HB 271-AIDEA: MEMBERSHIP; RESPONSIBILITIES  3:54:57 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority; and providing for an effective date." 3:55:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, introduced HB 271. He paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read in its entirety as follows [original punctuation provided]: HB 271 aims to improve upon the governance structures of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and provides legal mechanisms for additional transparency and oversight of this public corporation. Currently, AIDEA is under considerable scrutiny from the public and the media. Concerns have been raised about the integrity of decision-making processes used by the authority and relating to personnel matters within the authority. These concerns have been aggravated by extensive use of executive sessions during AIDEA board meetings, limited public engagement on major development projects, a perceived lack of responsiveness to public comments and little transparency in AIDEA's business agreements. First established in 1967, AIDEA has a long and complex history. Over the years, the role AIDEA plays in the economy of the state has shifted and its financing programs have expanded markedly. AS 44.88, the chapter of statute governing the authority, is a hodgepodge of various funds, programs, and legal requirements. There is little in statute to ensure that AIDEA acts in the best interest of the public and state economy when financing projects and little required scrutiny. HB 271 would address these issues by restructuring the AIDEA Board to be more diverse and less susceptible to political whims of any given administration. It would also create a uniform set of processes for approval of projects requiring $10 million in financing (or more) and would require the authority to be forthright with the public about business dealings and contracts. Additionally, under the framework created by HB 271, AIDEA would systematically analyze the impacts of projects at all stages of development and outcomes after completion to ensure that AIDEA is in fact achieving the statutory directives of promoting balanced growth of the economy, creating stable employment opportunities in the state, and providing state businesses with adequate financial and technical assistance. The need for AIDEA reform has been discussed perennially and this reform is timely. HB 271 provides the necessary framework for AIDEA to become a transparent and trusted development finance organization, work 4:05:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked the bill sponsor for calling attention to this issue of transparency and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA's) tendency to call sporadic executive sessions for lengthy amounts of time. She asked how the bill would address that concern and provide better interface with the public. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said Representative Vance had highlighted one issue in the bill that needed further development. He opined that there were times when executive session makes sense, such as litigation; however, AIDEA {"the authority") was in executive session "all the time." He welcomed a friendly amendment on the matter. 4:07:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Section 6 updated the 15- day requirement for notice of proposed action. He suggested that notice should be posted on AIDEA's website and asked whether that would be considered a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said, "Definitely." REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the legal implications of removing the language "at the pleasure of the governor" [on page 1, line 14]. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that his intention was to depoliticize the provision, which dealt with public membership of the authority. He added, "The part that our attorneys would want to offer you advice on is less that concern than the confirmation issue." REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the bill sponsor to speak to the "confirmation issue." REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that AIDEA was not a regular government department; therefore, the governor's absolute appointing authority was in question. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned attention to Section 6, which changed the allotted time for public testimony from "a total period of at least one hour" to "not less than two minutes". He asked whether that provision had been abused by AIDEA in the past. Additionally, he asked whether the new language could unintentionally limit public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recounted receiving many complaints from members of the public regarding AIDEA's long executive sessions, insufficient notice, and the inability to participate from 2019-2021. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern that the written responses to public comment may necessitate a substantial amount of additional work for the authority. He asked whether the bill sponsor's intent was for AIDEA to send a general response. Further, he expressed his hope that the authority would not be required to respond to each individual comment if there were thousands. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON directed attention to the language in question on page 3, line 7, and acknowledged that it could use some editing. 4:16:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether it was customary to delineate a time limit on public testimony in statute. 4:17:34 PM ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out that the existing AIDEA statute laid out a one-hour minimum for public testimony. In changing that language, she said the bill sponsor's intent was to ensure that every member of the public was heard. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that AIDEA should be required to post public notice of the start time for public testimony so that members of the public weren't missing their chance to call in. MS. SORUM-BIRK reiterated that the bill was a starting point. 4:20:03 PM MS. SORUM-BIRK introduced the PowerPoint presentation, titled "HB 271; AIDEA Reform and Transparency" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. She began on slide 2, which highlighted media headlines concerning AIDEA. 4:21:10 PM MS. SORUM-BIRK outlined a sectional analysis of the proposed legislation on slide 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Sections 1 through 3 and 13- Board confirmation and composition. ? Section 4- Executive Director confirmation and personnel policies. ? Sections 5 and 6- Processes for adopting regulations and receiving public input. ? Section 7- AIDEA dividend to state. ? Sections 8 and 9- Project oversight and approval processes. ? Section 10- Prioritization of projects based on furthering existing state policies. ? Section 11- Development of performance metrics related to legislative intent. ? Section 12 - Public access to AIDEA records. ? Section 14- Transitional language. ? Section 15- Effective date. 4:26:23 PM MS. SORUM-BIRK skipped slides 4-5 and outlined transparency of records and outcomes on slide 6, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:   Current Law- AS 44.88.215  ? HB 386 (ch 109 SLA 1998) first added the confidentiality language to statute ? This language was further strengthened by HB 90 (ch 71 SLA 2010). ? Per legislative records- before 1998 loan applicants had to fill out a waiver. ? Under the Alaska Public Records Act (AS 40.25) exceptions already exist for financial information required to be kept confidential under federal law. 4:28:34 PM MS. SORUM-BIRK skipped slide 7 and proceeded to outline alignment with state policies and legislative intent on slide 8, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? State Energy Policy (AS 44.99.115) ? Coordinated and comprehensive approach to energy efficiency and conservation ? Economic development through development of both renewable and nonrenewable energy resources ? Supporting Applied Research to alternative and emerging technologies ? State administrative centralization and coordination with federal initiatives ? State Arctic Policy (AS 44.99.105) ? Development with lens of vibrant communities and healthy environment ? Positive investment climate through strategic infrastructure ? Safe and secure maritime transport ? Integration of Indigenous knowledge into conventional research ? Legislative Intent for Creation of AIDEA ? Creation of year-round employment ? "Balanced growth of economy" ? Business benefiting through financial and technical assistance ? Supporting/ creating exports MS SORUM-BIRK concluded on slide 9, which questioned what Alaskans and the legislature wanted AIDEA to be, whether it be a development finance organization, a state funded bank, an economic development authority for the state, an investor in extraction industries, or a driver for green energy. 4:31:40 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the bill was held over.