Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/26/2017 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 | |
| HB131 | |
| HB128 | |
| HB76 | |
| HB124 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
"An Act relating to the mariculture revolving loan
fund and loans from the fund; and providing for an
effective date."
2:02:05 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated there had been no amendments
submitted to his office since the bill's last hearing. He
invited the bill sponsor, Representative Ortiz, and his
staff to the table.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for considering the legislation. He read the sponsor
statement:
This bill amends the existing Alaska Mariculture
Revolving Loan Fund to allow up to forty percent of
the fund to be used for loans to permitted shellfish
hatcheries for planning, construction and operation.
Alaska shellfish farms currently do not have a stable
supply of seed for the propagation of oysters, and no
regular, in-state source of seed for resident aquatic
plants and other shellfish. A stable supply of seed is
one of many hurdles the industry must overcome to grow
and become a viable Alaskan industry.
This bill will amend the program to shift its focus
and eligibility from individual mariculture farmers to
include shellfish hatcheries that would market stock
to local Alaskan mariculture farmers.
The mariculture industry in Alaska is not yet fully
developed, and is extremely high risk, from a
financial standpoint. These obstacles make private
financing difficult to obtain, but this bill will
enable Alaskans to maintain their businesses and grow
Alaska's
mariculture industry.
Representative Ortiz reported that the bill had 2 zero
fiscal notes. He was happy to answer any questions.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the list of available testifiers.
Co-Chair Foster directed Vice-Chair Gara to review the
fiscal notes.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed two zero fiscal notes:
[Fiscal Note Number: 2]
Department: Department of Fish and Game
Appropriation: Statewide Support Services
Allocation: Commissioner's Office
OMB Component Number: 2175
[Fiscal Note Number: 1]
Department: Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development
Appropriation: Investments
Allocation: Investments
OMB Component Number: 383
Representative Wilson referred to the last paragraph on the
fiscal note with OMB component number 383. She read from
the fiscal note (copy on file).
She asked if the department would be absorbing the costs.
She asked for the amount being absorbed.
2:05:32 PM
BRITTENY CIONI-HAYWOOD, DIVISION DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, relayed that the funding would come
out of the fund. She noted that there was potentially
another regulation package that would be coming out.
Representative Wilson asked what fund the monies would be
drawn from. She thought the amount should be reflected in
the fiscal note and asked Ms. Cioni-Hawood to comment.
Co-Chair Seaton read from the remainder of the last
paragraph on page 2 of the fiscal note (copy on file). He
remarked that the regulations were already being rewritten.
He asked for further clarification.
Ms. Cioni-Haywood understood that the department was not
asking for additional money or an additional appropriation,
therefore, the fiscal note was zero.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the note was
from DCCED. It was part of the loan programs, which they
had a significant amount. He pointed to the top line of the
analysis which indicated that the Mariculture Revolving
Loan Fund program was already authorized to issue loans. It
appeared the program was expanding to include other
projects.
Representative Wilson asked about other planned regulation
projects that would include this project. Ms. Cioni-Haywood
explained that the department was also considering a
regulation project on HB 56 [Legislation introduced in 2017
- Short Title: COMMERCIAL FISHING LOANS] that would include
changes for the commercial fishing loan limits.
Representative Wilson assumed that HB 56 did not have a
zero fiscal note. Ms. Cioni-Haywood relayed there was a
zero fiscal note for HB 56. She was informed that since the
department was not asking for an additional appropriation,
the fiscal note would be zero.
Representative Wilson was asking because the committee had
heard about the budget and how much it had been reduced.
She appreciated that the department was absorbing the cost.
However, it would be nice to know the amount being
absorbed. She specified that the loan people would be
paying for the costs. She suggested that there were
inconsistencies in the absorption of costs. She asked about
the other fiscal note and the potential of more money for
the hatchery portion. She read from the second page of the
fiscal note from DFG (copy on file) regarding additional
operating funds for operators of hatcheries. She realized
that she was directing her question to DCCED and she should
be asking DFG. She asked if the money for hatcheries went
back into the hatcheries themselves. She wondered if that
was the reason it stated there might be more money for the
hatcheries as opposed to the state.
Representative Ortiz asked what she was referring to.
Representative Wilson was speaking to the fiscal note with
the OMB component number 2175. She pointed to the second
page. The language mentioned potential revenue going to
hatcheries rather than to the state.
2:11:02 PM
AT EASE
2:11:27 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz deferred to his staff, Ms. Bolling.
ELIZABETH BOLLING, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ,
explained that hatcheries would be able to apply for grants
through the reshaped loan fund. Although the grants were
small, it would be possible for operators to get some small
grant money through the program that they might otherwise
receive from DFG. All that the fiscal note conveyed was
that a portion of the amount they paid out to the
hatcheries to operate might be offset slightly by the grant
program.
Representative Guttenberg highlighted that the loan program
was sustainable as a revolving loan fund and was self-
sustained. The legislation was expanding who could use the
funds and how the funds would be used. The loan fund by
itself was essentially a bank.
Representative Wilson clarified that her point was that the
money would be designated general funds (DGF) and DGF was
shown in state fiscal notes. She wanted the information
provided on fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 76 (FSH) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 76 (FSH) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1 (CED) and FN2 (DFG).
2:14:47 PM
AT EASE
2:15:49 PM
RECONVENED