Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/08/2019 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB23 || SB24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act making special appropriations from the
earnings reserve account for the payment of permanent
fund dividends; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 24
"An Act directing the Department of Revenue to pay
dividends to certain eligible individuals; and
providing for an effective date."
1:37:05 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof explained that SB 23 and SB 24 would be
heard together because they were closely related. She
detailed that SB 23 was the appropriation vehicle and SB 24
was the accompanying policy vehicle for the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) repayment issue. She stated that public
testimony would be heard following a brief overview. The
committee would hear public testimony from all citizens who
were signed up by 2:15 p.m. She reminded the public that
written testimony was welcome.
1:38:44 PM
BRUCE TANGEMAN, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
spoke about the issue addressed by the bills. He explained
that the last three years saw a decreased PFD. The two
proposed bills were the governor's attempt to correct the
amount that Alaskans did not receive over the last three
years. He furthered that many Alaskans believed that the
funds were used to fund government, when in reality the
amounts that were not distributed sat in the [Permanent
Fund] Earnings Reserve Account (ERA).
Commissioner Tangeman declared that healthy returns were
seen over the last several years. He elaborated that the
Permanent Fund had a 12.5 percent return in 2017 and a 10.7
percent return in 2018. He explained that the funds that
had not been distributed sat in the account and earned over
$600 million in additional state revenue. The amount
considered for distribution was approximately $1.9 billion
total. He reviewed the presentation "SB 23 and SB 24, Bill
Introduction and Overview" (copy on file).
1:40:51 PM
Commissioner Tangeman addressed slide 2, "What the Bills
Do":
• SB 23 authorizes the transfer from the Earning Reserve
Account (ERA) of the Permanent Fund to the Dividend
Fund in order to pay a dividend to Alaskans that
represents the amount that was not paid in 2016, 2017,
and 2018 based on the statutory calculation
o The bill also authorizes the transfer of the
statutorily calculated PFD for the next four
years
• Each appropriation was calculated by subtracting the
dividend amount that was appropriated in each of the
last three fiscal years from the amount estimated to
be what would have been calculated by AS 43.23.025(a)
o Those appropriations are:
square4 $1,061 per person in FY20 (estimated to be
$565 million)
square4 $1,289 per person in FY21 (estimated to be
$683 million)
square4 $1,388 per person in FY22 (estimated to be
$736 million)
• SB 24 directs the Commissioner of Revenue to include
these appropriations in addition to the PFD
calculation for the distribution made in October of
2019, 2020, and 2021.
1:42:43 PM
Commissioner Tangeman reviewed slide 3, "What the Bills
Do":
• To be eligible for the incremental payment, a person
must have received a PFD in the year of the reduced
dividend and be eligible in the year of the
appropriation
o To receive the incremental PFD in October 2019,
must have received PFD in 2016 and be eligible in
2019
o To receive the incremental PFD in October 2020,
must have received PFD in 2017 and be eligible in
2020
o To receive the incremental PFD in October 2021,
must have received PFD in 2018 and be eligible in
2021
1:43:41 PM
Commissioner Tangeman discussed the graph on slide 4,
"Expected Impact to the ERA." He explained the chart which
described the impact of the proposed action on the ERA
balance. He pointed to the left-hand chart exemplifying the
fund's reduction, which was impacted by the earnings seen
over the last three years. He explained that the Department
of Revenue (DOR) did not view the proposed change as a
loss. He noted the right-hand side of the chart showed a
spike due to the proposed pay-out of the dividend to
Alaskans.
1:45:07 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof requested the sectional analysis.
BILL MILKS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
LABOR AND STATE AFFAIRS SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
reviewed the Sectional Analysis for SB 23 (copy on file):
Section 1(a). This section makes an appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account (AS
37.13.145) to the dividend fund (AS 43.23.045(a)) of
the amount of money necessary for a payment of $1061
to eligible individuals who received a 2016 dividend
and who are eligible to receive a 2019 dividend for
fiscal year 2020.
Section 1(b). This section makes an appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account to
the dividend fund of the amount of money necessary for
a payment of $1289 to eligible individuals who
received a 2017 dividend and who are eligible to
receive a 2020 dividend for fiscal year 2021.
Section 1(c). This section makes an appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account to
the dividend fund of the amount of money necessary for
a payment of $1388 to eligible individuals who
received a 2018 dividend and who are eligible to
receive a 2021 dividend for fiscal year 2022.
Section 1(d). This section makes an appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account to
the dividend fund of the amount authorized for
transfer by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
pursuant to AS 37.13.145(b) for the payment of
permanent fund dividends for fiscal year 2020.
Section 1(e). This section makes an appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account to
the dividend fund of the amount authorized for
transfer by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
pursuant to AS 37.13.145(b) for the payment of
permanent fund dividends for fiscal year 2021.
Section 1(f). This section makes an appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account to
the dividend fund of the amount authorized for
transfer by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
pursuant to AS 37.13.145(b) for the payment of
permanent fund dividends for fiscal year 2022.
Section 1(g). This section makes an appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account to
the dividend fund of the amount authorized for
transfer by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
pursuant to AS 37.13.145(b) for the payment of
permanent fund dividends for fiscal year 2023.
Section 2. This section is a contingency provision
that makes the appropriations in section 1(a)-(c)
contingent on the legislature's passage and enactment
into law of a bill directing the commissioner of
revenue to include certain payments for the 2016,
2017, and 2018 dividends to eligible individuals with
the dividend payments for 2019, 2020, and 2021.
Section 3. This section makes the appropriations in
section 1(b) and (e) which relate to dividend payments
in 2020 effective July 1, 2020.
Section 4. This section makes the appropriations in
section 1(c) and (f) which relate to dividend payments
in 2021 effective July 1, 2021.
Section 5. This section makes the appropriation in
section 1(g) which relates to dividend payments in
2022 effective July 1, 2022.
Section 6. This section provides that except for
sections 3-5, the Act takes effect immediately under
AS 01.10.070(c).
1:47:22 PM
Mr. Milks reviewed the sectional analysis for SB 24 (copy
on file):
Section 1(a). This section would amend the uncodified
law to provide that notwithstanding AS 43.23.005, the
commissioner of revenue shall include with permanent
fund dividends in 2019, 2020, and 2021 payments to
eligible individuals of $1,061 in 2019, $1,289 in
2020, and $1,388 in 2021.
Section 1(b). This section would provide that an
individual eligible in 2019 for a payment of $1,061 in
addition to the permanent fund dividend is an
individual who received a 2016 permanent fund dividend
and is eligible to receive a 2019 permanent fund
dividend.
Section 1(c). This section would provide that an
individual eligible in 2020 for a payment of $1,289 in
addition to the permanent fund dividend is an
individual who received a 2017 permanent fund dividend
and is eligible to receive a 2020 permanent fund
dividend.
Section 1(d). This section would provide that an
individual eligible in 2021 for a payment of $1,388 in
addition to the permanent fund dividend is an
individual who received a 2018 permanent fund dividend
and is eligible to receive a 2021 permanent fund
dividend.
Section 1(e). This section would provide than the
amount appropriated from the permanent fund earnings
reserve account (AS 37.13.145) to the dividend fund
(AS 43.23.045(a)) for the payments in section 1(a) to
eligible individuals during 2019-2021 may not
contribute to the calculation for the 20192021
dividends under AS 43.23.025.
Section 2. This provides for an immediate effective
date.
1:48:33 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked about SB 23 and forward funding
the back payments for the PFD. He recalled that the
attorney general had written an opinion on April 9, 2019
specifying that forward funding education was
unconstitutional. He wondered how forward funding in the
case of the proposed legislation was different.
Commissioner Tangeman referenced past forward funding of
education, in which funds were taken from the General Fund
or Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) and deposited into
the Public Education Fund. He considered that the case was
different because the money was available in the ERA to be
appropriated in future years.
Co-Chair von Imhof added that theoretically funds were
available in the CBR to fund education. She asked if a vote
was required each year to obtain the funds. Alternatively,
she wondered if there would be an automatic transfer (a
"sweep") from the ERA.
Commissioner Tangeman replied that an annual vote would be
required to access the funds. He detailed that the governor
was not interested in tying the hands of future
legislatures and governors. The department knew the funds
were available and could have drafted the language to
direct $1.95 billion into the dividend fund immediately,
which would have been a true forward funding of the bills.
There were many discussions about how much (if any) should
be moved from the ERA to the corpus of the Permanent Fund.
He noted that the legislation could be changed to reflect
that option if the committee chose to do so. He reiterated
binding future legislatures was something the governor had
elected not to do.
1:51:45 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked Mr. Milks how the situation under
discussion differed from the education situation.
Mr. Milks thought Commissioner Tangeman had correctly
identified the difference. He explained that the education
appropriation had been an effort to appropriate in the
future, revenues that did not exist; it had been an
appropriation for a forward year based on future revenues.
The appropriation bill before the committee sought to
appropriate existing revenues, which was similar to
appropriations made by the legislature in the past. He
explained that the funds were currently in the ERA. He
referenced the attorney general's April 9, 2019 letter that
made the specific point - that unlike past forward funding
appropriations that committed current year revenues to be
spent in future years, the education appropriation
attempted to commit future year revenues.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked how the CBR fit into the picture.
She wondered if the CBR was considered future revenues,
current revenues, or a savings account.
Mr. Milks replied that the CBR was another state fund that
was available for appropriation based on specific rules.
1:53:50 PM
Senator Wielechowski discussed that SB 23 would appropriate
funds for FY 21 through FY 23. He believed the funds could
be vetoed in future years or would have to be voted on
again in the future.
Mr. Milks replied that that the bill would appropriate
current revenues, which could be subject to a veto. In the
future years, the governor intended to produce the
appropriation, which would be subject to a veto. He
explained, the same was not true for the forward funding of
future revenues for education. There was a constitutional
framework built around an annual budgeting model where all
revenues were on the table for the legislature to consider
and both the legislature and governor had a role to play in
a potential veto. The constitutional model was further
developed through the prohibition against dedicated funds,
which prohibited the dedication of future revenues to a
special purpose. The administration believed the courts had
addressed the issue of dedicated funds; the prohibition was
broad. The practical effect of the education appropriation
was to make a substantial portion of the state's budget off
limits; the dollars had essentially been earmarked for one
purpose even though they were not in the state's account.
1:56:06 PM
Senator Wilson highlighted the bill's proposal to withdraw
approximately $11 billion from the ERA in the next three
years. He stated that Mr. King [Ed King, Chief Economist,
Office of Management and Budget] projected that the ERA
would earn about $12 billion in the next three years, which
left wiggle room of about $1 billion. He wondered what
would happen to SB 24 if there was a shortfall to the ERA.
He noted there were a couple of proposals underway to do a
large transfer from the ERA to the corpus of the Permanent
Fund.
Commissioner Tangeman stated that he would not address the
dollars being discussed for transfer from the ERA to the
corpus of the Permanent Fund. He explained that if the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) did not meet its
expected return levels over the next three years, the
dividend amount would be impacted. While the ERA may see a
hit, the amount of the PFD would be greatly reduced in
future years. He informed the committee that the dividend
had been $878 in 2012 and $900 in 2013 as a result of the
2008 [market] correction. He stated earnings estimates of
$12 billion and withdrawal of $11 billion in the next
several years showed the big picture but did not factor in
the calculation of earnings that fluctuated from year-to-
year. He explained that if returns were not realized it
would impact the dividend, the amount in the ERA available
for transfer to the corpus, and the percent of market value
(POMV).
1:58:11 PM
Senator Wilson asked if transferring $7 billion to $12
billion from the ERA to the corpus of the Permanent Fund
would impact the current versions of the bills.
Commissioner Tangeman replied that the transfer from the
ERA to the corpus represented moving money from the left
pocket to the right pocket from the Permanent Fund's
perspective; it would still be a $65 billion fund. He
stated it would not necessarily change the calculation
amounts, but it would impact available cash and cashflow.
Senator Wilson asked if there would be enough cashflow to
pay out supplementals and pay for government services.
Commissioner Tangeman believed it was a staged approach. He
stated that the bills before the committee represented the
first step to correct the past dividends that were not paid
in full. He noted it would reset the bar to $14 billion or
$15 billion. He believed step two should address what
should be left in the ERA and what should be transferred to
the corpus. He had heard numerous numbers discussed by
legislators including $5.5 billion, $14 billion, $12
billion, and $8 billion. He believed it was hard to make
other decisions until the plan was known (including the
specific number and why it had been selected). He
summarized that the governor believed repaying past
dividends was step one. After that point, there could be
debate on what should be done with the balance of the ERA
(e.g. if the balance was $16 billion).
2:00:13 PM
Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony. She limited
public testimony to one minute.
2:00:55 PM
KIM HAYS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in strong opposition to the bills. She did not believe
paying a super-sized PFD was worth gutting essential
services. She had heard from numerous economists testifying
to the legislature that it was possible to come up with a
solution that paid a reasonable PFD and protected state
services. She thought the bills were short-term fixes that
would create and exacerbate a long-term problem. She was a
strong supporter of education and was willing to take
smaller PFDs if it meant funding education. She did not
believe a one-time large payout was not worth the cost to
society through cuts to seniors, children, and the most
vulnerable Alaskans. She asked the legislature to find a
solution to protect essential state services and provide a
reasonable dividend.
2:02:23 PM
JAMES SQUYRES, SELF, DELTANA (via teleconference),
testified support of the bills. He stated that the statute
calculated and required a full PFD. He continued that the
legislature had created statutes for Alaskans to follow,
but it did not follow the statutes. He emphasized it was
time for the legislature to restore trust to Alaskans. He
believed the behavior could not be allowed. He stressed
that the unpaid PFDs belonged in the hands of Alaskans, not
the ERA. He reviewed various errors that amounted to a
crime. He reasoned that failing to pay back past PFDs set
precedent to what amounted to a crime.
2:04:12 PM
OLIVIA FELLERS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She underscored
that when former Governor Jay Hammond instituted the
Permanent Fund it was not to be used to run the government;
it was to be used for the people of Alaska. She believed
the legislature could figure out another way to balance the
budget.
2:05:16 PM
HARVEY ALBRIGHT, SELF, STERLING (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He stated the
dividend was one-third of what legislators were paid in per
diem and he did not see any legislators donating their per
diem back. He wondered why the legislature thought Alaskans
should give when the legislature was not. He elaborated
that legislators received $250 per day, which he estimated
to be roughly $30,000 for 120 days.
2:06:06 PM
BRONSON FRYE, PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES/ LOCAL UNION 1959,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in strong
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He agreed that a super-sized
PFD would be nice, but the cuts to valuable social services
and education and the outsourcing of Alaskans' jobs were
not worth it. He did not believe it was appropriate to pass
the bills. He urged the committee to vote against them.
2:07:17 PM
LAURA BONNER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bills. She highlighted that
PFDs had been reduced in past years to pay for core
services including education, senior services and veterans,
disabled individuals, road maintenance, ferry service,
public safety, court system, corrections, and deferred
maintenance. She stated that PFDs were an important part of
the state's economy, but not more important than the needed
services and the maintenance of state assets. She supported
a reasonable PFD and believed the bills would speed the
demise of the dividend program.
2:08:34 PM
BETH SHORT-RHOADS, SELF, SITKA (via teleconference),
testified in strong opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She
believed paying out $1.9 billion in PFDs was incredibly
irresponsible during a time of deep budget cuts. She
stressed that the dividend was not a constitutional right.
She detailed that she would rather see the money used for
essential items including schools, infrastructure, and
healthcare. She implored the committee to vote against the
bills.
2:09:26 PM
KENT BARKHAU, SELF, SITKA (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24, which he deemed
irresponsible. He believed attempting to undue previous
responsible decision making would be a large step
backwards. He believed that the state required real
leadership leading forward. He encouraged the committee to
oppose the legislation.
2:10:13 PM
LINDA BEHNKEN, SELF, SITKA (via teleconference), spoke
against SB 23 and SB 24. She believed the best investment
in Alaska's future was investment in services including
education, healthcare, ferry, and other critical services.
She believed issuing retrospective PFDs would undermine
Alaska's ability to take care of its future and present
needs. The Permanent Fund was there to assist Alaska
through fiscal challenges and to help the state transition
to a renewable and sustainable economy. She asked the
legislature to use funds rather than deepen the current
fiscal crisis. She urged the committee to invest in the
state's future.
2:11:17 PM
MARILYN MENISH-MEUCCI, SELF, PETERSBURG (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to SB 23 and SB
24. She did not believe the state needed to pay anyone back
but needed the services the money would pay for. She asked
for full funding of the Alaska Marine Highway System,
public schools, Pioneer Homes, and public broadcasting. She
urged the committee to vote against the bills.
2:12:03 PM
MIKE ALEXANDER, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He stated the
ferry system was "out done" and fully funding education had
resulted in kids reading last in the nation. He thought
there had to be another answer. He estimated the state had
taken approximately $12,000 from him and his wife. He
stated that the money belonged to the people to help with
things like car payments and getting through winter. He
wanted his money back. He thought the legislature should be
cutting waste. He supported the passage of the bills. He
was amenable to the legislature putting money into the
corpus of the Permanent Fund after paying out the PFDs.
2:14:03 PM
LARRY SLONE, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), supported
backpay of the PFDs, but believed both bills were
procedurally flawed. He asked why the bills qualified the
future distribution by stretching it out over the next
three years if the purpose was to remedy the past failure
to comply with statutory law and distribute the full PFD
for 2016 to 2018. He stated the money was available in the
ERA. He reminded the committee that the full PFDs had
already been vetoed once before. He believed the bills
would subject the full payment to future risk. He noted it
had been clearly stated that the payments would be
endangered by a potential transfer from the ERA to the fund
corpus.
2:15:15 PM
CHRISTINE HUTCHISON, SELF, REPUBLICAN WOMEN OF KENAI, KENAI
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bills if
they conformed to statute. He believed that the PFD checks
were distributed based on statute. She stressed that the
statutes had been violated in an effort to fund the budget.
She emphasized that expenses must be cut. She did not
support subsidizing the ferries. She thought there were
several other things that needed to be cut. She did not
believe the PFD check should be used for that purpose. She
believed the Permanent Fund had been designed for a
specific purpose under statute. She reiterated that the
statutes had not been followed. She underscored the
importance of following statute.
2:17:09 PM
BARBARA HANEY, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She believed
funding the PFD would bring back diversity to the private
sector. She was not opposed to the ferry system, but she
thought the state was spending a substantial amount on
something that only benefited a small portion of the state.
She did not want Alaska to become like Venezuela.
2:18:05 PM
JIM TAYLOR, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the bills. He believed many had lost sight of the
fact that PFDs were Alaskans' share of the state oil
resources. He believed that the statute had been set out to
divide the resource money between the state and the people.
He saw the state getting a larger and larger share. He
asked the committee to vote in favor of the bills.
2:19:23 PM
PATRICK COLE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He believed the
state would benefit more from the bills than if the
legislature spent the money on other things. He had worked
hard as a construction worker for 35 years and he believed
it was a shame the money had been taken. He stressed that
his grandkids could benefit from the money.
2:20:24 PM
PETER MCCASLIN, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), testified
in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He stated that over the
years the legislature had repeatedly attacked the fund. He
had watched government end its obligations to fund the
state retirement plan - he believed it was out of control.
He thought school programs had steadily declined as funding
had increased. He had seen government expand beyond the
state's means. He stressed it was time to reel spending in
and straighten things out. He fully supported the bills and
the governor.
2:21:20 PM
HOWARD WEAVER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He believed the
purpose of the Permanent Fund was to give people access to
minerals. He supported the bills and governor.
2:22:10 PM
MATTHEW SMITH, SELF, BETHEL (via teleconference), testified
in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He detailed that residents
in Bethel needed the funds due to the expense of living in
the region. He shared that the funds taken in the past
several years had been at least a quarter of his income and
half his wife's income. He thought the legislature should
live within its own budget and not steal the people's PFDs.
2:22:57 PM
ROB KINNEY, SELF, WILLOW (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of SB 23 and SB 24. He thought the PFD had been
"nickeled and dimed to death" in recent years. He was
retired and on a fixed income. He depended on the PFD to
help with land taxes and other costs.
2:23:47 PM
BERNARD CAMPBELL, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23. He stressed that the money
belonged to the citizens, not the legislature. He detailed
that the fund had been established in a way that prevented
the state government from robbing the money. He thought
there were plenty of places the legislature could cut
wasteful spending. He stressed that millions of dollars had
been spent on a ferry that no one wanted. He directed the
legislature to leave the Permanent Fund alone.
2:24:51 PM
JEFF MAY, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), testified in
support of SB 23 and SB 24.
2:25:21 PM
ROBERT HENDERSON, SELF, HOUSTON (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He depended on the
PFD for his property taxes and living. He thought taking
the money was theft. He stated that his children were both
fighting in the military for their country and they
depended on the PFD. He had watched the legislature run on
the PFD repeatedly. He supported the governor and wanted a
budget the legislature could live within.
2:26:12 PM
MISTY SCHOENDALLER, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She believed the
governor was trying to do the right thing. She stated that
the legislature did not have the right to take the PFD. She
thought the legislature was spending money the state did
not have. She believed there were many places the budget
could be cut. She was working all of the time and was still
having trouble paying her bills. She counted on the PFD.
2:27:57 PM
COLIN HARRINGTON, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He thought the
government needed to keep its portion of the money and the
residents should get their portion. He stated that he
wanted the government to allow residents to have their
money. He thought the legislature needed to stop amending
and changing the PFD and needed to start amending and
changing the way they spent money.
2:28:38 PM
MICHAEL WIDNEY, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He stated that the
money for the PFD was the people's and the people should
get to decide how to spend it. He stated that over the past
decade or so extra spending had taken place when oil prices
had been high. He observed it was hard to cut spending, but
residents had elected the governor to do the hard job. He
supported the governor in his efforts defend the people's
wealth. He thought the people should be able to vote on the
issue.
2:29:59 PM
JOHN LISENBEE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He remarked there
were less than 1 million residents in Alaska, and he
thought it was pretty bad when the government had to cut
into the people's dividend in order to pay for services. He
thought there were many places the budget could be cut. He
supported the governor.
2:30:40 PM
KRISTEN VOLLE, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She did not
believe it was right for the government to steal money from
the Alaskan people because of its poor choices.
2:31:10 PM
MICHAEL TAVOLIERO, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24.
2:31:42 PM
COBY BROCK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), believed
people needed to leverage their money better with the PFD.
He suggested cornering the silver market and no one in the
state would ever worry about money again.
2:32:20 PM
SHERYL SMITH, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), testified
in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She stated that the families
in the Mat-Su Valley needed the money to raise their
children and foster children. She remarked that the state
did not pay foster parents enough to meet the children's
needs. She wanted her children to receive their dividends.
She stressed that the constitution specified it was the
people's money and the legislature did not have the right
to take it. She supported the governor.
2:33:26 PM
ELAINA ROBERTS, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She wanted to see
the full PFD returned to the people of Alaska. She thought
the government had taxed residents already to run
government. She thought it was ludicrous that more of the
money meant for Alaskans had been used to bail out
government's irresponsible spending. She wondered about the
incentive for the government to live within its means. She
believed the legislature needed to find a way to live
within its means as residents were required to do in their
own homes.
2:34:11 PM
AT EASE
2:35:10 PM
RECONVENED
JEFF VAN ROOYEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He compared
raiding the PFD to the raiding of Social Security by
Congress. He stated politicians had taken people's money.
He cautioned that politicians could be voted out. He
stressed that the PFD was not meant to be spent on whatever
the legislature chose. He underscored the PFD was meant for
the people. He stated it was wrong for the previous
governor to take the funds. He was upset about what the
legislature and the former governor had done.
2:37:24 PM
AT EASE
2:38:29 PM
RECONVENED
GREGORY COLLINS, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He thought giving
out the PFD would do much more good than spending the money
on the state government. He stressed the need people had
for the PFD.
2:39:08 PM
CHARLES GRANT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He stated that the
legislature had torn the PFD apart. He told the committee
the PFD needed to be put back together and given to the
people. He stressed that the people deserved and needed the
PFD.
2:39:53 PM
MARY-ELLEN BUTCHER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She noted that the
money she received through Social Security was not
sufficient. She stated Alaska was a hard state to live in.
She asked the legislature to give the people something to
help them survive.
2:40:46 PM
GARY MUSIC, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He noted that the government
took and took and took. He stressed that people needed the
PFD. He thought the legislature should keep its hands off
the money.
2:41:43 PM
GARY MULHOLLAND, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He believed the
legislature should never have touched the money to begin
with. He thought the issue deserved a vote of the people.
He directed the legislature to quit telling the people they
did not know what they wanted. He wanted the legislature to
prove that the money did not stay in Alaska. He stressed
that the PFD money stayed in Alaska in the form of tax
payments, heating bills, and jobs.
2:42:26 PM
JIM SWISHER, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), testified
in support of SB 23 and Governor Dunleavy. He stated that
the PFD meant a lot to seniors and likened it to Christmas.
He asked the legislature to keep its hands out of the piggy
bank.
2:43:22 PM
RON BERNIER, SELF, MEADOW LAKES (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. He shared that he
used the money to educate his children because the state
had done a poor job with education. His family was saving
the money to help pay for his children's college expenses
or to purchase a piece of property. He implored the
committee to support the bills. He asked the legislature to
keep its hands off the PFD.
2:44:05 PM
RONALD VADNAIS, SELF, KASILOF (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bills and the governor. He
asked the legislature to balance the budget and cut
spending. He believed putting the funds in the hands of the
people to decide how to spend the money was the best
option. He was concerned people would start leaving Alaska.
He was concerned about freezing to death if his heat was
cut off; he did not have money to spend on firewood or
fuel.
2:45:11 PM
DEBRA SELLERS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 23 and SB 24. She was on a fixed
income and relied on the PFD. She shared that the PFD
helped pay the bills. She supported the governor.
2:45:53 PM
MATTHEW FINCH, SELF, GIRDWOOD (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of the bills and the governor. He used the PFD for
firewood to keep warm in the winter. He elaborated that
others used the funds to dress their children and to eat.
He stated the legislature needed to balance its budget and
live within its means.
2:46:43 PM
PATTRICE ILLGUTH, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bills. She was a home schooling
mom of five children. She spoke to the high cost of goods
in the region. She stressed that when the former governor
had cut the PFD it had hurt her family. She asked the
legislature to listen to the people and support the bills.
2:47:14 PM
ALEX WILCOX, SELF, ANCHOR POINT (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of the bills. He recalled when former Governor
Hammond had established the Permanent Fund program for
Alaskan citizens.
JANCY JONES, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), testified
in support of legislation and the governor. She asked the
legislature to restore the PFDs.
2:48:16 PM
Senator Bishop provided the email address for any
additional public testimony.
Senator Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
SB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 24 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Senator Bishop reviewed the schedule for the following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| CS SB23 Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| CS SB24 Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 23 - 24 Support Sadzewicz.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 and SB24 Presentation. S FIN-5.8.2019.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB23 and SB24 testimony McDaniel.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB 23 and 24 Public Support Letters Packet 1.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 and 24 Public Support Letters Packet 2.pdf |
SFIN 5/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |