Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/16/2017 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 | |
| HB106 | |
| HB141 | |
| HB81 | |
| HB56 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 16, 2017
4:29 p.m.
4:29:06 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 4:29 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-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
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Zach Fansler, Sponsor; Mary Schlosser,
Staff, Representative Fansler; Berett Wilber, Staff,
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins; Representative Dan
Ortiz, Sponsor; Elizabeth Bolling, Staff, Representative
Ortiz.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dennis Dishion, Executive Director, Yuut Elitnaurviat,
Bethel; Brittney Cioni-Haywood, Director, Division of
Economic Development, Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 56 COMMERCIAL FISHING LOANS
HB 56 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1(CED).
HB 81 AK ENERGY EFFICIENCY LOANS: ELIGIBILITY
HB 81 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1(REV).
HB 106 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND
HB 106 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1(AJS) and with a
new indeterminate fiscal note by the Office of
the Governor.
HB 141 AK WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD; FUNDS
HB 141 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day. He
intended to discuss and move HB 56, HB 81, and HB 106.
There would also be an introduction of HB 141.
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act allowing appropriations to the civil legal
services fund from court filing fees."
4:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACH FANSLER, SPONSOR, relayed that it was
his second time presenting HB 106. The legislation was a
civil legal services fund bill that provided a mechanism
for funding Alaska Legal Services, an entity representing
indigent clients around the state.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that his office had not received
any amendments for the bill. Representative Gara was not
currently present to review the fiscal notes associated
with the bill.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that there was one previously
published zero fiscal note by the Judiciary Department;
Appropriation: Alaska Court System; Allocation: Trial
Courts; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Component
Number: 768.
4:32:02 PM
AT EASE
4:32:24 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton reported that there was also a new
indeterminate fiscal note by OMB; Appropriation: Funds
Transfer; Allocation: Civil Legal Services Fund; OMB
Component Number: 3015.
Representative Wilson wanted to clarify that the reason the
fiscal note was indeterminate was because the legislature
could place zero to 25 percent each year. She highlighted
that Page 2 contained the full estimated amount at 25
percent.
Representative Fansler responded that Representative Wilson
was correct.
Co-Chair Foster acknowledged Representative Pruitt,
Representative Grenn, and Representative Tilton at the
table.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the fund would serve people with
less than 125 percent of poverty.
Representative Fansler thought he had materials that he
could provide showing the information.
4:34:31 PM
Representative Wilson asked the chairman if he intended to
move the bill out of committee.
Co-Chair Foster responded, "If it is the will of the body,
yes."
Representative Wilson MOVED to report HB 106 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED. He believed there were three
fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Foster confirmed there were two fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson restated her motion clarifying that
there were two accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Fansler if he had an
answer to Representative Seaton's last question.
Representative Fansler answered that the information he had
been looking for was in the bill on Page 1, Lines 11-14. It
defined a low-income individual. He read directly from the
bill:
In this section, "low-income individual" means an
individual with an income equal to or less than 125
percent of the most recent federal poverty guidelines
for Alaska set by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services.
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 106 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1(AJS) and with one new indeterminate fiscal
note by the Office of the Governor.
4:36:38 PM
AT EASE
4:37:59 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to allocations of funding for the
Alaska Workforce Investment Board; and providing for
an effective date."
4:38:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACH FANSLER, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation which was an act relating to allocations of
funding for the Alaska Workforce Investment Board. The bill
was a renewal of an already existing bill. He reviewed the
sponsor statement:
AS 23.15.820 authorizes the Alaska Workforce
Investment Board to administer the Alaska Technical
and Vocational Education Program (TVEP). This
legislation reauthorizes the allocation of the TVEP
funding for five years.
TVEP was established by Legislature in 2000 with the
purpose of enhancing the quality and accessibility of
job training across the state, and aligning training
with regional workforce demands. TVEP funds are
obtained from a portion of employee contributions to
the unemployment insurance trust fund.
The TVEP funds are allocated to technical and
vocational education entities across Alaska designated
by AS 23.15.835. Each entity receives a set percentage
of the TVEP funds available each fiscal year. The
current allocation sunsets June 30, 2017. Unless the
allocation is reauthorized this funding will sit
unused in the TVEP account instead of being used by
these entities to train Alaskans.
TVEP recipients are required by statute to track and
report program outcomes to the Alaska Workforce
Investment Board. Each year the Board compiles and
provides to the legislature a TVEP performance report
containing this information. In Fiscal Year 2016, the
ten TVEP recipients were allocated $12,510,900 and
served 10,295 youth and adults. A statewide network of
training providers is critical to developing an
Alaskan workforce.
This legislation is necessary to help educate and
train Alaskans for Alaska's jobs.
Representative Fansler emphasized the importance of making
sure the state's highest paying technical and vocational
jobs were being performed by Alaskans. The system was set
up so that the legislation helped every region. He relayed
that 10 different programs were affected by the
legislation:
1. University of Alaska (statewide)
45 percent TVEP funds
2. Galena Interior Learning Academy
4 percent TVEP funds
3. Alaska Technical Center (Kotzebue)
9 percent TVEP funds
4. Alaska Vocational Technical Center (Seward)
17 percent TVEP funds
5. Northwestern Alaska Career and Technical Center
(Nome) 3 percent TVEP funds
6. Southwest Alaska Vocational and Education Center
(King Salmon) 3 percent TVEP funds
7. Yuut Elitnaurviat, The People's Learning Center
(Bethel) 9 percent TVEP funds
8. Partners for Progress (Delta Junction)
3 percent TVEP funds
9. Amundsen Educational Center (Soldotna)
2 percent TVEP funds
10. I (Bethel)
5 percent TVEP funds
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the list of testifiers available
for questions.
4:44:01 PM
Representative Tilton asked if the distribution in the bill
had changed from what it was prior to the sunset date.
Representative Fansler responded that the distribution was
the same.
Representative Tilton asked if any other entities were
interested in being part of the distribution.
Representative Fansler reported no other entities
approaching his office wanting to be on the distribution
list. He understood that previously there had been a
significant amount of discussion on the subject and
anticipated hearing from other entities. However, he had
not heard from anyone.
Representative Wilson asked about how the funding was used
and about the certification having to do with the
university.
Representative Fansler responded that he could provide a
PowerPoint detailing the information Representative Wilson
requested. He was happy to provide the materials for
members to review.
MARY SCHLOSSER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER, added that
the information provided in the Labor PowerPoint was 5
pages, which was the standard submission for committees.
The full technical report from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development was available online. She was happy
to provide the information to the representative.
Representative Wilson wondered if the state had an
obligation, because funds were being provided for by the
federal government, to use the funds to help people to
return to work.
Representative Fansler responded that he was not inclined
to answer her question and would likely differ her question
to someone else. He relayed that the funds were state
unemployment insurance funds being used on a state a state
level. He did not believe there were any federal guidelines
that applied to it. He was happy to differ to someone else
if he was incorrect.
4:48:42 PM
Representative Wilson commented that unemployment dollars
were being used to pay the amounts. She wanted to make sure
there was enough money to be able to train those people who
were not working so they could get back to work. She hoped
for additional information regarding retraining
expectations.
Representative Fansler would provide additional information
in a memo.
Co-Chair Foster reminded members that Paloma Harbour with
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development was in
the room and available for questions as well as others.
Representative Wilson understood the committee was short on
time presently and suggested that Representative Fansler
get an answer back to committee members.
4:50:18 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
4:50:45 PM
DENNIS DISHION, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YUUT ELITNAURVIAT,
BETHEL (via teleconference), informed committee members
that the funds were paramount in order for the center to
continue its operations in preparing local people for local
jobs in the Yukon Delta Region. He noted jobs associated
with many large construction projects becoming available in
the region. The funds helped the center to deliver training
and workforce development skills for those people living in
the area. The training facilitated locals being able to
obtain family wage jobs rather than out-of-state skilled
tradesmen filling them. The ultimate mission of the
organization was to train local people for local, family
wage jobs.
4:52:06 PM
Representative Guttenberg remembered having a conversation
about the cost of broadband services at the center. He
asked if Mr. Dishion had that dollar figure.
Mr. Dishion responded that it was likely Representative
Guttenberg had spoken with his predecessor. He did not have
the figure off the top of his head but was happy to get the
number to him.
4:52:47 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster indicated he would be setting the bill
aside. Amendments were due to Jane Pierson by Thursday,
March 23, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 141 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:53:18 PM
AT EASE
4:53:48 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act making an entity that is exempt from federal
taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), (4), (6), (12), or
(19) (Internal Revenue Code) and a federally
recognized tribe eligible for a loan from the Alaska
energy efficiency revolving loan fund; relating to
loans from the Alaska energy efficiency revolving loan
fund; and relating to the annual report published by
the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation."
4:53:48 PM
BERETT WILBER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS,
thanked the committee for hearing the bill. She wanted to
provide answers to two outstanding questions from the
previous committee hearing on March 6, 2017. Representative
Kawasaki had asked if political parties would qualify to
apply for loans under the new expanded eligibility
criteria. She responded that they would not. Political
parties were classified as 527 non-profits rather than
501C, 3, 4, 6, 12, or 19 non-profits. Representative Wilson
had asked if the state would be competing with private
lenders with opening the eligibility criteria. She had
asked Katie Conway, the government relations manager at the
Alaska Energy Authority about the energy efficiency loan
landscape in Alaska. She and Ms. Conway concluded that
there were no private lenders set up to do energy
efficiency loans. A person could apply for a regular
construction loan and apply it to energy efficiency
projects. However, energy efficiency loans through the
program were based on the guaranteed savings that would
come from doing energy efficiency retrofits. Traditional
loans were based on the cost of a project and the available
collateral.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that no amendments had been
submitted for the bill. He reported only one zero fiscal
note from the Department of Revenue; Appropriation: Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation; Allocation: Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation Operations; OMB Component Number: 110.
4:56:42 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HB 81 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
HB 81 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1(REV).
4:57:06 PM
AT EASE
4:58:17 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 56
"An Act relating to limitations on certain commercial
fishing loans made by the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development."
4:58:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, SPONSOR, reported having
previously presented the bill to the committee. He reminded
members that the bill raised the potential loan amount from
$300 thousand to $400 thousand in the Fishermen's Revolving
Loan Fund. It would allow fishermen to borrow money to
purchase permits, boats, and equipment. The bill would make
it easier for fishermen, particularly young fishermen, to
get involved in the industry. The fund was originally set
up in the early 80s. The amount available to loan at the
time was $300 thousand and had not been raised. The value
of $300 thousand in the 80s would currently equal about
$700 thousand accounting for inflation. The bill was
raising the amount to $400 thousand. He added that the fund
was extremely solvent with a default rate of 2.2 percent,
which was well below the industry standard. He did not
believe the fund's solvency would be impacted by raising
the loan amount. He was available for questions.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the list of testifiers available
to answer questions.
5:01:01 PM
Co-Chair Seaton read from the second paragraph [Page 2] of
the fiscal note:
However, the overall program limit remaining at
$400,000, any revenue generated from this change or
expense is expected to be within the normal
operational variance of the fund.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the bill was raising the cap from
$300 thousand to $400 thousand or whether the cap was $400
thousand and the bill was raising limits on permits.
5:01:40 PM
ELIZABETH BOLLING, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ, responded
that the bill was not raising the aggregate amount for the
loan fund or the aggregate amount a borrower could hold
unpaid. The bill was only raising the sectional amount by
$100 thousand, which was why the department stated that the
loan fund would remain solvent.
5:02:05 PM
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that some of the materials were
somewhat confusing including the sponsor statement. He
requested that the supporting documents be clarified going
forward. He was not opposed to the limit.
Ms. Bolling clarified that the limit she was referring to
was simply for costs involving purchasing, refurbishing, or
upgrading a vessel specific to one section in statute. The
amount that could be loaned for those services would be
raised. However, the total aggregate amount a person could
borrow and hold an unpaid balance from the loan fund was
$400 thousand.
Representative Ortiz added that the amount was currently
$400 thousand. The bill was just expanding the section.
Representative Pruitt thought the Co-Chair had raised a
good question. He was confused as well. He was under the
impression that the bill would change the overall aggregate
amount. He was trying to understand the focus of the bill.
Representative Ortiz believed the same question came up in
a previous hearing. He hoped Ms. Haywood was online and
could provide further clarification.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that Ms. Haywood was not online.
Ms. Bolling explained that the section being amended spoke
about two loan types; A and B. Under type A up to $200
thousand could be borrowed. Under type B up to $100
thousand could be borrowed. The total was referred to as
$300 thousand in the section. However, in the subsection
for purchasing a vessel and refurbishing it was $100
thousand. The intent of the bill was to raise the amount to
$200 thousand so the full section would equal $400 thousand
- the equivalent that a person could take out of the loan
fund.
5:04:50 PM
AT EASE
5:06:25 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster explained that the committee recommended a
revision of the sponsor statement but agreed the bill was
correct.
Representative Wilson referred to Section D in the statute
book, Page 131. It appeared that it was talking about two
specific loans rather than the total loans. She thought
that bill was changing from $300 thousand to $400 thousand
in section D. She wondered where the change was in the
bill.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Ms. Haywood was available for
questions.
Ms. Bolling read from the statute in section d [AS
16.10.320(d)]:
The total of balances outstanding on loans made to a
borrower under AS 16.10.310 (a)(1)(B) may not exceed
$200 thousand for the purpose of an entry permit, and
may not exceed $100 thousand for all other loans under
that subparagraph.
Ms. Bolling elaborated that the amount of $100 thousand was
appropriately used for the purchase and refurbishment of a
vessel. She explained that the $100 thousand amount was
what would change to $200 thousand in the bill. The total
would equal $400 thousand rather than $300 thousand under
B.
5:07:54 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Haywood to respond to the issue.
BRITTNEY CIONI-HAYWOOD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, JUNEAU (via teleconference), asked that the
question be restated.
Co-Chair Seaton stated there was some confusion in the
interpretation of whether the bill would raise the
outstanding aggregate limit a person could borrow or
whether the bill raised the permit loan from $100 thousand
to $200 thousand with the aggregate remaining the same at
$400 thousand.
Ms. Cioni-Haywood responded that the aggregate limit was
currently $400 thousand and would remain at $400 thousand
in the bill. The changes within the bill only had to do
with the different sections. She furthered that that the
loan program had a number of different sections. In section
A, there would be a $300 thousand to $400 thousand
increase. In section B, there would be a $100 thousand to
$200 thousand increase. In section C, it was $300 thousand
to $400 thousand, and in section F, it was $300 to $400
thousand. She continued that under the Commercial Fishing
Revolving Loan fund a fisherman could mix and match between
the different sections up to $400 thousand. There was an
overall $400 thousand cap, which was not being changed
within the bill.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HB 56 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 56 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1(CED).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
5:10:55 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:11 p.m.