the bill.
The assumption had been that the hearing was for a
statutory "cleanup process" to protect the legality of the
original bill, which was what the committee had done by
moving SB 95 out of committee. He asked if the committee
should reconsider passing out SB 95 if they were taking
alternative actions on SB 96.
Co-Chair Foster restated his understanding of the question
and statement. He observed that members were unsure if a
sunset should be changed or not. He surmised that there
were options regarding the sunset date. He concluded that
members wanted more time.
Co-Chair Schrage believed that there were some complexities
with SB 96 that may need to be cleaned up and there were a
"number of options available." He favored taking more time
with SB 96 to understand the impacts.
SB 96 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 97
"An Act establishing a big game guide concession area
permit program on land in the state; relating to the
duties of the Big Game Commercial Services Board, the
Board of Game, the Department of Fish and Game, and
the Department of Natural Resources; requiring the
Board of Game to establish an initial big game guide
concession area; and providing for an effective date."
6:58:43 PM
INTIMAYO HARBISON, STAFF, SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, introduced
the legislation. He explained that Senate Bill 97 sought to
solve a long-standing problem on state lands by
implementing a constitutionally sound concession program to
limit the number of commercial hunting guide operations on
state lands in Alaska. The program was similar to a
successful federal concession program and attempted to
solve issues of overcrowding and localized wildlife
resource overutilization. The legislation was a result of
the Guide Concession Program Workgroup (formed by the Big
Game Commercial Services Board), which conducted a
comprehensive process that included public meetings, and
robust public consultation with licensed guides, residents,
other stakeholders, and various state agencies. The
legislation represented a balanced, well-considered
approach to address the challenges in commercial big game
hunting on state lands. The passage of SB 97 would put
establish a proven mechanism to improve the quality of
hunting on state lands to the benefit of all Alaskans.
7:00:32 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Senator Jesse Bjorkman in the
room.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the three fiscal
notes. He listed individuals available online for
questions.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, began
with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) published fiscal
impact note (FN5(DFG), allocated to Boards of Fisheries and
Game. He reported that the funds coming from the
expenditure lines of $9.5 thousand in personal services,
$2.6 thousand in travel, and 2.3 thousand in services
totaled $14,000 in Undesignated General Funds (UGF) and
were included in the FY 26 governor's requested budget. He
noted that some regulation changes were required. He turned
to the second published fiscal impact note from Department
of Fish and Game (FN4(DFG), allocated to Wildlife
Conservation. He indicated that the expenditures reflected
personal services of $112.3 thousand in UGF. The department
anticipated the cost due to the requirement for an
additional wildlife biologist position to manage ongoing
responsibilities. The last published fiscal impact note was
from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)(FN6(DNR),
allocated to Mining, Land, and Water. The fiscal note
reflected the governor's FY 26 requested budget including
$291.6 thousand in personal services, $10 thousand in
travel, $30 thousand in services, and $10 thousand in
commodities totaling $341.6 thousand UGF. There were two
full time positions and DNR noted that the change in
revenue was indeterminate, and the bills provisions would
also require regulation review. He delineated that the two
positions were one permanent Full-Time Natural Resource
Manager 2, and one permanent Full-Time Natural Resource
Specialist 2/3 Flex.
7:05:42 PM
Representative Allard asked if the sponsor spoke to the
resident hunters. She cited testimony and reported that
they were opposed to the bill.
Mr. Harbison did not believe there was any additional
opposition information other than what was referenced by
Representative Allard. The bill did not originate with the
Senate Resources Committee in the prior bill. He was not
familiar with the particulars around the particular group's
positions. He deferred to the department for questions.
Representative Allard asked if the intent was to move the
bill.
Co-Chair Foster answered in the affirmative, but it was up
to the will of the committee. Representative Allard wanted
to hold the bill overnight to discover more information.
Representative Bynum reminded the committee that the bill
was one of the cleanup bills and it was currently in law.
The funds were already in the budget. He wondered what
options existed other than to deconstruct the law.
Representative Allard voiced that she was being mansplained
[colloquialism] to. Representative Bynum argued that he was
not mansplaining anything and merely wanted to determine
what the intention to hold the bill was for.
7:08:56 PM
AT EASE
7:10:06 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Allard did not totally disagree with the
bill. There were a couple of individuals she wanted to get
a bit of information from. She asked if they could hold the
bill until the following day.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Thor Stacy was in the room and
available as well.
Co-Chair Schrage recognized there may be a desire to check
in with other stakeholders. There was a lot of work left
before the committee and time was dwindling. He preferred
moving the bill before conclusion of the meeting.
7:11:59 PM
Representative Allard agreed to move the bill if it was the
will of the committee.
Representative Tomaszewski wanted to move both SB 96 and SB
97.
Representative Allard objected to moving SB 96 from
committee.
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT SB 97 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 97 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do pass"
recommendations and four "no recommendation"
recommendations and with three previously published fiscal
impact notes: FN4 (DFG), FN5 (DFG), and FN6 (DNR).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
7:14:00 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 97 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051325.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |