Juneau — The House Labor and Commerce Committee held a second hearing Feb. 14 on House Bill 34, legislation introduced by Rep. Sam Holland to establish an Alaska Innovation Council to advise state policymakers on entrepreneurship and technology development.

Committee members opened the hearing with invited testimony from John Bittner of the Alaska Small Business Development Center, who described the prevalence of small businesses in Alaska and urged state attention to supports that drive job creation. "Finding ways to support that innovation, support that economic growth, is extremely important," Bittner said, noting the center’s statewide advising, workshops and loan-facilitation programs.

The proposal drew backing from outside entrepreneurship experts and founders in public testimony. Norris Krueger, who said he serves on the Leadership Council of the Ecosystem Builder Leadership Network and has worked on state innovation strategies in Idaho, described similar efforts as a relatively low-cost way to gather input from the private sector and researchers. "This is a huge opportunity for a very small amount of money to make a real difference for the people out there in the trenches," Krueger said.

Entrepreneur Laura Oden, founder of Pandier Shoes, told the committee the state lacks consistent, sustained support for startups. She cited difficulties obtaining small, early-stage loans and said those financing gaps leave entrepreneurs feeling "unmoored." "You can get a hundred and $50,000 loan, but getting a $15,000 loan is just not gonna happen," Oden said, adding that convening stakeholders to identify gaps and practical supports is the council’s potential value.

Committee members asked brief questions of witnesses. After public testimony closed, Chair Bert Fields said the panel would take up further consideration of HB 34 at a later date. No formal action or vote was taken during the Feb. 14 session.

Why it matters: supporters told the committee a council could provide a single forum for entrepreneurs, universities, investors and state officials to identify practical barriers—such as financing, permitting and networking—and recommend coordinated policy or program responses. Proponents argued a formal council could make state policy more responsive to on-the-ground needs without large direct state spending.

The committee did not set a date for a work session or vote; members said they would return to the bill at a future meeting.