Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2010 08:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB294 | |
| HB412 | |
| HB283 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 410 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 412
"An Act establishing the Alaska microloan revolving
fund; making loans for commercial purposes from the
fund; and relating to the fund and loans; and
providing for an effective date."
GREG WINEGAR, DIVISION OF INVESTMENTS, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE spoke to the bill. The loan program is modeled
after a similar program sponsored by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) currently available in 46 states.
Alaska has yet to develop a comparable loan program as an
intermediary lender is currently unidentified. The loans
would include up to $35,000 for an individual and $70,000
for two or more residents. The proceeds would be available
for working capital, equipment, construction, and
improvements. The interest rate would be prime plus one
with a floor of six and a ceiling of eight. The maximum
term is six years. The submitted fiscal note includes $3.5
million from Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA) contingent on the passage of HB 411. The
fund would be established as a revolving fund. With the
initial capitalization, 75 loans are possible in the first
year and 100 in the second, with 25 loans per year on an
ongoing basis thereafter.
8:28:32 AM
Representative Fairclough asked about time constraints for
residency requirements listed on Page 3, Line 14-16. Mr.
Winegar responded that the requirements span a 12
consecutive month period. Representative Fairclough
interpreted the section differently. Mr. Winegar suggested
a language change to better communicate the 12 month time
period.
Vice-Chair Thomas recalled multiple definitions of
residency.
8:30:32 AM
Representative Doogan believed Representative Fairclough
was right. He provided three different definitions of
residency.
Representative Gara suggested a conceptual amendment
imposing the one year period used for the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD).
Representative Fairclough clarified that the bill states
that a person may not have declared residency elsewhere.
She noted that people migrate to Alaska occasionally
seeking business loans.
Vice-Chair Thomas stated that the definition of residency
at the university is similar to that of the PFD
requirement.
8:33:16 AM
Representative Doogan commented that the agency must
understand the expectation of a clarifying amendment. Mr.
Winegar offered to communicate with the agency.
Representative Fairclough stressed a time commitment.
Representative Kelly requested a list of others concerned
with the bill. Mr. Winegar responded that discussions with
multiple banks did not result in much concern regarding the
lower dollar level.
8:35:48 AM
Representative Gara asked about the eight percent cap. Mr.
Winegar agreed that the cap could be removed. He explained
the goal of maintaining a low interest rate.
Representative Gara MOVED Conceptual Amendment 1.
Page 3, line 26, delete after per year:
"and not more than eight percent per year;"
Representative Austerman OBJECTED for discussion. He
discussed the establishment of acceptable interest rates
for these loans.
Mr. Winegar stated that the prime rate is three and one
quarter so prime plus one would be four and one quarter
with a basement of six. If prime plus one went higher than
eight percent, then eight percent would be the cap.
Representative Doogan understood that if the prime rate was
three and one half or four and one half, a loan is not
possible because the number is less than six.
Mr. Winegar explained that the language reads prime plus
one with a floor of six percent.
Representative Doogan understood the intention of the
amendment yet was not clear on the purpose. If the prime
rate is four and one half plus one, why would the loan be
at six percent? Mr. Winegar responded that six was the
decision for the floor as risk and cost must be factored
in.
8:40:15 AM
Representative Austerman continued to object to the
amendment. He believed that the reason for the loan was the
fostering of economic development. He stated that a higher
interest rate makes it more difficult to pay back the loan.
He opined that an eight percent cap with a $35 thousand
loan allows a wonderful opportunity for the business
sector.
Representative Kelly believed that the committee discussed
the topic in a prior meeting. Mr. Winegar agreed.
Representative Kelly stated that he does not support the
eight percent cap. The intention of the loans is not to
compete with the banks. He understood the floor, as the
loans are often offered to those unable to receive
traditional bank loans.
Representative Foster asked if the cost of capital rises
above eight percent, would AIDEA subsidize the loans. Mr.
Winegar explained that an opportunity cost would have been
lost because the fund is revolving. The money returned is
the interest rate for any given time.
8:43:40 AM
Representative Gara commented that prime plus one is a
favorable interest rate regardless of prime. Mr. Winegar
agreed.
Representative Fairclough asked if the issued loans are on
a fixed versus adjustable rate. Mr. Winegar answered yes.
Representative Fairclough advocated in support of the
amendment on the floor to eliminate the eight percent
ability to draw down. She opined that offering loans
substantially below the market value is unfair to the
private sector.
Representative Doogan understood the range of loans would
exist between 6 and 8 percent with the current language in
the CS. Mr. Winegar replied yes. He explained that rates
are reviewed each quarter and adjusted to create loans on a
fixed rate note for the life of the loan.
Representative Doogan continued that the amendment would
create a rate between six and infinity. He asked if the
legislature would make the change to allow the interest
rate to float up why is the committee concerned about loans
where interest rate floats down. Mr. Winegar responded risk
and operating costs.
8:46:53 AM
Representative Doogan expressed confusion. He believed that
if the interest was lower, the risk was lower. He opined
that the risk calculation was backwards.
Mr. Winegar agreed that six percent may not be the correct
number. Adding one point to three and one quarter percent
is a very low interest rate when cost and risk are factored
in.
Representative Doogan commented that loans for low interest
rates lead to eventual balance. Mr. Winegar explained that
money is required to operate the program and losses do
occur leading to the decision for a moderate interest rate.
8:50:08 AM
Representative Austerman delivered an explanation of the
necessity of interest rates with state or bank loans. Those
loan recipients who make their payments balance those who
cannot, allowing for cash flow.
Representative Doogan understood that the amendment would
allow the state to provide bank luxuries at the low end but
not at the high end.
Representative Austerman reminded about the revolving loan
program. If the operational cost is covered at six percent
there is no need to increase.
Representative Kelly asked if six percent provided a good
rate. Mr. Winegar replied yes.
Representative Kelly asked if lowering the percentage would
compete with banks. He advocated for six percent and
removal of the cap.
8:52:58 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas reminded that the interest rate was 23
percent in the 1980s. He was in support of the eight
percent cap.
Representative Foster stated that his concern was in the
state adopting bank like policies. He asked about the
interest rate structure with the SBA microloan. Mr. Winegar
noted research showing rates at eight percent for SBA in
the lower forty eight.
Representative Foster asked about a cap in the other loans.
Mr. Winegar believed no, but he was unfamiliar with every
plan.
8:54:49 AM
Representative Gara requested that AIDEA consider the issue
and contact the committee with an answer by the end of the
day. He stressed that he understood both sides of the
argument.
Vice-Chair Thomas recalled the time constraints.
Representative Fairclough suggested a vote on the
amendment.
Representative Austerman pointed out that the major banks
are not interested in these loans. The objective of the
microloan program is to help people who cannot receive
traditional bank loans. He stated opposition to the
amendment.
Representative Kelly asked if interest rates are fifteen
percent and the state is loaning at eight percent, what
would happen to the value of the corpus. Mr. Winegar
responded that the corpus of the fund will continue to
grow.
Representative Kelly asked if the growth would continue
with a differential between inflation of three percent. Mr.
Winegar responded that the opportunity cost would be lost.
Representative Kelly commented that with inflation of 12
percent, the value of the corpus would decrease by 50
percent.
Mr. Winegar added that the fund might earn more without the
restriction of eight percent.
Representative Kelly wondered if the fund would depreciate
in real value. Mr. Winegar agreed that when the situation
is compared to the opportunity cost, the fund would
depreciate.
8:59:05 AM
Representative Fairclough stated support of the amendment
because she wanted to prevent the opportunity for citizens
to borrow money for reinvestment at a higher rate
elsewhere. Vice-Chair Thomas agreed.
9:00:03 AM AT EASE
9:01:08 AM RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Thomas restated the amendment.
Representative Fairclough commented on the amendment and
the discussion that lifting the cap would open up
competition with the banking industry so that people would
not access the microloan account and place it in another
financial institution to receive a larger rate of return.
Representative Austerman continued to oppose the amendment
because of the plea from small businesses expressing
difficulty achieving equipment and inventory loans.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Fairclough, Foster, Gara, Joule, Kelly, Salmon,
Doogan
OPPOSED: Thomas, Austerman, Stoltze, Hawker
The MOTION PASSED (7-4).
9:05:15 AM
Representative Fairclough MOVED Conceptual Amendment #2
Page 3, line 17, add after "state,"
"in the previous 12 months."
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
She explained the amendment which would define the time
limit established in the bill.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Conceptual
Amendment #2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Doogan MOVED Conceptual Amendment #3.
Page 3, line 25 delete after "point"
"but interest may not be less than six percent
per year"
Representative Austerman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Doogan explained that because the cap was
raised with the theory that costs will rise, this amendment
would account for the possibility that costs might
decrease. He understood that the interest rate created by
the amendment would be four and one half percent. The
borrowers would receive the same benefit from a lower rate
that they might receive as a penalty from higher rates.
9:09:30 AM
Representative Fairclough spoke in opposition to the
amendment. She mentioned the risk to the revolving loan
account as the interest collected must be measured against
the risk of potential default.
9:10:34 AM
Representative Austerman objected because he felt that six
percent protects the risk aspect.
Representative Gara stated that protection is offered in
charging a prime plus one interest rate. He understood the
need for a minimum floor, and the negotiable nature of it.
He asked if harm would occur if the minimum floor was five
percent.
Mr. Winegar responded that the proposed scenario would
increase the risk slightly. He pointed out that prime is
the amount loaned to banks from other banks. Prime plus one
is an attractive rate in terms of risk.
9:12:47 AM AT EASE
9:13:56 AM RECONVENED
Representative Doogan restated the Conceptual amendment #3.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Gara, Doogan,
OPPOSED: Joule, Kelly, Salmon, Thomas, Austerman,
Fairclough, Hawker, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (3-8).
9:15:49 AM
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment #4.
Page 1, lines 5-12, Remove Section 1
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. Co-Chair
Hawker explained that the conceptual amendment entails the
ability of the drafters to incorporate it into the entire
context of the bill.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report CS HB 412(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CS HB 412(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with no
recommendations and with previously published fiscal
note: FN1 (CED)
9:17:39 AM AT EASE
9:18:35 AM RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2 HB 294 sponsor statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| 4 HB 294 Sectional Analysis version R.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| 5 Alaska's Boating Safety Dollars at Work 2010.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 294 |
| admin@aidea org_20100401_145122.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Letter from Governor HB410.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 410 |
| Sectional Analysis HB410.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 410 |
| HB 412 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 412 |
| HB 412 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 412 |
| HB 412 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 412 |
| Micro loans.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 412 |
| Microloan Support Letters.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 412 |
| HB283CS(JUD)-LAW-CRIM-03-05-10NEW.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 283 |
| Sectional for CS.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 283 |
| Sponsor Statement HB 283 (2) CS.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 283 |
| Sponsor Statement HB 283 (2) CS.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 283 |
| Backup for (H)FIN hearing request.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CASA letter of support.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CSHB 126(FIN) workdraft - Summary of Changes from HB 126 (HSS).doc |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| CSHB 126(HSS) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| CSHB 126(HSS) Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| CSHB 126(HSS) Summary of Changes from HB 126.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| FFCA letter of support.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 126 Backup[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| HB 126 Departments Affected[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| new HB 126 material including new fiscal notes[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 126 |
| SB300SupplementalBackup[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
SB 300 |
| SB300SectionalAnalysis[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
SB 300 |