Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/24/2024 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB111 | |
| HB145 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 24, 2024
9:03 a.m.
9:03:18 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Edgmon called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Sponsor; Representative
Stanley Wright, Sponsor; Rachael Gunn, Staff,
Representative Stanley Wright; Dawn Hannasch, Division
Operations Manager, Division of Banking and Securities,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Deborah Riddle, Division Operations Manager, Department of
Education; Graham Downey, Economic Justice Lead, Alaska
Public Interest Research Group, Anchorage; Tracy Reno,
Chief of Examination, Division of Banking and Securities,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Marge Stoneking, Advocacy Director, AARP Alaska, Anchorage;
Trevor Storrs, President and CEO, Alaska Children's Trust,
Anchorage; Andy Bartel, Reverend, Anchorage; Bob Carey,
Executive Director, National Defense Committee, Washington,
DC; Tim Sullivan, President, The Alaska Credit Union
League, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 111 EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
CSHB 111(EDC) was REPORTED OUT of committee with
five "do pass" recommendations, one "amend"
recommendation, and four "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
HB 145 LOANS UNDER $25,000; PAYDAY LOANS
HB 145 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Edgmon reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to public school students who are
deaf or have a hearing impairment."
9:04:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JAMIE ALLARD, SPONSOR, explained that deaf
and hard of hearing children wanted to be treated equally
to other children and to have access to the same level of
education. She encouraged members to vote in support of the
bill.
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT CSHB 111(EDC) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Co-Chair Edgmon OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson relayed that he viewed the bill as
advisory rather than mandatory, but the bill read as
mandatory because it used the term "shall" to require that
deaf and hard of hearing children be provided services. He
was not sure where the resources to support the bill would
come from. He asked how the school districts would pay for
the bill.
Representative Allard responded that the resources and
funding were already being provided. Children who were deaf
received 13 times the standard Base Student Allocation
(BSA) formula funding and children who were hard of hearing
received 1.25 percent times the standard BSA formula
funding. There were a variety of ways for the school
districts to communicate and provide the necessary
resources.
Representative Josephson wondered what would happen if he
asked school districts if the funding was being used and
the districts responded that all of the funding was used up
on other resources for children with hearing difficulties.
Representative Allard responded that a representative from
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
was available to offer more details. Federal law obligated
districts to provide resources to children as well because
districts would not receive funding unless the proper
paperwork was submitted. If a hard of hearing child
submitted the paperwork for the funding, the school was
required to provide the funding. The BSA would not be
amplified unless the child applied for the benefits. She
stressed that the funding was already available.
9:07:25 AM
Representative Galvin appreciated Representative Allard for
bringing the bill forward. She understood that 13 times the
BSA amounted to around $80,000 and that students who needed
assistance were required to work with two American Sign
Language (ASL) interpreters to allow the interpreters to
alternate throughout the day. She was concerned about the
cost of two interpreters as well as the cost that would be
incurred if students were enrolled in boarding schools.
Representative Allard relayed that there was no
[substantive] fiscal note because the funding was already
available. She thought the committee was looking for a
problem that was not there. She was unsure as to why an
absence of funding was being discussed when the funding was
already present. She relayed that a representative from
DEED was available to answer questions in more detail.
Representative Galvin wanted to ensure that 13 times the
BSA was a suitable amount and the federal government was
covering the costs.
Representative Allard clarified that the funding was not
only coming from the federal government. Federal law
required that deaf and hard of hearing children were
treated equally.
9:09:32 AM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION (via teleconference), responded that in addition
to the BSA, the department had an agreement with Arc [The
Arc of Anchorage] to help students who had opted to enroll
in a residential school in Anchorage.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked her to repeat the acronym.
Ms. Riddle responded "Arc." She was looking for the meaning
of the acronym [she later corrected herself and explained
that it was not an acronym].
Representative Coulombe understood that deaf and hard of
hearing children received funding that was 13 times the
BSA. She asked if a district would need to use the funding
on deaf and hard of hearing students or if it could spend
the funding elsewhere.
Representative Allard responded that when there was a
request for funding for a child with special needs or
intensive needs, the funding went straight to the child.
Representative Coulombe understood there was no discretion
for the school districts. She asked for clarification that
a district could not spend the money on anything other than
a student's needs.
Representative Allard responded that districts were "not
supposed to."
Representative Ortiz appreciated Representative Allard
bringing forward the bill. Based on the line of questioning
and the answers that had been provided thus far in the
meeting, he understood that the funding was present and
that districts could receive assistance with regulatory
compliance. He asked why the bill was necessary if the
important components were already in place.
Representative Allard responded that there was an incident
where a district pulled an interpreter from a child and the
child could not continue in school without the interpreter.
The intent of the bill was to ensure that the regulations
would be enforced and districts could not discriminate
against deaf or hard of hearing children.
Representative Ortiz asked Representative Allard if she
viewed the content of the bill as compulsory and not
advisory. He asked what would happen to communities in
rural Alaska that wanted to comply but could not because
there were not enough interpreters in the community to
provide the services.
Representative Allard responded in the affirmative and
explained that districts could not discriminate any longer
after the bill was put into statute. Currently, a district
could choose not to comply. If there was a deaf or hard of
hearing child in a rural community who wanted to learn
amongst other students, there was a system in place where
an interpreter could be available via video call and
interpret in real time in the classroom. She added that a
family member or friend could also attend school with the
child and interpret for the child.
9:13:55 AM
Representative Ortiz understood that Representative Allard
had previously stated that the money went directly to the
parents. He asked if she was certain that the funding went
directly from the state to the parents.
Representative Allard responded that she meant to say the
money went directly to the child. The cost of an
interpreter and any other means of communication needed by
the child would be covered by the funding and the district
would be responsible for ensuring that the costs were
covered.
Representative Hannan commented that she taught many
students during her teaching career who were deaf or hard
of hearing and the district tried to serve all of the
students. She presumed that when Representative Allard used
the term "the district" she was referring to the Anchorage
School District (ASD). She noted that Representative Allard
had been assisted by a sign language interpreter who was
new to Juneau during a previous committee hearing.
Interpreters working in schools worked as a pair for the
entire day and were therefore not available to interpret
for events in the evening. She was concerned that the bill
would communicate to deaf and hard of hearing children that
available resources would be transformed, but there would
be no changes or additional funding. She stressed that she
did not think anything would change because the regulations
were already in place and the money was already available.
She asked if Representative Allard pursued details in the
aforementioned case where an interpreter was pulled from a
child. There were many possible reasons as to why the
interpreter was pulled, such as if the interpreter were to
be no longer employed by the district. She wanted to
provide better services and not pass a bill that would not
change anything.
Representative Allard responded that she did not say that
the regulations were not currently mandatory. She explained
that the purpose of the bill was to codify the regulations
in statute. She added that she was not only referencing ASD
when she spoke about "the district" because ASD already
covered the resources for deaf and hard of hearing children
well. She was more concerned about rural communities and
children missing out on education due to lack of resources.
The bill needed to pass because it would provide hope to
the deaf and hard of hearing community. She expressed that
she was offended that the committee did not feel that the
bill was important and it seemed that members wanted to
find reasons why the state could not enforce the bill due
to fiscal issues. She argued that the actions in the bill
were already occurring and there was no fiscal note. She
wondered why members thought it was permissible to
discriminate against children who were deaf and hard of
hearing. She stressed that the bill was important and
needed to become law. She was directly impacted by the bill
and also knew children who were impacted.
9:18:08 AM
Representative Hannan understood that Representative Allard
had stated that by questioning the bill, the committee was
discriminating against the hard of hearing community, which
she thought was impugning motives that were not present.
She explained that the committee had specific
responsibilities which included determining the fiscal
impacts of bills. She thought it was inappropriate to
allege that the committee was discriminating against deaf
and hard of hearing children by fulfilling its obligations.
9:18:59 AM
AT EASE
9:19:16 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Allard responded that she did not mean to
imply that Representative Hannan was bigoted. She meant to
relay that there was no fiscal note and no reason why the
committee should be concerned with the finances. The
funding would only be necessary if a child had intensive
needs or special needs. She wanted to ensure that all
children with special needs received the necessary
resources, including deaf or hard of hearing children.
Co-Chair Johnson returned to Representative Allard's
presentation [titled "HB 111 Deaf and Hard of Hearing"
dated March 4, 2024, (copy on file), presented to the House
Finance Committee on April 16, 2024] and referred to slide
2. She felt like the bill was even more critical than she
previously realized because it appeared that deaf and hard
of hearing students were not presently being provided with
enough resources. She noted that according to the slide,
there were areas in Alaska where there were no deaf or hard
of hearing children, which she knew was not true. She
thought the screening process should be improved and the
state was undercounting students, which meant it was also
underserving students. She appreciated that the bill was
brought forward.
Representative Allard relayed that the bill was an
incentive for families who had children in the deaf or hard
of hearing community and felt like the children were not
properly supported. The bill would codify the regulations
into law and ensure that deaf and hard of hearing children
would learn amongst their peers.
9:22:22 AM
Representative Galvin commented that she was familiar with
underfunded early intervention programs as well as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which
was a federal law that mandated that the government must
provide funding and resources for all students to learn in
an equal manner. She was concerned that the state was not
sufficiently identifying students in need of additional
resources. She was concerned that $80,000, which was the
result of multiplying the BSA by 13, was not enough to
provide sufficient resources to students in need if the
students were identified. There had been research around
broadband opportunities, but broadband was still not
sufficient in rural areas of the state. She had experienced
video calling with interpreters but the broadband was often
not strong enough to support the software even in urban
areas like Anchorage. She did not think the legislature had
passed a law that ensured that broadband was sufficient to
for a reliable connection with interpreters. She asked what
the needs were, what could be done to better identify the
needs, what were the laws that ensured that the needs were
identified, and whether the state was properly funding the
laws.
Representative Allard responded that she was worried about
children who were deaf and hard of hearing in rural
communities of the state. She thought that parents needed
to be incentivized to bring deaf and hard of hearing
children to school and she hoped that the bill would act as
an incentive. The BSA formula that was already in place was
presently the only method for determining funding amounts.
There were families who sent their children to Anchorage
because there were more resources for deaf or hard of
hearing children in urban areas. She understood that it was
a large issue, but she argued that there would be a
substantive impact if the legislature was able to act in
small ways every year.
Representative Josephson was confused by the fiscal note
[prepared by Department of Education and Early Development
with the control code yAGml]. He understood that the bill
proposed that the program "must provide residential
services." The bill stated that if a district wanted to
provide services, it could do so, but if a district did not
want to provide services, the state would provide the
services. He understood that the state "must" provide the
services, but the fiscal note said that the statewide
program that included residential services could be offered
by school districts with the resources and capacity to do
so. He thought that "finance 101" knowledge was that the
state provided the fiscal notes, not the districts. He
wanted to know what the impact on the school districts
would be.
Representative Allard replied that Representative Josephson
was correct but not every district could provide a suitable
school; therefore, children were brought to the deaf and
hard of hearing school in Anchorage. She thought the term
"must" provided some flexibility and ensured that bringing
children to Anchorage was an acceptable alternative to
there being a school with resources in every district. She
noted that children in the Mat-Su needed to commute to
Anchorage. She suggested bringing Ms. Riddle into the
conversation to provide additional clarity.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked Ms. Riddle to comment.
9:28:19 AM
Ms. Riddle responded that the department provided some
funding to the school for deaf and hard of hearing
children. The department also worked with Arc in Anchorage
to help with the residential portion of the schools. She
clarified that "Arc" was the name of the organization and
was not an acronym. She explained that the reason for there
not being a fiscal note was because the department was
already providing the necessary resources to students who
needed to come to Anchorage. She asked Representative
Josephson if his question had been properly addressed.
Representative Josephson asked if the bill was largely a
set of regulations that would be codified in statute.
Ms. Riddle responded that she believed so but needed to
confirm the information.
Representative Ortiz relayed that he would like to return
to Co-Chair Johnson's comments on the need for the bill as
stated in the PowerPoint presentation. He thought Co-Chair
Johnson made a good point in that the state was likely
under-identifying the population of people who could use
the services. He asked how the bill would specifically
facilitate the identification of individuals with needs at
a higher level.
Representative Allard responded that the bill passing on
its own was not enough. She thought that legislators would
need to promote the program to families and school
districts. The Senate had passed a committee substitute
(CS) to enforce federal law which would be eventually
combined with the bill. There was nothing in the bill that
would necessarily promote the availability of the resources
and another bill would likely be needed in order to do so.
She reiterated that legislators would be responsible for
promoting the program.
9:31:47 AM
Representative Stapp recalled that there was a motion on
the table to report the bill out of committee.
Co-Chair Edgmon clarified that the Arc of Anchorage was a
private nonprofit serving children and adults with mental
health issues or disabilities.
Co-Chair Edgmon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 111(EDC) was REPORTED OUT of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations, one "amend" recommendation, and four
"no recommendation" recommendations and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
9:32:41 AM
AT EASE
9:33:43 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 145
"An Act relating to loans in an amount of $25,000 or
less; relating to deferred deposit advances; and
providing for an effective date."
9:34:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, SPONSOR, gave an overview of
HB 145. He explained that the bill would protect consumers
by capping the annual percentage rate at 36 percent for all
loans under $25,000. The cap would be a significant step
towards preventing predatory lending practices that
exploited financial desperation and trapped individuals in
a perpetual cycle of debt by eliminating special exemptions
and allowing for annual percentage rates (APRs) as high as
521 percent. The bill aimed to promote fair lending
practices and enhance financial security for all citizens.
RACHAEL GUNN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, added
that almost 70 percent of payday loans in Alaska were taken
out online and the vast majority of the loans were from
out-of-state businesses. The arguments for historically
astronomical APRs were rooted in the idea that loans were
inherently risky and payback was not guaranteed, which
required that there be a high interest rate. She argued
that Alaska was unique in that the Permanent Fund Dividend
(PFD) was garnished by lenders and it became a guaranteed
loan. Every major payday lender had left a legacy of tens
of thousands of small claims court cases viewable on
CourtView in which lenders had garnished the PFD. She shard
that within the last couple of months, Representative
Wright's office had been contacted by a handful of out-of-
state lobbyists speaking in opposition to the bill and
representing banking interests. Almost every lobbyist with
whom she had a conversation decided to cease engagement in
Alaska after the lobbyists understood Alaska's unique
situation due to the PFD.
Co-Chair Edgmon noted that there were several invited
testifiers and public testifiers online but due to time
constraints, he requested that testifiers keep comments
concise.
9:37:27 AM
GRAHAM DOWNEY, ECONOMIC JUSTICE LEAD, ALASKA PUBLIC
INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
explained that in 2023, the Alaska Public Interest Research
Group (AKPIRG) helped 25 Alaskan families escape payday
debt traps by paying down the families' loans. He had heard
many stories about how everyday Alaskans were impacted. He
emphasized that payday loans were immediately harmful to
Alaskan families and trapped families in financial
insecurity and debt for years. He relayed that AKPIRG was
helping families who had been struggling to pay off loans
for over two years and had at least $80 of interest
payments per month. The group had polled individuals across
the state and individuals universally advised against
taking out payday loans and thought that people would be
worse off by taking out the loans. The polled individuals
universally supported the bill and supported the
availability of repayable loans as opposed to non-repayable
loans.
9:39:03 AM
TRACY RENO, CHIEF OF EXAMINATION, DIVISION OF BANKING AND
SECURITIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), supported the proposed
amendments to the bill that she thought would be heard in
the near future. She understood that there was an amendment
that would provide additional clarity for the exemptions
given to small loans and was consistent with language used
for other programs that were already administered by the
Division of Banking and Securities (DBS). Due to the
intense review that was required to obtain bank or credit
union charters, the increased regulatory oversight and
continued exemption was appropriate for national banks and
federal credit unions.
Representative Galvin asked for more information about how
the bill would impact the average Alaskan. Many Alaskans
did not know the difference between banks and credit
unions. She shared that she took out a payday loan when she
was 24 years old and had three children and the experience
was terrible. She explained that when she took out the
loan, she was not paying attention to the type of
institution.
Ms. Gunn responded that the amendment to which Ms. Reno was
referring had not yet been made public or introduced to the
committee. She explained that Representative Wright's
office had been working with DBS to clean-up the Small
Loans Act (SLA), which would not have any impact on the
consumer. She noted that SLA operated under a three-tiered
structure and the future amendment would flatten the
interest rate across the $25,000 in lieu of utilizing three
separate tiers. She assured the committee that there would
be more clarification once the amendment was finalized.
9:41:42 AM
MARGE STONEKING, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, AARP ALASKA, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), shared that AARP had a strong
commitment to protecting financial resilience in older
adults, including fighting for consumer protection. She
relayed that AARP was requesting the support of the
committee to provide the same 36 percent maximum interest
rate protection to veterans and older Alaskans that was
afforded to active duty military members under the federal
Military Lending Act (MLA). For older and vulnerable
adults, costly installment loans were more likely to be a
hinderance than a help. Vulnerable individuals who fell
into a cycle of debt had few options to address the debt
and return to a sound financial situation without depleting
their limited assets. Some individuals may try to take on
additional jobs or work more hours while being physically
unprepared for the increased demand. She stressed that
older adults were attractive targets for lenders. She
appreciated the committee's time.
9:43:32 AM
TREVOR STORRS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA CHILDREN'S TRUST,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), relayed that the Alaska
Children's Trust (ACT) strongly supported HB 145. He argued
that the bill would prevent long-term negative impacts on
families that could result from high interest payday loans.
The harmful impact on families was widely recognized as a
major risk factor of abuse and neglect. Parents were faced
with increased difficulty in providing for their children's
basic needs, such as food and housing. The scarcity of
resources and the pressure to become financially solvent
could lead to increased parental stress, which increased
the risk for abuse and neglect. To alleviate short term
financial hardships, families turned to payday loans
because of the appeal of "quick and easy cash," but the
loans could come with an interest rate of over 500 percent
and did not build any credit for the families. Payday loans
trapped many Alaskans in a cycle of debt and poverty and
caused worse credit.
Mr. Storrs understood that some testifiers in opposition to
the bill might say that payday loans helped families. He
argued that payday loans helped families like a glass of
salt water helped someone who was thirsty. He thought that
HB 145 would ensure responsible lending by requiring that
payday loans be subject to a reasonable maximum interest
rate of 36 percent. He emphasized that that no one should
be profiting off of the state's poorest and most vulnerable
families.
9:45:26 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon OPENED public testimony.
9:45:48 AM
ANDY BARTEL, REVEREND, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of HB 145. He shared that the Alaska
United Methodist Conference, which comprised of all
methodists churches across the state and included people of
all political affiliations, unanimously adopted a
resolution in support of HB 145. He drew attention to the
fact that the resolution was passed unanimously and added
that the bill did not favor a particular political leaning.
The churches believed that financial institutions served a
vital role in society and must guard against abusive and
deceptive lending practices that took advantage of
vulnerable citizens for the gain of the richest citizens.
Banking regulations needed to prevent practices that kept
people in cycles of debt, which would be accomplished
through HB 145. Payday lending in Alaska was a predatory
practice and extracted millions of dollars from the most
impoverished citizens and the local economy.
Mr. Bartel understood that some people in opposition to the
bill would argue that payday loans were the only option for
some people, but he argued that was simply not true. There
were multiple credit unions in the state that had small-
dollar-amount short-term loan products that came in below
the proposed 36 percent cap. He thought that payday loans
were a scourge on society and legislators had the
opportunity to fix the problem. Before moving to Alaska, he
was a pastor in South Dakota. Although South Dakota was a
conservative state, it had enacted a similar cap on payday
loans. Subsequent studies had only shown that the economy
had only benefited from the cap. He relayed that South
Dakotans were saving $81 million per year on average as a
result of the legislation. Instead of being used for
interest payments on payday loans, the $81 million could be
used for housing, food, transportation, medicine, or other
necessities. He thought that the legislature had an
opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of the
most vulnerable Alaskans and he implored the committee to
pass the bill.
9:48:40 AM
BOB CAREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE,
WASHINGTON, DC (via teleconference), shared that he was a
retired naval officer and combat veteran. He represented a
veteran's service organization committed to the civil and
legal rights of military and veteran personnel. He
understood the motivations of the bill, but argued that the
data consistently showed that MLA had not served the
military well and placed members in greater financial
distress by denying access to necessary credit. He thought
that veterans would be disproportionately impacted by the
legislation. Military members did not establish significant
credit and had significant periods of unemployment. He
understood that much of the data showed that a rate cap had
not helped the military. He had provided a letter to the
committee (copy on file) in which he referenced a West
Point study that showed that rate caps did not help the
military, in addition to other polls that showed that
military members were worse off after MLA than before the
act. There was an additional poll mentioned in the letter
that showed that half of all military personnel were denied
credit due to MLA. He argued that the only thing rate caps
did was cause military members to be denied credit. He did
not think that the $81 million saved in South Dakota was
due to individuals receiving lower-rate loans, but because
individuals were not receiving any loans at all. He added
that half of all Americans had less than $400 in the bank
and could not remain afloat in the case of an emergency. He
thought that a loan cap for veterans meant that the public
no longer trusted veterans to make decisions for themselves
once they were out of active duty. He reiterated his
opposition to HB 145.
9:52:09 AM
Representative Ortiz asked for the testifier to repeat his
name.
Mr. Carey responded with his name.
Representative Ortiz asked if Mr. Carey was the author of a
letter dated April 23, 2024 (copy on file) that was not
signed.
Mr. Carey responded that he had contributed to the letter
from the National Defense Committee and four other groups,
but he was not the sole author.
Representative Ortiz understood that Mr. Carey thought that
by adopting HB 145, there would be individuals who would
not be able to access credit. He did not understand why he
should not support the bill. He asked if Mr. Carey thought
that the legislature would prevent people from accessing
necessary credit and money if the bill were to pass.
Mr. Carey responded in the affirmative. The interest rates
were not set by an arbitrary measure and were necessary in
order to make a loan to a particular person. He thought the
narrative about interest rates was false. Military members
were already underpaid and were often young with children
and needed to figure out how to pay their bills.
9:54:39 AM
AT EASE
9:55:33 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Edgmon explained that the plan was to keep public
testimony open and revisit it later.
Representative Josephson thought that the tone of Mr.
Carey's comments suggested that the situation would either
continue on in its current form or the bill would pass. He
asked Mr. Carey if he found that there was no foundation
for the claim that current same day payday loans were
usurious.
Mr. Carey responded that he was not a banker and suggested
that Representative Josephson consult with the industry to
talk about the issue. He clarified that there was a
narrative that if there were caps on loans, loan rates
would magically come down. After MLA was enacted, lenders
left the market and left the military "high and dry." Half
of military members were denied credit due to MLA and he
did not think it was a good practice. He could not say
whether the system was usurious and suggested that
Representative Josephson speak to bankers.
9:57:48 AM
TIM SULLIVAN, PRESIDENT, THE ALASKA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), relayed that the Alaska
Credit Union League (ACUL) represented ten credit unions,
nine of which were based in Alaska. The league supported
the bill and thought it was a great action to take to
protect consumers. The one concern that the league had was
about Section 9 which included loan insurance in the
calculation for the lending percentage and was an
additional product that was not required by federal law. He
thought it should be stated that loan insurance was not
required in order to garner a loan and was protected under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
9:59:06 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon clarified that he planned to close public
testimony and reopen it at the next hearing of the bill to
include any additional testifiers.
Co-Chair Edgmon CLOSED public testimony.
9:59:27 AM
DAWN HANNASCH, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION OF
BANKING AND SECURITIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the previously published
fiscal impact note from the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) with the
control code znqFK. She explained that the department would
not need to add anything to its budget as it had seen that
similar licenses had declined over the last decade by 78
percent. There would be 19 licenses that would be impacted
if the bill were to pass. The department anticipated that
the Division of Banking and Securities would see a loss of
about $28,500 annually due to the loss of the biannual
renewal license fee of $3,000. She explained that licensees
would then have the opportunity to apply for the Alaska
Small Loans Act which had an annual renewal fee of $1,000.
The projected income from the licensees was not yet
determined.
10:01:09 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon set an amendment deadline for Monday, April
29, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
HB 145 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnson moved that Mr. Brodie Anderson, staff to
Co-Chair Foster, be wished a happy birthday.
Co-Chair Edgmon reviewed the agenda for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:02:51 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 145 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042324.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 145 |
| HB 145 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042424.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 145 |