HFIN-260517-0900

Okay, I'll call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order and let the record reflect that the time is currently 9:14 AM on Sunday, May 17th, 2026. 6 Present. We do have Representative Moore and Representative Nelly, Jimmy, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannon, myself, Co-Chair Foster.

I see we also have Representative Holland in the audience. Thanks for joining us. I don't see any other representatives. And we do have conference committee, I believe, that started at 9:00 a.m. And so we may not take up amendments until we have the other co-chairs here. I'll probably take a quick at ease just to figure out our schedule this morning.

The first bill that we do have up— so we do have I believe floor at 11, and then at 10:30 we all probably have meetings, so we'll go till just before then.

And I'm going to take a very brief edis. We do have Representative Bynum here, just 30 seconds, so brief edis.

House Finance back on record. So my intent is to take up Senate— is that Senate Bill 211? And that is the board extension bill. And again, as I mentioned earlier, we do have some folks who are gone. 3 Of our members are gone and at the conference committee.

But when they come back, we'll resume our amendment process for the nicotine E-cigarette bill, and that is SB 24, Tobacco and E-cigarette. And that may be all the time that we have, but if we do have more time, the next bill after that is SB 21, Alaska Work and Save. And wherever we get a chance today with holes in the floor session, we'll come back to finance. Mr. Anderson, if you wouldn't mind coming up And just laying out what exactly you just mentioned about the boards. What do we need to do again?

We have the public testimony and I think you said something else.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Brody Anderson, staff to Representative Foster. For SB 21, the committees agenda shows that we have public testimony to take on this bill, review fiscal notes, and then the bill would be in a position to be moved if that was the will of the committee. Okay. So with that, we'll jump right into— thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Sir Anderson.

Also. So we'll go ahead and jump right into SB 211. Extension boards, and I'd like to invite up Senator Bjorkman as well as his staff, Mr. Matt Churchill. If you'd like to just give us a brief recap of what the bill is, then we're going to do public testimony and we'll do our fiscal notes and, and then move into the amendments if we have any. Senator Bjorkman, welcome back.

Thank you very much, Co-Chair Foster and members of the esteemed House Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman, and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. Senate Bill 211 extends the sunset dates of 6 professional boards: the Professional Counselors, Marital and Family Therapy, Psychologists, Psychological Examiners, Real Estate Commission, the Certified Real Estate Appraisers, and Social Work Examiners. Senate Bill 211 follows the extensions recommended by our alleged auditor, for each of those boards. Thank you.

Great, thank you very much. Miss Curtis, if you wouldn't mind coming up. Do we have any questions for Miss Curtis? And I think part of the reason I wanted to also bring up Miss Curtis— it looks like we may not have any questions, but this may be, I believe, your last opportunity to come and, uh, and give us your great knowledge. You've been a great, great, um, I guess, uh, person in your role as our auditor, and, and as you've always said, our auditor.

And so with that, I just wanted to recognize you and thank you for all your work. I think this is the last Finance Committee hearing that you'll be attending, is that correct? Certainly. Chris Curtis, Legislative Auditor. It's been an honor.

I don't want to get emotional. I do plan to retire in the fairly near future. I appreciate the opportunity to serve this legislature. Maybe if I could clarify, every time she has come up to speak, she said, Kris Curtis, your legislative auditor, and she has just made it very personal. Representative Hannon?

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I am a little dumbstruck. I had not caught wind of that. I would like to amend the bill before us and deny her retirement. I think her PCN number allows us that.

I don't hear an objection. So, Miss Curtis, I knew long before this job, Mr. Chairman. She is the mother of two amazing young people who I had the pleasure of being the teacher of, and I would say she was probably one of those moms that the kids may not— her children may not have appreciated the guidance and fortitude she put into their supports in all of their activities and endeavors. And she was at every sporting event and performance that her kids ever had. And they were on time and extraordinary.

We will certainly miss her in her professional capacity. So I hope you are sticking around, Juneau. Absolutely. Representative Galvin. Thank you.

I would like to echo the chorus of appreciation and add to it that I am relatively new, have only been here 4 years, and there have been several times when her coming to the dais alone has taught me so something that I never knew about a board or commission or the law. And that has been absolutely invaluable. There's no way to put a price on that. You have had such huge impact and left a legacy for Alaska, and I can't thank you enough. Thank you.

Great. Representative Hannon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the pleasure of the committee and perhaps for the member who is also a former basketball a basketball player. I believe Miss Curtis came to Juneau, um, was recruited when the University of Alaska Southeast still had an intercollegiate sports team, and was a star basketball player here.

And, uh, her nickname was Elbows, but she never got a foul called on her for it. She played with precision and pride, and I do believe that she came here as a recruit and then we captured her heart, and even after they canceled the intercollegiate program, she stuck around. Great. I, um, I've been here for about 16 years now, and I've served on the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee for many years, and just want to say that you've done an astounding, outstanding job, very professional. And anytime anyone's ever had any questions, you know, no hesitation in going to talk to people.

So with that, I just wanted to recognize you and thank you for all your work. So thank you very much. So with that, we're going to jump right into public testimony, and I'll open public testimony on House Bill 211. And if anyone would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected]. Again, [email protected].

[email protected]. And, um, is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on SB 211? I don't see on my list, I believe, anyone, and I don't think there's anyone online. So again, if anyone would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected].

[email protected]. And we'll jump in. So I'll go ahead and close public testimony on SB 211, and we'll go right over to the fiscal note. Ms. Robb, if you can put yourself on the record and walk us through Commerce's fiscal notes.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Sylvan Robb, Director of the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional licensing. This is the fiscal note, OMB component number 2360.

The control code is KQWKM. You'll see that in fiscal year '27, included in the governor's request is $147,600. That amount continues until fiscal year '32 when it reduces to $115,000. $19,800, And that is because the extension for the Real Estate Commission— were it not to be extended in 2030, the Real Estate Commission would have a wind-down year in 2031 and then would no longer exist in 2032. And so it's the reflection of those costs dropping off.

This is DGF receipt-supported services and will be paid by the licensees for the 6 programs whose boards are being extended. Okay. Do we have any questions regarding the fiscal notes? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Rau. And that next takes us to the amendment process.

And there was, I believe, one amendment that was in or submitted. Representative Bynum, would you like to Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I've talked to the bill sponsor. He has no desire to see that bill amended in this committee. I personally don't agree with that position, but given the fact that we don't have our full committee here and I need a little more time to talk with the bill sponsor and others, I will not be offering amendment to this bill in this committee.

Thank you. Okay, I am just about to ask if the committee is interested in moving the bill. I'm just We're going to take a brief at ease.

Okay, House Finance back on record. The time is currently 9:28 AM. And if it is the will of the committee, I would entertain a motion. Representative Schragg or Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I move SB 21134-LS1252/G out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. House Finance Committee authorizes legislative legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. Okay, do we have any objections? Seeing none, uh, SB 211, which is version 34-LS-1252-G, moves out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes, and House Finance Committee authorizes legislative legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. Senator Bjorkman.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, and thank you, members of the Committee, I appreciate not amending the bill. I think it's important that the ALS board bill provision exist in one piece of legislation so that we can have an orderly process to move forward and that we settle outstanding issues in a definitive way. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much.

And so next up, Because we don't have our full complement here, we'll hold on the SB 24 tobacco and e-cigarettes bill. And with regard to— I believe we should be able to go to the Alaska Work and Save, or I believe I'm going to take a brief ease here.

Okay, uh, the time— calling House Finance back on record— the time is currently 9:30 AM. For anybody who may be a little bit confused about, uh, some of the attire today, I think there's a photo shoot coming up pretty soon. And so just thought that might help to explain things. We're going to jump right into SB 21. That is the Alaska Work and Save Bill.

And I believe that the conference committee should be wrapping up pretty soon. And so we'll just jump right into this bill and then we'll go to the e-cigarette bill. So with that, if I could have Senator Wielekowski come up as well as his Staff, Ms. Maxine LaBerge. And if you could just give us a brief recap of the bill, and then we'll see if there are any more questions.

Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. For the record, Bill Wilkowski, State Senator, Freeze-Denrich, joined by Maxine LaBerge in my office. And this bill establishes an auto IRA program for all Alaskan employees who qualify And this is something that 17 other states at least have done, and other states are exploring. And it is basically the state providing a benefit for small business— small businesses that they can offer to their employees to make them more competitive and help provide a retirement for employees of small businesses, of which huge percentages of Alaskans work for. So I'll stop right there.

Happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. Okay, do we have any questions of the bill, of the sponsor of the bill? Okay, seeing that we didn't have any amendments, and if it is the interest of the committee, I would entertain a motion. And I believe that might be on page 6. This is 6.

I'll be happy to make that for you. Chair Foster, if that's okay. Representative Bynum.

Co-chair Foster, I move SB 2134-LS0254/T out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. House Finance Committee authorizes legislative legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. Okay, and seeing no objection, SB 21, which is version 34-LS0254/T, moves out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes, and House Finance authorizes alleged legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. Senator Wielechowski, any, any comments? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Great, thank you for being here. Thank you for introducing the bill. And if folks can sign the committee reports. And so again, awaiting our other members here, we'll probably go right into public testimony on the next bill, which is SB 79. That's the payroll card bill.

And so one moment as I sign the report here.

So if we could have Senator Bjorkman, is he still in the audience here? Let's see here, I think they might be just outside.

And what we'll do with regard to this bill is, we'll just get the brief recap and then we will— I believe there is some public testimony. We also probably have the fiscal notes, and also it looks like there is a CS to adopt on the payroll card bill. So we'll take a brief at ease while we are awaiting Senator Bjorkman.

Okay, House Finance back on record. The next bill that we have for us is Senate Bill 79, that is payment of wages payroll card account, otherwise known as the pay cards. And I'd like to invite up Senator Bjorkman to come up and just give us a brief recap of the bill. And then after that, we'll have a couple changes in a committee substitute that will be rolled out. So with that, Senator Bjorkman, welcome again.

Thank you very much, Co-Chair Foster and members of the esteemed House Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. Senate Bill 79 started as a bill to allow employers the option to pay their employees through wage cards. In a previous committee, um, there were some changes made to the bill. You guys will be considering those changes today having to do with interchange fees on taxes and tips.

But the underlying bill was just a small little bill to allow employers to pay their employees with wage cards, specifically to help folks who didn't have bank accounts or would be subject to check cashing fees. There is specific language in this bill to offer free withdrawals and other things so that folks can have access to their cash and aren't losing it because of transaction fees. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Great. Thank you.

And I would like to ask Representative Bynum if you would be interested in making a motion to roll out the CS. Then I'll object and we'll explain the CS. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Co-Chair Foster, I move that the House Finance Committee adopt committee substitute for Senate Bill 79, working draft 34-LS0494/h, dated 5/14/26, as our working document.

Okay, and I'll object for purposes of discussion and explanation. I'd like to invite up my staff, Mr. Brody Anderson, if you can walk us through the changes. And as I understand, I think it's fairly brief.

Thank you. For the record, Brody— excuse me— Brody Anderson, staff to Representative Foster. Today the committee will be reviewing the committee substitute that is before them, version H. I would like to bring the members' attentions to what we call the redline version of of version H in the members' packets.

If the members are there, this CS essentially takes the previous version of the bill, which was G, and eliminated section 1 starting on page 5— excuse me, page 1, line 5, going all the way through to page Page 3— excuse me, Page 4, lines 4, eliminating those, those sections, removing the banking and securities portion of this bill. And then also on Page 5, it eliminated Section 4 and Section 5, which also related to the banking and securities portion of the bill, which was the severability The last thing this CS does is establish an effective date starting in the new Section 3 for July 1st, 2026. Those changes remove the portions of the banking, the banking parts of this bill, which also will, will remove the fiscal note that was created by Commerce Community for the Banking and Security Fiscal Note. It also returns this bill to the version that was passed by the 33rd Legislature. There was the bill that in its previous iteration had moved through the process in the 33rd Legislature, but unfortunately was passed after midnight.

So the required veto happened. This is the last remaining bill that is left in those after midnight vetoes. In regards to why the sections were removed was the previous language that was in the iteration had mimicked and followed some Illinois language from them. Since then, some court cases have come and gone, and on May 8th, the 7th District Court vacated the rulings, and so once again, those— the the mimicking of the state of Illinois' language no longer really applied. So by return— by removing those, we take it back to the original form that was approved by this— by the 33rd Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, that summarizes the statement of changes. Can you get a comment from Senator Bjorkman? Then we'll go to questions. Senator Bjorkman. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, and thank you, Mr. Anderson, for that summary of the CS, my office is comfortable with the committee substitute.

Thank you. Okay. Questions? Representative Allard. Thank you.

Just to be clear then, through the co-chair, the language for interchange fee language has been taken out and has it reverted back to what it was originally? I guess it was HB 171.

Do the—. Senator Bjorkman. Through Co-chair Foster to Representative Allard. The answer to your question is yes. The interchange fee language has been removed.

Representative Ballard? No, that's good news. Thank you. Representative Galvin, Representative Bynum, Representative Hannan. Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the Chair, I don't recall the details of that bill, but I am— of course, my interest is peaked when I see an entire section removed that was related to fees that would normally, I think, be lessened for the consumer. And so I just wanted to know, if a payroll card is $100, for example, what would the fees be that the banks then are are— I assume they are giving a service of some sort and I just wondered what that would be for $100, for example, so we can get a picture of that.

If you know. Senator Bjorkman. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the Chair to Representative Galvin, yes, the folks who are paid on wage cards would get access to their dollars off of those wage cards without further fees. Follow-up?

Follow-up? Thank you. So, then, I assume that there are— would the fees then be incurred by the employer, or how— so money is getting transferred from the employer to the employee in a simpler fashion, I assume, that— and I'm not sure which industry prefers this, but I think the construction industry does, for example. And I'm trying to understand, so when the general contractor hands these cards out at the end of a day, who— with regard to the section that was removed, how does that change where the dollars and cents go from that transaction? Senator Bjorkman.

Thank you, Representative Galvin. Through the chair, to be clear, the language regarding credit card interchange fees was in no way connected or related to the underlying bill other than it had to do with a similar title and it fit. So if people are paid through this system on a wage card, if you look in the bill on page 2, line 6 and 7, they have a cost-free method for the employee to check the payroll card account balance. And then the pay— starting on line 10, a payroll card account must provide an employee with at least one cost-free withdrawal each week or pay period. So when an employee gets paid, they can go and get their money off of their payroll card just like their employer handed them cash for their wages.

Thank you. I think that explains it well. Thank you. Okay. I've got Representative Bynum, Hannan, and Tomaszewski.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the Chair, Senator Bjorkman, appreciate you taking this bill and simplifying it, making it basically a single-item bill. I like the bill. It definitely gives a lot of flexibility to employees, employers.

This is an opt-in program and it is a no-cost program for the employees. So I think it's a good bill. Thank you. Okay. I've got Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Senator Bjorkman, the sections that were deleted in the new version we're looking at drew my attention to making sure that there was a prohibition on tax— taxing gratuities on a payroll card. That section has been taken out, and so I want— and I don't see it delineated in those consumer protection points that we were starting down on page 2. So I want to just affirm, is it because federal law protections against taxing gratuities, now for— yeah, tips, I assume, for, you know, waitstaff at a restaurant is another body of workers that we frequently heard payroll cards would be used for, or is there somewhere else in the bill that that prohibition against taxing tips is protected in your bill? Senator Bjorkman.

Through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Hannan, you're absolutely right. The Supremacy Clause would apply here, and if the federal government and the IRS deem that there is to be no income tax on tips earned by folks, then there will not be any income tax collected. The language having to do with interchange fees and not allowing taxes on— or not allowing interchange fees on taxes was completely separate from this bill and a totally separated issue. The payroll cards are simply an access device that people can use to receive money. The money then received and the laws governing that will follow the law of the land and federal law, that would mean no taxes on tips.

So whatever laws go into producing the amount of pay that someone receives, those laws still apply whether that pay is delivered through an access device like a payroll card or direct deposit. Thank you. Follow-up? Representative Hannan. Follow-up.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So Senator Bjorkman, just because it's very early and I've never envisioned how a payroll card works. When it was flat wages for construction workers, I completely understood it. But let's say, using Representative Galvin's example, if my pay was— my base pay was $100 but my tip portion was another $25, is that payroll card going to differentiate them because the employer has already processed it in a way that the IRS reporting is taken care of before the money is put on that payroll card, as opposed to a paycheck where we all see the Social Security— well, the deductions. Mine never showed Social Security deductions because I wasn't Social Security eligible like you, but Medicare and all of those.

So it would show the gratuity portion earned, but on the payroll card, the $125 would already come with deductions taken from it, and so that was taken care of before the payroll card issued the cash equivalent. Senator Bjorkman. Through Co-Chair Foster, Representative Hannan, yes, you are correct. So the amount of money put on the payroll card would be equal to your net wages. Thank you.

Next up, I've got Representative Tomaszewski, then Galvin. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Thank you, Senator, for being here. My question is in regards to garnishment of wages, child support, that sort of thing.

Is there any provisions in here or how would that work in this process of payment to an employee?

Thank you, Representative Tomaszewski, through Co-Chair Foster. All of the laws governing the calculation of net wages would still apply. The payroll card here in this instance is merely an access device for an employee or a worker to access their net earnings. So if there were garnishments that an employer was directed to take out of an employee paycheck, that would happen in the process before net, net earnings would be delivered to the payroll card. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Senator Gelvin. Thank you. Through the chair, Senator, what happens if an employee loses their card?

I just have never seen one. I have no idea how this works. Is it like a check? Can they go back to the employer and say, hey, this has been misplaced? Can you replace it?

I assume there's a system, but thought it would be good to understand that on the record. Senator Bjorkman. Thank you, Representative Galvin, through Co-Chair Foster. Yes, that is a good question. If you look at the bill on page 2, starting on line 19, after line 16, in which it says an employer may not offer a payroll card that charges for fees, and then '19 for issuance of the initial card and also replacement of one card per calendar year.

So if someone loses their card, they can get a free one at least once a calendar year. I would imagine that these cards are not terribly expensive to replace if they lose them more than once, but if they lose them once, they are entitled to a replacement. At least once per calendar year. Okay. Follow-up.

Follow-up. A couple of questions which that was not something I— in the bill it didn't necessarily imply that it could be replaced if lost. I wasn't sure what that meant. So it sounds like you can— you lose it once and that will be replaced. Other than that, perhaps you pay to replace it?

If it's more than once? I'm assuming these are kind of— these workers are come and go day— sometimes day-to-day workers. It could be. So I just want to appreciate what that would look like if it was multiple times. Thank you, Representative Galvin.

Through Co-Chair Foster, that's correct, Representative Galvin. If an employee loses their payroll card, they may have it replaced one time free of charge under the provisions laid out in the bill. If they lose their card twice or more than that, they could be charged for replacement. However, the amount of money and cost that it takes to replace a card is relatively very low, and an employer might not choose to charge anything for additional replacements, but they're protected by law to get at least one. Okay, thank you.

And follow-up, I have a couple of little small ones. Can this card be also in an app form, or can you— I don't know if they have QR codes that you could then pop it into your bank. If you could— how does that work? And then I'm going to add to that, if I could, Co-Chair. If—.

Are these cards also with like FIDC protections. I'm not— I'm sure nobody would get $250,000 up to that, but that, you know, typically up to $250,000 is protected through a bank, and I just wondered if it's similar. And I think those are the main things, just kind of the logistics of this and the protections for the card. Senator Birkman. Thank you, Representative Galvin, through the co-chair Foster.

To answer your second question first, I don't know if these accounts are FDIC insured or NCUA insured if the business would happen to bank with their credit union.

Your first question has to do with the need for this bill primarily. If folks indeed did have a bank account, they could have direct deposit and would not have a need for a wage card. So the wage card essentially is an access device for workers to access pay.

Okay. And the last question is, are there any protections for fraud built into this bill.

Senator Bjorkman.

Thank you, Representative Galvin. Through Co-Chair Foster, fraud protections in the state through banking and securities apply to all access devices, and they would apply to these as well. Thank you. Okay, I've got Senator— Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I did just want to make a quick comment and then I think answer a question I just heard from Representative Galvin. This is a voluntary program. The employee can choose not to participate, but it is an opportunity that an employee can receive pay in a different method than a check or direct deposit. So I think that's a good option for employees. And again, purely voluntary.

Page 2, line starting 24, does say that the payroll accounts for this, that they are insured as a pass-through based on the Federal Deposit Insurance or the National Credit Union Administration and other insurance mechanisms. So it does appear that the bill directs that they are protected.

Any comments? None. Okay, with that, let's see here. I think next up we do have invited testimony. We've got Ms. Amy Miller, Senior Director of Government Relations, Anchorage Police Department.

Ms. Miller, if you'd like to put yourself on the record and provide your testimony.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Co-Chair Foster and members of the committee. Thank you for offering me an opportunity to speak briefly in support of the CS to SB 79. My name is Amy Miller, and I am a Senior Director of Government Relations at ADP. ADP is the nation's largest provider of human capital management solutions supporting, among other things, HR, payroll, and benefits administration, and we pay 1 in every 6 U.S. employees.

ADP is uniquely positioned to understand the importance of supporting and transitioning from paper to electronic electronic forms of pay. The CS to SB 79, which ADP strongly supports, would eliminate the requirement that Alaska employers offer paper paychecks as a form of wage payment. Under the bill, employers would have the right to offer employees payment options by direct deposit or payroll cards, but to be clear, nothing in the bill prevents employees from continuing to receive pay by direct deposit, and employers could offer paper checks checks if they so choose. Further, the bill protects the right to collective bargaining arrangements and does not impact regulations for payment of wages to state employees. There are much better alternatives to paper checks.

Advances in technology have improved how employees can be made— can be paid more timely, consistently, and securely. Electronic pay protects employers. Under certain circumstances, it can be effectively impossible for employers to comply with wage payment laws governing the timely payment of wages if they must offer paper checks. Too often, employees who receive paper checks can't get paid on payday if there are events preventing the timely issuance of paper pay, such as the all-too-common weather events in Alaska. Electronic payments eliminate this concern.

This bill would make payment of wages better for employees. Employees often take extra steps to travel to the workplace to receive paper checks, travel to a bank to deposit the checks, and wait for the checks to clear. Even check deposits via mobile app include several business days delay for checks to clear. If mail is slow, employees may not receive their pay on schedule. Further, even employees who don't qualify for a bank account can receive a payroll card from their employer.

Payroll cards also offer employees better consumer protections and convenience. Payroll cards can be used for travel arrangements that require electronic payments, such as flights, hotels, rental cars, et cetera. And workers cannot overdraw their payroll card accounts, so there are no insufficient funds or NSF fees. Passing the CS to SB 79 will enable Alaska to align with the fact that most payments are already electronic. Virtually all government payments are electronic, for example, tax refunds, Social Security payments, etc.

According to the National Automatic Clearing House Association, 93% of American workers are already paid via direct deposit. I thank you for granting me time to speak to you today and I welcome any questions you may have. Okay, Representative Hannan. Thank you, Chair Foster. Ms. Miller, what does ADP stand for?

Automatic data processing. I couldn't hear you. Could you please repeat that? Ms. Miller. ADP stands for automatic data processing.

Follow-up. Follow-up. So, I'm just trying— so, are you an association or are you actually a manufacturer of payroll cards? We are— we do offer payroll cards as an option, but we're the, like, the payroll company. We also offer other human capital management solutions.

So, we do HR, payroll, benefits administration, and we pay 1 in every 6 U.S. employees. Okay. One more follow-up. We do the payroll reporting. So follow-up.

So this is— Ms. Miller, it's an industry that I'm not very familiar with, but can you tell me, are there multiple companies that provide the same services as you, or—. Yes. Yes. ADP is a member of the NPRC, which is the National Payroll Reporting Consortium. So other members of our association include, like, you know, Paylocity, Paychex, Intuit.

So they're small to large payroll providers. And I guess one more. Representative Hammond. So how large of a— are you a publicly traded stock company? We are, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'd also like to recognize that we do have with us Representative Stepp. Representative Schraggi, Representative Josephson, our co-chairs are back from conference committee.

And do we have any other questions for Ms. Miller calling in from D.C.?

Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and go to public testimony on Senate Bill 79. So it's open, and if folks would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at House [email protected]. Again, [email protected]. And is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on Senate Bill 79, payroll cards? Seeing none.

Anyone online? Okay, so I don't see anyone online. So with that, I'll go, go ahead and close public testimony on Senate Bill 79. And if folks would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected]. And we do have a fiscal note, um, and that is going to be presented by— let's see here— Jeremy Applegate.

Are you going to be presenting the fiscal notes?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Yes, Mr. Applegate, are you presenting the fiscal note for Department of Labor? Sure, I can do that for you. Okay. All right, my name is Jeremy Applegate, Chief of Wage and Hour for the State of Alaska, for the record, and we are presenting a zero fiscal note, and yeah, there is no cost financial burden for the department.

Okay. Any questions on the fiscal note? Representative Hannan. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster. Mr. Applegate, the Division of Wage and Hours has sometimes a complex job to deal with a lot of industries where there may be wage disputes.

Does the department view this legislation as improving your access to accurate wage and hour reporting, or is there any complications? I know it doesn't have a fiscal impact, but just in functionality, is it helping modernize your division's work, or has the department weighed in? Through the Chair, it—. There—. The pay cards are so common This actually just clarifies the issue really for the employees and the employer.

So it's a little bit more clear. We look at them essentially as a plastic check as long as the employee is able to receive all of their funds without discount. One follow-up. Representative Hannan. So one follow-up.

Thank you, Chair Foster. So Mr. Applegate, you're saying they're so common. So people are already using pay cards. Cards in Alaska. It's just that we have some grayness in our statutes and need to clarify that these are acceptable.

Through the chair, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, seeing no further questions, um, I am going to take a 5-minute at ease. So we're going to take an at ease.

Chalk on the floor, I guess. Is that okay? Okay, I'll call this meeting of the House Finance Committee back to order and let the record reflect that the The time is currently 10:23 AM. Just as a reminder, I think we all need to attend some meetings here in about 5 minutes. So we last left off with reviewing the fiscal notes.

And just for folks who I know were at conference committee, just to summarize the action that's been taken so far on the payroll card bill, which is SB 79, is we rolled out a CS that removed the interchange fee section on page 1, 2, 3. And so again, what's before us is a motion that was made by Representative Bynum to adopt the CS. And I think we've worked out any kinks that may have arisen. I am prepared to remove my objection to adopting the CS. I just want to check to see if anybody has any questions before we do.

Seeing none, I will remove my objection to adopting the CS. And so the work draft that is before us is Senate Bill 79, work draft 34-LS0494/h, dated 5 1426. That is our working document. And so what I'd like to do now is set an amendment deadline for tomorrow. That is, um, today is Sunday.

Uh, Representative Staff. Mr. Kocher, do we have any amendments to this bill? I don't have any amendments to this bill. I don't intend to. Does anybody else intend to have any amendments?

If it is the will of the committee, then I would entertain a motion. Representative Zdroggi.

Chair Foster, I move—.

Where's my motion? Just a moment. A brief— it's not on there just because we didn't— we're going to set an amendment deadline, so we'll have to—. All right, in that case—. And we're on version H, by the way.

We're not at Eddie's. Why don't you give me just a brief at ease, one minute here. Brief at ease.

All right, thank you for the delay, Commissioner. House Finance back on record, 10:26 AM, Russ and Froggy. Yeah, thank you for Thanks for the delay, Co-Chair Foster. A little discombobulated after conference. I move that the House Finance Committee move Senate Bill 79, Work Draft 34-LS0494\h as amended with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations.

And I give alleged legal permission to make any conforming or technical changes as needed. And, uh, sorry, Representative Schrag, I know you guys just came from, uh, Conference Committee. Uh, we actually didn't make any amendments, but we did adopt the CS, so it'd be CS for, uh—. Thank you. Let me restate the motion.

Co-chair Foster, I move that the House Finance Committee move CS for committee— excuse me, committee substitute for Senate Bill 79, work draft 34-LS0494- H with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes giving legislative legal permission to make any technical and conforming changes as needed. Great, okay, thank you very much. I see no objections, and so with that, um, House CS for Senate Bill 79, which is version 34-LS0494/H, is moved out of House Finance with individual recommendations and attached Fiscal note and House Finance authorizes Leg Legal to make any conforming and technical changes. And so with that, Senator Bjorkman, thank you for presenting. And do you have any words for us?

Thank you very much, Co-Chair Foster. I appreciate the process here and look forward to working with you further. Okay, thank you very much. So with that, if folks can be sure to sign the committee reports. And in terms of our afternoon meeting at 1:30, we will continue on with the list of bills that we had this morning.

So with that, we are going to go ahead and just in case we have time, we are going to recess this meeting at 10:28 a.m.