HOUSE BILL NO. 28 "An Act establishing a student loan repayment pilot program; and providing for an effective date." 11:30:02 AM Co-Chair Foster noted there was a meeting at noon so there would be a hard stop then. Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had heard public testimony and reviewed the fiscal notes. The committee would consider amendments to the bill. He asked for a brief recap of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, SPONSOR, relayed that the bill was a student loan repayment program. Representative Bynum thought there were some structural issues with the bill. He did not want to hijack the bill and make it his own so he had not offered any amendments. 11:34:31 AM AT EASE 11:37:41 AM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster moved to the amendment process. Representative Hannan MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 34- LS0303\A.4 (Bergerud, 4/14/25) (copy on file): Page 1, lines 8 - 9: Delete "not later than October 31, 2025" Insert "by a deadline established by the commission" Page 3, lines 7 - 8: Delete "December 31, 2025, December 31, 2026, and December 31, 2027" Insert "December 31, 2026, December 31, 2027, and December 31, 2028" Page 3, line 12: Delete "2027" Insert "2028" Page 3, line 14: Delete "2028" Insert "2029" Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Hannan explained the amendment. She had talked with the sponsor about the amendment. She MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 that would change the date on line 11 of the amendment from 2028 to 2029. Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. Representative Hannan spoke to the underlying amendment. Representative Story appreciated the adjustments to the date, and wanted to verify the conceptual amendment date. 11:40:52 AM AT EASE 11:41:50 AM RECONVENED Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 1 as amended. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED as AMENDED. Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 34- LS0303\A.5 (Bergerud, 5/6/25) (copy on file): Page 1, line 11: Delete "and" Insert ", has completed a postsecondary degree or certificate program, and has an outstanding student loan as described in 26 U.S.C. 108(f)(2) incurred by the person for the degree or certificate program." Page 1, line 12, through page 2, line 6: Delete all material. Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Stapp explained the amendment. Representative Story did not support the amendment, because it changed the intent of the bill. 11:44:57 AM Co-Chair Schrage stated that his concern with the bill as structured, and his concern about the amendment pertained to the fiscal impact. Representative Stapp stated the grants were capped in the bill, and that it did not have an impact on the financial aspect. Representative Story thought it could be another student loan repayment. Co-Chair Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Allard, Stapp, Johnson, Bynum, Tomaszewski, Schrage OPPOSED: Galvin, Jimmie, Hannan, Josephson, Foster The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED. Representative Stapp WITHDREW Amendments 3 through 6 (copies on file). 11:48:01 AM Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, 34- LS0303\A.11 (Bergerud, 5/7/25) (copy on file): Page 2, line 13: Delete "sec. 2" Insert "sec. 3" Page 3, following line 4: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PILOT PROGRAM GRANT REPAYMENT. The Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education shall require a person who received a grant under the student loan repayment pilot program, enacted by sec. 1 of this Act, to repay the grant to the commission if the grant recipient is no longer employed as a full- time employee of the state or as a full-time certificated teacher in a public school within three years after receiving the grant. The obligation to repay a grant under this section does not apply to a grant recipient who is not employed as a full-time employee of the state or as a full-time certificated teacher in a public school because the recipient has died or has become totally disabled as certified by a physician." Page 3, line 14: Delete "Sections 1 and 2" Insert "Sections 1 and 3" Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Stapp explained the amendment. Representative Story opposed the amendment, and thought it diluted the incentive. 11:50:32 AM Representative Bynum wondered what would occur when a worker did not meet their obligation. Representative Story clarified that a student would not get the money until after one year. KERRY THOMAS, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON POST SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), stated that a participant would only receive the yearly payment after a completion of a year of service. 11:53:52 AM Representative Stapp clarified that it was how the underlying bill read. The amendment specified that if a person worked for a year there were conditions continue to work for the state for three years. If the person left they had to repay the amount to ACPE. Representative Bynum asked what the mechanism was for repayment if the amendment passed. Representative Stapp stated it did not specify the mechanics. Representative Story referenced a handout from ACPE [dated May 15, 2025] (copy on file), which outlined many different programs. 11:56:43 AM Representative Bynum stated that from his experience seeing incentive programs, most required a staying requirement. Representative Story deferred to Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas responded that it was one structure for bonuses. 11:58:46 AM Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW Amendment 7. Representative Allard supported the amendment. She stressed that there was a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that they were not covering a person's debt. Representative Story understood what Representative Allard was saying. Representative Allard understood it was active the entire year, but they would have to pay it back if they left. Representative Hannan appreciated the amendment 7. She was thinking of a floor amendment to stagger the amount where there was a monetary incentive. 12:03:38 PM Representative Bynum asked if someone were to apply and qualify for the repayment. Representative Story deferred to ACPE. She viewed the scenario of allowable. Ms. Thomas answered that the individual would continue to be eligible, but the issue would be addressed in regulation. 12:05:32 PM Representative Galvin supported the concept of the bill and thanked the sponsor. She was disappointed that the committee diminished the intent of the bill. She thought the intent should have been maintained in the process. She thought it was a solid bill. Representative Story viewed the student loan repayment assistance as a benefit to the workforce because there was a shortage of workers in the state. Representative Tomaszewski did not support the bill. He thought it was somewhat discriminatory in nature. He did not believe the sponsor intended it that way. 12:09:15 PM Representative Story thanked Representative Tomaszewski for his comments. Representative Bynum understood the bill used UGF funds subject to appropriation. He asked what would happen if the legislature did not fund the program. Representative Story answered that it was through the Higher Education Investment Fund. Ms. Thomas agreed with the statement by Representative Story. 12:11:53 PM Representative Stapp thought what Representative Hannan had stated was an interesting idea and he would likely support it in that form. 12:14:45 PM AT EASE 12:15:16 PM RECONVENED 12:15:30 PM Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT CSHB 28(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Johnson OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Hannan, Stapp, Bynum, Galvin, Schrage, Josephson, Foster OPPOSED: Allard, Tomaszewski, Johnson The MOTION PASSED (7/3). Representative Jimmie was absent from the vote. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 28(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with two "do pass" recommendations, two "do not pass" recommendations, two "no recommendation" recommendations, and four "amend" recommendations and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (EED). Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the afternoon meeting.