Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/20/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB196 | |
| HB261 | |
| HB358 | |
| HB337 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 221 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 337 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 358 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 261
"An Act relating to loans for the purchase of
commercial fishing entry permits; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair Stoltze pointed to the previously adopted CS for
HB 261, Work Draft 27-LS0968\B (Bullard, 3/19/12) and added
that there had been an issue regarding the fiscal note.
TIMOTHY CLARK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, directed
the committee's attention to the zero fiscal note and
stated that its only revisions were the deletions of errors
on the analysis page.
Representative Edgmon added that the two sentences that
referred to an earlier version of the bill were taken out
of the fiscal note, but that it still remained a zero note.
Representative Neuman stated that he had made some
inquiries outside of the committee regarding the
legislation and mentioned that the interest rate on the
fishing loans had been changed several times. He pointed
out that if there was a lower interest rate available to
someone who had already taken a commercial fishing loan,
the borrower could apply to refinance at the lower rate for
a fee of around $100.
Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed a letter in members'
packets, which had expressed concern regarding the
legislation. She was supportive of the bill's intent, but
wanted to give the sponsor an opportunity to respond to the
concerns. She stated that her understanding of the bill was
that it provided lower-cost money than was available in a
commercial loan market after an individual was unable to
qualify in that commercial market. She inquired how the
state determined whether an applicant for a loan had been
declined or had simply failed qualify, and further queried
if there was something in statutes or regulations that
helped make that determination. Representative Edgmon
paraphrased from the Commercial Fishing Lone Act statute
and stated that a borrower was only eligible for Section B
loans if he or she "is not eligible for financing from a
state financial institution as defined in Title 6, or a
federally chartered financial institution, or the
Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank (CFAB)."
Vice-Chair Fairclough reiterated that she was still unsure
how the eligibility was determined. Representative Edgmon
responded that the eligibility requirements for the Section
B loans specified that in order to qualify, someone must
have been a state resident for a continuous period of at
least two years directly preceding the date of the
application, must not be eligible through a commercial bank
or CFAB, must lack employment opportunities other than
commercial fishing, must not have past due on any child
support obligations, and must never have received a loan
under the Section A provision of the Commercial Fishing
Revolving Loan Act. He observed that all of the requirement
provisions would make it difficult, if not impossible, for
an applicant to seek lending through traditional means and
concluded that the bill offered a "leg up" to those trying
to get involved in the commercial fishing industry.
1:59:47 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough observed that there was a difference
between qualifying for a loan under the current language
versus being declined by a commercial lender, but that she
understood and supported the intent of the legislation. She
inquired if there was a way for a Section B borrower to
receive discounts on the loan percentages for consistently
making payments on time. Representative Edgmon replied in
the affirmative and elaborated that it was called the Pay
On-Time program; if a borrower had complied with the
payments for the first year, they would be eligible for as
much as a 1 percent reduction to the interest rate of the
loan. He explained that if a borrower entered the program
at a 5.25 percent interest rate and all went well, they
would be eligible to lower their rate to as little as 4.25
percent.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered how the discounted interest
rate would compare and compete in a commercial market.
Co-Chair Stoltze observed there had not been any testimony
from the traditional banks on the legislation. He opined
that CFAB seemed to be more interested in protecting its
"turf" than serving the state's farmers and fishermen.
Co-Chair Thomas told a personal story about his son
receiving a state loan to buy a boat. His son had applied
and had been turned down by two traditional banks, but had
eventually received a loan from the state. He offered that
the difference between the traditional banks and state was
that the banks did not ask him to cosign on his son's loan,
but that he had cosigned on the state loan. He recalled
that he had been denied for a loan from CFAB about 25 years
prior because he was not qualified. He stated that he had
attempted to go through CFAB for a Bristol Bay fishing boat
and gillnet permit because he knew that he would not have
qualified through a commercial bank or the state. He shared
that although he had 20 years of prior fishing experience
as a gillnetter in Southeast Alaska, CFAB had denied him a
loan because they thought he lacked experience. He voiced
agreement with Co-Chair Stoltze's earlier observation
regarding CFAB's desire to protect its "turf." He supported
the legislation and thought it would help young fishermen
who were starting out in the industry.
Vice-Chair Fairclough directed the committee's attention to
multiple letters of support, which raised issues with the
earlier mentioned letter of concern.
2:04:13 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 261(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 261(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero impact note from
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development and one previously published zero fiscal note:
FN1 (DFG).
2:04:58 PM
AT EASE
2:07:37 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB221 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB221 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB221 Court Rule 39.1.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB221 AS 18.85.120.docx |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 221 |
| HB358 CS WORKDRAFT 27-LS1406-I.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 358 |
| HB196 CS WORKDRAFT 27-LS0529-I.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB196 NEW FN-FIN-CED AEA 3.20.12pdf.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 NEW FN FIN CED INVESTMENTS 3.20.12pfd.1.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 NEW FN FIN CED CRA 3.20.12pfd.1.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| 3 20 12 Summary of HB196 NEW Fiscal Notes.doc |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB196 NEW FN-FIN-CED AEA 3.20.12pdf.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| 3 20 12 Summary of HB196 NEW Fiscal Notes.doc |
HFIN 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |