HFIN-260513-0900

Okay, I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently 9:21 a.m. on Wednesday, May 13th, 2026. And present, we do have Representative Allard. Representative Bynum, myself, Co-Chair Foster, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannon. And apologies for the lateness of our meeting here.

It's that time of the year, end of session. We've got a lot of last-minute meetings popping up. And so we do have, I believe, 2 items on the agenda, maybe 3. 3, Possibly 3. We do have a hard stop also at— let's see here— about just before 10 a.m.

The items we have are House Bill 258, Statewide Spay and Neuter Program. We've got House Bill 260, Construction Project Wages and Liability. And then if we've got time, we'll take up amendments for SB 130, which is the Fish Production Development Tax Credit, which I don't think we'll get to to. So first up is HB 258, and if we could have Ms. Elizabeth Rexford come up to the table and just give us a very short, brief summary of the bill, and then we're going to go right into public testimony. I would also like to recognize that we also have with us Representative Stepp and Representative Moore.

And so with that, Ms. Rexford, if you can put yourself on the record. Yes. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I'll just— we'll just give a quick intro to the bill once again.

So HB 258 establishes a statewide spay/neuter assistance program. It is designed to reduce long-term public costs associated with uncontrolled companion animal populations, including impacts on public safety, animal control, and sheltering.

And Representative Stapp. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. For the record, Representative Stapp, East Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright, and Badger. And I guess the only thing that I would add to last presentation, we had a couple of questions from the committee. We responded in writing.

I'd be happy to read the responses in writing if the committee chair would like, but I think all of you folks had it. Submitted to your emails. Okay. I think if we've got them in our emails, if folks do have questions on any of those, we can certainly come back to that after we go to public testimony. And so with regard to public testimony, I have a number of people here who are down listed as yes for testimony, but I think they're probably here for questions.

But I do want to double check. Sarah Coburn, looks like you're a state veterinarian. I think you're just available for questions. Is that correct? Or would you like to testify?

Good morning, this is Dr. Coburn. That's correct, just available for any questions. Okay, thank you. And I will officially open public testimony on House Bill 258. And if there's anyone who would like to submit an email for public testimony, testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected].

Again, [email protected]. @Akleg.gov. Let's see, I think we've got— let's see, 2, 3— I'm going to say it looks like we have about 5 people who would like to testify. So the first up we've got Abby Hall calling in from Soldotna. If you can state your name and your affiliation and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning and thank you. Chair and members of the House Finance Committee. My name is Abby Hall. I'm president and co-founder of Kenai Peninsula Animal Lovers Rescue, better known as KPAL Rescue. We're based in Kenai and Soldotna.

Since 2019, our organization has focused on puppy and dog rescue, spay/neuter vaccinations, and finding them forever homes. We serve the entire Kenai Peninsula, including Nanwalek and Port Graham villages in the Laken Peninsula Borough, And we also received transferred puppies and dogs from Paws of Gnomes serving the Bering Strait villages and Bethel Friends of Canines serving the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta region.

Villages. Through this work, it's become very clear that veterinary care is desperately needed in communities where there is no services. Many villages are struggling with large stray dog populations and no access to vaccinations or spay and neuter care. The result is increasing dog bites, often involving children, preventable disease, starvation, freezing, and heartbreaking culling practices. This issue impacts entire communities, not just animals.

Dogs are companions, protectors, and part of the family. Access to veterinary care improves public safety, reduces suffering, and helps families keep healthy animals in their homes and villages. It also helps reduce long-term strain on shelters, rescues, communities, and state resources. Sleepaw recently received a grant from the Rasmuson Foundation and has invested in mobile spay and neuter surgical equipment to launch clinics in communities where no veterinary access is available. We are already working with veterinary surgeons, vet techs, and volunteers experiencing high vol— high volume, high quality spay and neuter services.

They are ready to help us bring remote clinics to underserved communities and reduce animal overpopulation in a humane and compassionate way. Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully urge the committee's support to pass HB 258. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Great, thank you very much.

I don't see any questions. Representative Hannon actually has a question. Thank you, Co-chair Foster. Ms. Hall, especially when you're going to remote locations for your spay clinics, do you only do dogs or do you also do cats?

We focus on dogs, but we would not turn down cats. Okay, thank you. I don't see any further questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Hall. And for the other folks who are testifying, if you are on a speakerphone, oftentimes we can hear you more clearly if you are speaking— take us off speaker if possible.

So the next person we have online is Ms. Linda Lance calling in from Kodiak. If you can state your name and your affiliation.

Good morning and thank you, Chair and members of the House Finance Committee. My name is Linda Lance. And I am President of the Humane Society of Kodiak. Our organization is a nonprofit that manages and operates the Kodiak Animal Shelter for the City of Kodiak. The shelter services pets from both the city and the Kodiak Island Borough, which includes 6 villages.

Um, Kodiak, like many Alaskan communities, does not have low-cost veterinary services for our residents. The lack of competition and the expense of traveling to communities with more services affects pet care. This cost, along with the high cost of living in rural Alaska, creates a dilemma for pet owners. Locally, the cost of a spay procedure for a female dog is around $900. When faced with the choice between buying food, buying gas for the car, or paying the vet clinic, the latter becomes a low priority and is often forgotten.

We support HB 258 because it will help all of us in the state that must deal with the problem of overpopulation of unwanted cats and dogs. Dogs. By establishing a structure for Alaskans to donate through license plates, Pick Click and Give, and grant opportunities, the statewide spay and neuter assistance program will be funded by Alaskans that care about this problem. HB 258 will help to reduce the cost of spay/neuter procedures for those that can least afford to pay for these services. It will reduce the burden on families not having to worry about unwanted litters, of puppies and kittens, and it will correspondingly reduce the burden on shelters and municipalities, the miskaws, and rehome the many unwanted pets that deserve a chance.

We ask that you join us in your support of HB 258. Thank you for your time. Great, thank you very much, uh, Ms. Lance. Question from Representative Hannon. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster.

Ms. Lance, in Kodiak and especially in your more rural communities, when you're dealing with spay and neuter assistance. Do you have a ratio of dog to cat demand or need that you could share? It's mostly dogs. And we do, we do offer spay/neuter coupons. The Humane Society raises money in which we provide coupons.

And so animals are flown in to that clinic here in Kodiak. It's mostly dogs. Okay. One follow-up. Follow-up.

Do you have a problem in Kodiak with whether sometimes called feral cat colonies, so they're not really pets that somebody's bringing in, but somehow successfully surviving cats that have been abandoned and then reproduce? Yes, we do. We do have it close in to the city, and I'm sure out in the villages as well. Yes, we do. One more follow-up.

Roxanne, and—. If they are brought to your Humane Society, do you treat them the same way that you treat other cats that would come in directly as being pets? I.e., do you check their health conditions, spay and neuter them, give them vaccines, and then put them up for adoption?

Yes, we do. We take them into the shelter, and if they are— if they are not feral enough that we can adopt them, we will. Take care of them as we would any other pet. Spay/neuter, vaccines, and find them a home. Absolutely.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much, uh, Ms. Lance. And next up we have Emily Stotts calling in from Nome. If you can put yourself on the record.

Thank you, Chair and members of the House Finance Committee. I'm Emily Scott. President of Pawz Nome, a volunteer nonprofit that's been operating in the Bering Straits region for 13 years, that was created in response to the lack of animal care and control resources. Historically, nonprofits like our animal welfare groups in Alaska have been on the front lines for providing support for communities experiencing the fallout from the lack of access to animal care and control resources. Issues related to overpopulation and the spread of communicable diseases, increased bite risks, and hardships and traumas associated with lack of access to resources for pets.

Some nonprofits provide supplies that are hard to access in villages, like dog food, dog houses, straw. Some groups provide low-cost vet access, like high-volume neuter clinics and vaccines. And some groups accept high-needs cases, like medical surrenders or pets from at-risk communities. Many facilitate adoptions, rehoming for pets that would otherwise be destroyed. Paws of Nome is the only nonprofit for over 100,000 square miles that provides and maintains free access to all the quality-of-life resources for people and their animals that I just mentioned.

As the Executive Director of Operations for PAWS for over 5 years. With the volume of need and expansive territory, I can tell you the level of crises we are experiencing requires a Tier 3 intervention if we are ever going to make a meaningful impact on the barriers to access for our at-risk communities. Nonprofit high-volume spay/neuter events are a game changer for the demographic this bill is targeting. We are already experiencing a vet shortage in this country. The vet offices across Alaska have clinic schedules that are at capacity with owned pet patients as well as rescue and nonprofit patients.

The animal welfare groups in Alaska already spend an average of $200,000 each a year at veterinary clinics in the state as part of their regular volume operational costs. The state of Alaska needs nonprofits to have the ability to provide more consistent high-volume spay/neuter access to address the fallout we are experiencing in at-risk communities throughout the state. Just as important as passing HB 258 is the method in which funding is used to meet the needs of the target demographic. I'd like to thank the committee for their time and consideration and urge members to support and pass HB 258. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Question, Representative Hannan. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster. So I'm gonna— Ms. Stantz, I'm going to ask you the same question I've asked the other testifiers, and that is about cats in relation to dogs when you're offering services and processing them through your shelter. Miss, Miss Dodds, uh, we have a lower intake volume for cats in comparison.

I would say out of the—. What was it—. 90 Animals that we provided spay/neuter services for this last year, um, 11 were cats. Okay, and follow-up on a separate thread: in your region, do you draw a distinction or see a distinction between dogs that are pets and dogs that might have been used as sled dogs, or is the demand equal, or sled dogs are a whole separate thread that you don't deal with? So for me personally, because I have a hat in every aspect of animal care and control up here, I manage the animal control departments for the region, and I deal with companion animals and support mushing teams.

Sled dogs. I actually use a broader term to describe these animals at risk because the high percentage of companion animals far outweighs mushing and sled dogs. There is barely any in practice regularly ran sled teams. But I would hesitate to call these dogs pets because they have never been cared for in context of being a companion animal. If they're tied to something, tethered to something with no access to social interaction or nutritional needs and requirements, even by state regulations and national regulations, it's hard to say that they're a pet.

When they come into rescue, they're an animal.

Animal that has been treated as not a companion, not to the level that we require by state law and by local ordinances. Um, if people have too many animals to take care of, it's usually a situation where it's animals that live in a state that isn't conducive to a healthy environment, regardless if it's— I hesitate to say working dogs because the sled dog teams in our region don't work. There is no traveling to distribute goods anymore. There is no, you know, getting the vaccines for diphtheria, the life-saving stuff. And it's all— it's very sport-based or hobby-based.

And I think it's very clear that if people can barely keep the animals that they want as their companions, and that's just one pet, how can they afford to be able to accommodate a working a team would be at least 10 dogs, more if you are being responsible about rotations. Anyways, I was not prepared to address that exact question, but there is— it permeates to every way of life around here. But the way of life where there is quote-unquote working animal sled dogs, those are not the main participants of our clinics. And those 90 participants that I just mentioned, not just the spay/neuter recipients, that is not the free ongoing healthcare we offer these community residents. A very low percentage are actual sled dogs and working teams.

It's hard to get out to where that stuff is needed when it is needed, so people that are able to get what they need when they need it are able to accommodate that by their own means through being responsible hobbyists and recreational mushers. Great. Thank you for your very thorough sort of lens into how diverse the spay and neuter needs are across the state and issues surrounding domesticated animals. Thank you.

Emily, real good to see you in Nome. I think back in March at Old St. Joe's and just wanted to thank you for the emails that you've been sending to us on this issue. So thank you for participating. And with that, we'll next move over to, I believe, our last testifier, a familiar face to this room here, Mr. Neil Steininger, the other Neil I like to refer to him as. And Mr. Steininger, if you can put yourself on the record.

Good morning. For the record, Neil Steininger. I'm a member of the Juneau Assembly, but today I'm here to speak in an individual capacity as a resident of downtown Juneau. I would echo the comments made by a lot of the other testifiers on the importance of aspects of this bill, but I'm here today to advocate for inclusion of language that would allow trap-neuter-release programs. In the neighborhood that I live, we have a colony of feral cats that last summer we counted at one time 20 congregating in a single space.

And for those of you that don't know, I live in the middle of downtown Juneau, just blocks here from the Capitol. That colony has grown over time, and it creates a lot of problems in our neighborhood. You know, all the problems I think we're aware of with invasive species in Alaska. And while the Department of Fish and Game advocates for a trap and kill or a, you know, kill in place type policy, that doesn't really work in a, you know, dense neighborhood setting. It pits neighbors against each other as we have many, many individuals in the neighborhood that are compassionate and don't want to see the animals die.

And those neighbors end up protecting the animals or, you know, tampering with traps that may be set to deal with the problem. And you end up with an unsuccessful program when you're pitting neighbors against each other on an unpopular solution to a problem. Trap-Neuter-Release, however, allows for a compassionate way to deal with the problem. It allows for you know, a reduction in population over time. And communities have adopted programs like that, have seen success in reducing feral cat populations.

And it is truly, truly a problem in our neighborhood. Gardens are being used for refuse by the cats. We have far, far fewer birds than when I first moved into my home, and many other problems associated that have been mentioned by by previous testifiers. The, the neighborhood group attempting to deal with this program has captured cats that we have found that are, you know, nice enough, still less feral, and able to be adopted, and adopted them out. We have been working on this problem as a community, but we need more tools to address the problem to prevent it from becoming worse and worse and worse over time.

So I want to say thank you to the committee. I know it's a busy time, and thank you for taking the time to hear this bill and address this issue. And, uh, thank you for the time for me to be able to come up here and give you a little bit of my thoughts. Mr. Steineger, of course, is no stranger to this room as the former OMB director. I just wanted to say welcome back.

Do you have a question? Thank you, uh, Chair Foster. Mr. Steineger, right now the bill has exempted feral cats from coverage. Would you advocate for its inclusion to help address what in our community is an ongoing problem? Through the chair, Representative Hannan, yes, yes, I would.

Thank you. Okay. I don't see any further questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Steininger. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify?

Seeing none, is there— just want to double-check if there's anybody else. We're happy to have you up. Is there anyone online who would like to testify? Okay, seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public testimony on House Bill— I believe, what was it— 258. And so public testimony is closed.

And again, the email address if you'd like to submit written testimony is [email protected]. Also, I'd like to recognize that we do have with us Representative Shiragi, Co-Chair Shiragi, as well as Representative— let's see, we had another representative here a moment ago. Let's see, am I missing— we also have with us co-chair Representative Josephson. And so with that, we do have fiscal notes. I believe there are two.

The first one should be Chandra Perry, if you're online, if you can put yourself on the record and walk us through the fiscal notes.

Good morning. Good morning. For the record, Shawndi Perry, Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Health Division Director. Uh, as currently drafted, the fiscal note reflects, uh, first-year costs of approximately $536,200 and ongoing annual operating costs of approximately $331,300 thereafter. The fiscal note assumes an initial implementation will be supported with general funds and then with potential future offsetting program receipt revenues from donations and specifically from license plate fees, grants, permanent funds, dividend contributions.

And so general funds are needed initially to support the program implementation beginning in January 2027. The fiscal note identifies two full-time positions, a program coordinator and an accounting technician. Other costs include an information management system to support application intake, eligibility tracking, provider participation, reimbursement processing, and provider listing. And it also includes regulation implementation, postage, mailing, and general operational costs.

Questions on the fiscal notes? Representative Galvin. Thank you. I see in the fiscal note here that we have $30,000 annually for public awareness. Is that something that you expect is needed throughout, in perpetuity?

I would guess that once folks get wind of this program, it's going to be so popular that may not need to be in perpetuity, and I just wondered what the thinking was behind that. Ms. Perry. Sure, through the chair, Representative. The $30,000 annually would be for sending out mailings to participating veterinarians and other entities, and newspaper ads, potentially social media campaigns. And, um, general mailouts.

So the $30,000 is intended for each year thereafter, but I'll definitely take into consideration your comments.

Thank you. And I, I think that's all I have. I'll work with the sponsor. Okay, further questions for Ms. Perry? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Perry.

The next fiscal note we have is from Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Perry, just to double-check, the control code that you have on your fiscal note, um, is that GKNMF?

Co-chair Foster, I apologize, I didn't hear the question. Oh, the control code.

On the fiscal note, just wanted to verify, is that in the bottom right of your fiscal note, is that GKNMF?

So, Chair Foster, Shandi Perry for the record. I'm not sure what— I'm looking at the fiscal note now and I can't see what you're referring to. Oh, is, is yours—. Maybe I can follow up with our legislative liaison. Is yours dated January 23, 2026?

We might— co-chair, we might be looking at two different versions potentially. Um, I have data 2019-26. 2019-26. Okay, um, I'll have my staff maybe reach out to you, and if there's any substantial changes— I think the numbers that you quoted though seem like they're consistent, and so we'll have my staff reach out and to make sure that we've got— there's nothing substantially different. So with that, we'll move to the next person.

That's Ms. Genevieve Wachusik. If you can put yourself on the record and state the control code that you have on your fiscal notes.

Good morning, Chair Foster and members of the committee. Genevieve Wachusik, Director of the PFD Division here in Juneau. The control code I have, Chair Foster, is V as in Victor, C as in Charlie, G as in good, I as in indigo, D as in David. Is that the control code fiscal note you're looking at? Yes.

Great, very great. We have an indeterminate fiscal note for this bill at this time. There are one-time programming costs that come with any new program for the PFD Division, and we're in the middle of a system overhaul that is being transitioned to the division in the next few months. So at this time, we have an indeterminate programming be fulfilled now. Okay, do we have any questions?

Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Wachusik. We do have 4 people who would like to testify on the next bill in about 8 minutes before we need to adjourn out. What I'd like to do is if anyone has any questions for the sponsor, I don't think they're going to be major, and so we can take it up if if folks would like at the beginning of our 1:30 meeting. And if there's no objection to that— Rep. St. Vallard. I know we're on a tight timeframe and stuff, but didn't— did this bill already get amendments?

Just about set an amendment deadline. Oh, I'm just wondering, we're at the end of session and I'm trying to get a feel for the room. I don't know that there are any amendments. Can we just move it out or? I think we have one or two people who are interested.

Apparently some people have some amendments. Okay, so what I'd like to do is set an amendment deadline for Friday, May 15th at 5 PM. Again, Friday, May 15th at 5 PM. And, um, so with that, uh, Representative Stepp, thank you very much. We're gonna— do you have comments?

No? Okay, um, we're gonna jump right into the next bill. So thank you. Um, let's see here. And what I'm trying to do is get to the next 4 testifiers so they don't have to come back at another time or another day.

And so we have next up House Bill 260. That's the construction project wages and liability bill. And rather than do the brief recap, we'll just jump right into public testimony. So I'll open public testimony on House Bill 260. And if folks would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected].

And so I've got a couple people here who are down as— let's see, everybody's down for testimony. Actually, it looks like we have 5 people here. Scott Damerow, if you can put yourself on the record. Looks like you're calling in from Anchorage. And if folks can keep their testimony to 2 minutes.

For the record, my name is Scott Damero, Chief of Mechanical Inspection for the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Uh, through the chair, I'm not sure if I was invited to answer questions specifically.

Oh, I'm sorry, uh, we had you down, uh, you're listed as public testimony, um, so it sounds like you're just here for questions, is that correct?

Yes. Okay. Okay. Yes, if there are any questions for Department of Labor on this, I know this affects what we do. I'd be happy to answer any of those questions.

Okay, thank you. If we could list him as being available for questions, not testimony. Okay, next up we have Gabe Shaddy Farnsworth calling in from Anchorage. If you can put yourself on the record, Mr. Shaddy Farnsworth.

Yeah, good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Gabe Shaddy Farnsworth and I'm calling from Anchorage. I'm representing myself today. I'm calling to speak in favor of House Bill 260, and specifically, although I support the entire bill, specifically in support of Section 3 that deals with wage theft on construction projects.

I am a carpenter with 15 years of experience working in the construction industry in Alaska. And I can testify to the fact that wage theft in the construction industry here is a huge problem. And I think that this bill can go a long way if it's made law to correct that problem. And just explain, you know, from my perspective, I myself have been a victim of wage theft multiple times in my career, seen, you know, many of my colleagues and friends that are in the industry could say the same thing. With limited time here, I won't go into all my anecdotes, but it's not a surprise given the construction bidding environment and the way that the wage— or rather the labor cost on a construction bid is typically what separates a winning bid from a losing bid.

And the fact that there is abysmal to zero enforcement of existing wage and hour laws in the construction industry in Alaska. In my case, I've been the victim of wage theft on a— school district project that took place on a military installation in Anchorage, so in probably what should be the hardest environment in which to, you know, commit wage theft. And so, you know, who knows what's happening out in rural Alaska, up on the North Slope, and various other environments where enforcement would be even more— less practical to achieve. So, it's So, to anyone who might be tempted to say this is a solution— this is a solution looking for a problem, I would just— my experience would say otherwise. And I'd also note that when it comes to— in my experience working on a construction project, the general contractor or the developer, one of the first things they do at the beginning of a Project is they, they put a fence around the job site and they put a lock on it, and every day at the end of the job, someone who works for that general contractor or the developer goes around and they lock that gate to make sure that no materials, no tools are stolen off of that job site and that it doesn't turn into a crime scene.

And the irony, I think, here is that the most likely time that that job is going to actually turn into a crime scene is in the next morning when they open up that gate and the construction workers work, walk onto that job for the beginning of their shift. And what this bill will do is it will change the incentive structure to make it so that that general contractor or that developer starts paying attention to that crime and that aspect of their risk, um, and the risk of that every construction worker takes when they walk on the job every day. So I appreciate the time and, uh, I would ask that the committee and the legislature pass this into law to advocate for the, the rights and interests of the construction workers, um, of Alaska. Thank you. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Shady Farnsworth.

Next we have Alicia Maltby calling from Anchorage. If you can put yourself on the record, state your name, your affiliation, and proceed with your 2-minute testimony.

Chairman Foster and committee members, my name is Alicia Maltby. I am the president and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors Association of Alaska, otherwise known as ABC. ABC was founded in 1950. ABC supports awarding construction work on merit to qualified, responsible bidders by performing our work with responsibility, skill, and integrity. ABC has more than 25,000 members nationwide.

In Alaska, we represent over 150 companies and operate the state's largest construction apprenticeship program. We support free enterprise and workforce development and provide contractors with the resources to compete in the ever-changing contracting environment. Today I'm here to talk about House Bill 260 and the concerns about its drafting and potential unintended impacts on Alaska's contracting community. There are two separate issues here: the Certificate of Fitness compliance and payroll record requirements framed as Wage Theft. Though ABC supports compliance and fair pay, our concern is that combining these topics in one bill creates confusion, expands liability, and may impose requirements without clear evidence of a statewide problem.

First, ABC supports compliance, but the certificate of fitness provisions need clear definitions and shared accountability. The bill should specify whether.

As applying to apprenticeship cards and journeyman's licenses or both, and as drafted, placing sole responsibility on employers is unworkable, and the language, knowingly violated, will be difficult to enforce consistently when drafted into law. The bill's approach, secondly, to making project owners liable for unpaid wages is a significant expansion of risk and cost. For example, if the state or local municipalities becomes the project owner, This liability could fall on taxpayers when payment delays or disputes occur. ABC urges the committee to carefully consider the breadth of this provision and whether it creates unequal treatment across the workforce to include the special concessions being made to those that fall within a collective bargaining agreement would discriminate against roughly 80% of Alaska's workforce in private construction that is non-signatory. Lastly, on payroll records, prevailing wage projects already require substantial reporting.

Expanding public-facing payroll disclosures to all projects raises privacy concerns and adds costs without clear data showing a statewide wage theft, wage theft problem. ABC has repeatedly requested case data from the Department of Labor and has not received evidence supporting the scale implied. A better use of resources would be funding additional enforcement staff to investigate credible complaints. ABC Alaska supports enforcement of labor laws and fair wages. However, HB 260 risks shifting broad liability to private businesses, increasing costs, and discouraging future investment and competition in the state of Alaska.

We appreciate the committee's focus on protecting workers and Alaska businesses, but we ask that the committee clearly identify the problem with supporting data and consider separating these issues rather than advancing a broad statewide approach that may not be warranted. I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much, Ms. Maltby. Next we have Mr. David Bunce calling in from Soldotna.

Hi, thank you, House Finance Committee members, for allowing me to share a few thoughts. My name is David Bunce. I'm speaking on behalf of myself. I've been a general contractor on the Kenai Peninsula since 1983. I'm calling in opposition to HB 260.

While this may This bill may not directly affect me today. It certainly could in the future. I oppose this bill based on principle, the principle that a person or company should be solely responsible for their own expenses and obligations. The idea that one business's expenses can be shifted onto another business or a property owner is wrong. This does not foster a healthy business environment.

It adds another layer of risk and uncertainty for general contractors and project owners. It increases the possibility that a general contractor can go under financially which then affects even more employees, suppliers, and some contractors who may not get paid. To cover this added risk, prices will certainly go up. Retailers already build theft losses into their pricing, and consumers end up paying more. This bill will have the same effect on the construction industry.

I've also served as a firefighter for more than 40 years, and one principle we are always taught is to contain the disaster. This bill does the opposite. It throws gas on the fire by spreading the financial damage of a failed subcontractor to others who were not responsible for that failure. If a subcontractor fails, the general contractor may fail as well. Then the project owner faces delays, higher costs, and the challenges of finding a replacement contractor.

From there, the financial damage can spread further to banks and lenders financing the project. Well, I believe the intentions behind this bill are good. Spreading responsibility to others is not the answer. Please oppose HB 260. Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Great, thank you very much, uh, Mr. Bunce. Um, just looking over to see if there are any questions. Representative Josephson? I have questions I could ask, uh, Mr. Chairman, but given the time, I'd rather hear from our last testifier. Mr. Pickett.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have Mr. Aaron Pickett calling in from Anchorage. If you can put yourself on the record.

Thank you. My name is Aaron Pickett. I'm the business manager for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 367 here in Anchorage. We represent just over 700 members in the mechanical and piping industry. I want to thank the committee members for committee for hearing HB 260.

Primarily, I'm, I'm going to discuss, or, or here to testify, on the portions pertaining to the certificate of fitness. And I want to thank the Department of Labor's Mechanical Inspection Department for the work that they've done previously in regulatory changes allowing some reciprocity and provisional licensing for mechanical trades in the state. In fact, they have made it so that it is now easier to be able to obtain. It's easier for folks to be able to relocate to Alaska. This is really helping to bolster that workforce development that's needed, especially with all the work that's coming across the state.

With these changes, it seems unreasonable that any employer would be allowed to employ individuals in license-required professions without those proper licenses in place. It's as simple as when a new employee comes on board that they take their license down, they put their number down, and they have those in place. And unfortunately, what we're finding across the state is that there has been a lack of enforcement across the state of these licenses. There really is no consequence to an employer who is utilizing a workforce that isn't properly licensed. And with that, you have half the folks that will follow the rules as they know that they're in place, and half that know that there's just no enforcement and there's not an incentive to following the rules.

So we appreciate the effort effort to put some teeth into this, to put that the employers have some skin in the game. There is rules on the, on the books already, or laws on the books at this point, that requires those licenses for the actual mechanic performing the work. So it's, it's past time that, that we move forward with this, and greatly appreciate the efforts and encourage your support of HB 260. Thank you. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Pilkett.

Unfortunately, we do have another meeting that we need to be at. Representative Allard, I just—. This is just a quick one. Who's on the line right now? It's Aaron Pilkett with the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 367.

Okay, so I— can I ask him a question? Representative Allard, thank you for being here, sir. So I guess my question would be, are you— are you saying that you're not getting paid proper wages through Your union? I'm confused. I'm specifically, uh, sorry, through the chair, Representative Ollard.

Uh, no, I'm specifically speaking to the certificate of fitness portion of this bill, uh, which would be, uh, the enforcement to employers requiring that their plumbers or electricians, uh, have proper licensing. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, uh, thank you very much. And with that, um, let's see here, um, I think we're probably going to have to come back to fiscal notes later.

We do have 3 of them. I will be at that meeting once we do come back. I'll set the amendment deadline for this bill at Friday, May 15th, at 5 PM. But we'll finish off the fiscal notes at our 1:30 meeting. So with that, at our 1:30 meeting, we— let's see here— we do have Senate Bill 211, extend occupational licensing boards.

That's a sunset bill, as well as House Bill 381, the gas line bill. So with that, we're going to be adjourned at 10:04 AM. Thank you.