Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/07/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| += | SCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 23-APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD
SB 24-PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS
3:33:21 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of 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." and
SENATE BILL 24 "An Act directing the Department of Revenue to
pay dividends to certain eligible individuals; and providing for
an effective date."
He encouraged the public to send written comments to
[email protected]. He welcomed Mr. King and
Commissioner Designee Tangeman to the witness table.
3:34:25 PM
EDWARD KING, Chief Economist, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor, Juneau, stated that the purpose of the
presentation was to respond to questions the committee asked
during the last several hearings. The first question was how
does the forecast relate to historic performance. He directed
attention to the graphic on slide 3 that shows how the permanent
fund balance and the percentage return of the permanent fund has
changed over time.
3:35:32 PM
At ease
3:35:39 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
MR. KING turned to slide 4, "Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
History and Projection." He explained that he translated the
numbers from slide 3 into an excel spreadsheet and added the
projections and statutory net income going forward. The idea is
to show how the projection compares to the historic performance.
He highlighted that the projections appear to be within the
range of historic performance.
MR. KING said the fund generates revenue two ways. First, is
from income streams such as dividends on stock, lease payments
from buildings, and bond interest from fixed income assets.
These are realized earnings that go directly into the earnings
reserve and can be appropriated by the legislature. Second, the
fund generates revenues from the purchase of assets that are
sold for more than the purchase price. For example, an asset
that is purchased for $100 million and appreciates to $120
million on the marketplace is booked as an unrealized gain until
the asset is sold. When the fund sells the asset, $100 million
returns to the principal account and the $20 million appreciated
amount goes to the earnings reserve.
Responding to a question from the chair, Mr. King explained that
the accounting return is the change in the total fund value,
including the realized and unrealized gains. For example, a $100
million asset that is now worth $120 and has generated $5
million in income is worth $125 million - $5 million in
regularized income and $20 million in unrealized gains. The
increase in total value is 25 percent and the statutory return
is 5 percent. If the asset earns zero income the next year and
is sold for $120 million, the realized earnings are $20 million.
The fund made 20 percent on the investment last year and it was
realized this year. He said that's the difference between
accounting returns and statutory returns.
MR. KING related that the three components of the fund include
$40 billion in principal funds, about $7 billion in unrealized
gains, and about $17 billion in realized gains that is sitting
in the earnings reserve.
3:41:09 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said it would helpful to know the mean and if
there are things on the state, national, or international
horizon that may affect the investments in the future. She also
asked him to comment on a presentation that was given this last
weekend that talked about the effect that taking the PFD will
have on the earnings reserve and education funding in the next X
number of years.
MR. KING deferred the first question to next slide. To the
second question, he said when you're talking about the fund
health it's tempting to say the balance is X and forget about
the unrealized gains that will eventually go into the balance of
the earnings reserve. The DOR models calculate the income and
realization and how those realizations move, he said.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for a layman's explanation of the way the $4
billion in earnings are calculated.
3:46:23 PM
MR. KING first provided an explanation of different asset
classes and how the different assets generate income, how the
fund transitions between assets, the five-year conversion rate
to roll over an asset, and when unrealized gains are converted
to realized gains. He subsequently explained that about $1.8
billion of the earnings come from income from interest,
dividends, and rents. The rest of the earnings are projected to
be $2.1 billion for a total of just under $4 billion. He noted
that the FY2019 projected earnings will be updated next week and
will reflect the poor stock performance in October and November.
Nevertheless, he still believes the total earnings will be in
the $3 billion to $4 billion range for FY2019.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked him to talk about the billions of dollars
it would cost to sell [the assets with unrealized gains] for a
statutory return.
MR. KING responded that part of portfolio management is to
convert assets and the conversion ratio is normally in the 4-5
year range. He cited the example of buying a house and living in
it for 5 years before cashing out the equity and buying another
house. He asked Senator Micciche to clarify the question.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was trying to help the public
understand why unrealized gains are beneficial in the long term
for the earnings of the fund.
3:48:54 PM
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Revenue,
Anchorage, responded that the Permanent Fund Corporation is
tasked with growing the permanent fund and providing a certain
amount of liquidity for state government through the Senate Bill
26 POMV (percent of market value) calculation. This gave the
corporation more stability because they know their liquidity
needs and are able to deploy more assets into the market than
the last few years when the POMV was only under debate.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for a simple explanation.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said the permanent fund balance
dropped to about $60.4 billion by the end of December [2019] and
it's recovered to about $65 billion. "So you see some of the
swings where just a couple months can really drive it down, but
it can recover quite well, too, now that it's a pretty large
corpus." he said.
SENATOR MICCICHE said it might be easier to understand the
difference between realized and unrealized gains by talking
about the purchase and sale of a house. If you buy a house for
$200,000 and it's now worth $400,000, the difference is an
unrealized gain that has no spendable value. If you borrow
against the difference in equity or you sell the house, the gain
is realized.
MR. KING agreed with the explanation.
He added that slide 4 is intended to illustrate that the
accounting return is much more volatile than the statutory
return. The chart shows that over the life of the fund the
accounting return (gold bars) has a high of 25 percent and a low
of -18 percent, whereas the statutory return (green bars) is
much less volatile. For example, $10 billion in gains or losses
in one year includes appreciated or depreciated assets that are
not realized until the asset is sold. Those gains and losses do
not sit in the earnings reserve. Until the assets are sold, and
the gains and losses are realized, they do not affect the
earnings reserve. He said he believes that the only reason to
calculate the less volatile statutory return is to calculate the
PFD.
CHAIR SHOWER offered an analogy with [Warren] Buffet's comment
that he didn't lose any money when the stock market crashed
because he didn't sell anything.
3:53:36 PM
MR. KING pointed out that 2009 was the worst financial
correction in the 40-year history of the fund. The accounting
return was -18 percent and the statutory return was -9 percent.
He turned to slide 5 that illustrates the frequency distribution
of historic accounting returns. He pointed out that 90 percent
of the time fund returns have run between -3 percent and 20
percent. Over 40 years the returns were in excess of 20.5
percent just two times and less than -3 percent just two times.
The fund has returned between 10 percent and 15 percent most
often and between 5 percent and 10 percent the next most often.
The simple average of the returns is 9.665 percent. The standard
deviation, which shows the range of volatility, is 7.872
percent. That means that over time the permanent fund has
performed phenomenally well, he said.
3:56:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if he believes the returns over the next
5 years will average 5 percent.
MR. KING replied the expectation in the marketplace is that a
correction is going to happen. Most advisors are suggesting
returns over the next 5 years in the 6 percent to 7 percent
range. He warned that while nobody knows when the correction
will occur, more money is lost in the stock market by trying to
predict when a correction will happen than is made in any other
way. He said the corporation is doing what it can to prepare and
that's why the projected return is 6.55 percent.
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that over the long term, even before the
1929 depression, the market return has been fairly consistent.
He questioned the wisdom of a sovereign adjusting for the short
term and asked if it's like trying to time an unpredictable
market.
MR. KING deferred to the commissioner.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said he didn't believe huge
corrections are being made at the permanent fund regarding the
percent of liquidity, what is set aside, and what is in fixed
income and private equities. The goal continues to be to grow
the fund, albeit with the knowledge that ups and downs are
coming.
3:59:22 PM
SENATOR COGHILL joined the committee.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the board plans to readjust its strategy
now that the POMV model has been adopted.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN replied he didn't believe the
strategy would change, but they now have a better idea about how
much cash can be deployed into the existing asset allocations.
He highlighted that the $3 billion POMV is a fairly small amount
compared to $65 billion fund.
MR. KING turned to the graphic on slide 6, "APFC Returns" that
illustrates the change in value of a $100 investment based on
APFC historic returns. He clarified that the historic and
projected means are geometric, not arithmetic. To illustrate the
geometric calculation he provided an example of a $100
investment that returns 50 percent the first year. $150 is in
the account at the end of the year. The next year the asset
experiences a 50 percent loss or half of $150. The geometric
mean shows $75 in the account at the end of 2 years, which is a
negative 25 percent return or negative 12.5 percent a year. The
arithmetic mean for the same example would show $100 in the
account at the end of 2 years, or zero return. The $50 gain the
first year is offset by the $50 loss the second year leaving a
zero return.
CHAIR SHOWER described the corporation projections as somewhat
conservative.
MR. KING responded that his interpretation is that at some point
in the next 5-10 years, the corporation expects a significant
negative return. He cautioned against interpreting the graph to
mean that the geometric mean will be 6.55 percent every year for
the next 10 years.
4:04:16 PM
MR. KING addressed Senator Micciche's question about how the
fund performs under various spending assumptions. He reminded
the committee that during the first hearing he talked about what
the 6.55 percent return looks over time using the assumption
that the legislature follows all the existing laws. Under that
scenario, passing SB 23 does not significantly affect the fund's
risk exposure. He said Senator Micciche appropriately asked what
the ERA balance would look like under different spending
assumptions, with and without SB 23. The chart on slide 8 shows
what happens to the fund if the legislature does not follow the
POMV and covers the deficits with unstructured draws from the
ERA.
The gold line represents the fund performance over time with a
$3 billion UGF budget and the dotted gold line represents the
same assumption with SB 23 in place. The $2 billion difference
reflects the amount coming out of the fund and distributed to
the people. The green line represents a $3.5 billion UGF budget
and the green dotted line represents that budget with SB 23 in
place. The next two scenarios represent a $4 billion UGF budget
and a $4.5 billion UGF budget, with and without SB 23 in place.
The $1 billion and $1.5 billion overdrafts illustrate how
quickly the earnings reserve account is depleted and that it is
accelerated with the passing of SB 23.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he assumes the chart uses the 6.55 percent
earnings.
MR. KING said yes.
SENATOR MICCICHE mentioned the modeling he did that looked at
UGF going down instead of up and highlighted the danger if: 1)
spending is higher than projected and the earnings reserve is
relied on to make up the difference; and 2) being unable to get
a 3/4 vote on the CBR, which puts more pressure on the earnings
reserve. He said the smallest reduction in the budget he looked
at was $300 million and that depletes the fund by 2027 or 2028.
He urged people to think about the fact that unstructured draws
or additional spending depletes the ERA earlier, which will also
complicate the payment of any dividends. He asked Mr. Tangeman
if he disagreed.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN replied, "We can all agree that
the full budget, the full dividend, and the full backpay creates
a problem."
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the assumptions on slide 8 include a
2.25 growth rate for inflation.
MR. KING said that's correct.
4:10:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the $3 billion UGF and $3.5 billion UGF
spending assumptions include the full dividend payment.
MR. KING replied the dividend payment is in addition to those
numbers.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that he would need to factor that in.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. King to expand the explanation.
MR. KING replied some people wonder whether the permanent fund
payments are considered unrestricted general fund payments. The
question was whether or not the $3 billion UGF spending
assumption includes the PFD payment. The answer is that the PFD
payment is in addition to the $3 billion.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the $3 billion UGF spending assumption
includes [the POMV draw under] Senate Bill 26.
MR. KING replied he turned off the POMV calculation in this
scenario to show how the health of the fund is affected by
overdrafts.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what the anticipated POMV draw is this
year under Senate Bill 26.
MR. KING replied it's about $2.9 billion.
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to the Fall 2018 Revenue Forecast and
asked if he agrees that under the Senate Bill 26 scenario, the
POMV draw will be between $3 billion and $3.8 billion for the
next ten years.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TAGAMENT said that's correct.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the graph demonstrates that the
earnings reserve balance is constantly drawn down.
4:13:01 PM
MR. KING clarified that the gold bar represents the
legislature's desire to spend $3 billion UGF when there is $2.2
billion in UGF revenue and a draw from the ERA makes up the
difference. There's room to do that in the current structure
under the POMV, he said, but not in a $4.5 UGF scenario. He
reiterated that the graphic looks at the health of the fund
under the different scenarios without factoring in the POMV.
CHAIR SHOWER asked how he would respond to the people who ask
why it wouldn't work to start with Governor Walker's $4.8
billion budget.
4:14:31 PM
MR. KING pointed to the black line and explained that in that
scenario the goal of the legislature is to spend $4.5 billion in
UGF expenditures. Revenue in the current year is $2.2 billion,
which leaves $2.3 billion that needs to be paid somehow. The
graphic represents what happens to the ERA if that $2.3 billion
and the full $1.9 billion dividend comes out of the fund.
Logistically it's possible to draw $4.2 billion from the ERA, he
said, but it will eventually be depleted. When that happens,
just current year returns are left to spend.
CHAIR SHOWER observed that the ERA is depleted faster with the
full PFD payments.
4:17:04 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said it's important to point out that in all
four scenarios the ERA is depleted about two years earlier when
the full dividend and the payback is paid as opposed to paying
just the dividend and not the payback.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said that's correct, but the
governor's complete package, which includes a significantly
decreased budget, accepts SB 23 without depleting the ERA by
2030.
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out that the $3 billion UGF, which is
fairly close to the governor's, erodes the ERA with or without a
payback.
MR. KING suggested moving to the next slide to clarify the
point.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN highlighted that while the ERA
balance is going down, the permanent fund corpus is up over $100
billion.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he understands that but regardless of the
permanent fund's projected growth, the ERA will erode with 6.55
percent earnings and that is the account the PFD is paid from.
MR. KING responded that part of the calculus is that every year
money is transferred from the earnings reserve to the principal
account, so the ERA balance is going down, but the total fund
balance is not.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he agrees that while the permanent
fund continues to grow, the ERA continues to be eroded under
this scenario.
MR. KING answered that the money that is moved from the earnings
reserve to the principal account for inflation proofing could
remain in the ERA and you wouldn't see the decline, but the
legislature could spend it.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN clarified that the answer is yes.
4:21:43 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the graph represents inflation-
adjusted dollars.
MR. KING replied they're nominal dollars, but inflation is an
important factor in protecting the principal balance. That's why
money is moved to the principal account. He said slide 9 shows
the fund balance increasing under the four scenarios and for the
most part it's growing with the rate of inflation. The line
would be just slightly inclined if the numbers were inflation
proofed.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the fund is growing with the 6.55
percent earnings assumption as opposed to inflation.
MR. KING replied the fund does not grow from the projected 6.55
percent earnings if the legislature appropriates a full PFD and
withdraws what it legally can under current law.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that it only grows from inflation
proofing.
MR. KING agreed that the principal account grows with inflation.
4:23:38 PM
MR. KING turned to slides 10-13 and explained that they show
three different scenarios that come out of a Monte Carlo
simulation. The numbers are generated from the probability
distribution the fund uses to show what the future looks like.
He clarified that none are more likely to occur than the
unrealistic 6.55 percent return every year for the next decade
or two.
In Scenario 1, the randomly generated numbers show that over the
next 10 years the accounting returns mostly fall between 5
percent and 10 percent, although the return in one year was more
than 20 percent followed by a deep correction. The distribution
mimics history just as DOR's probability distribution is
intended to do.
On the right the green line shows that as long as the
legislature limits draws to the POMV, the fund is growing. The
green dotted line applies SB 23 and reflects the $2 billion
that's paid out of the fund. The black line scenario shows how
overdraws on the account change the performance and health of
the fund.
4:27:01 PM
MR. KING said Scenario 2 shows a less rosy picture. In 2020
there were poor returns, an average projected return in 2021,
and a deep -12 percent correction the next year. The earnings
reserve is depleted in this scenario, even if the POMV is
followed, but it doesn't quite run out even with SB 23. He
reminded the committee that in the first hearing he said there
aren't many scenarios where the earnings reserve almost runs out
and SB 23 causes it to run out.
CHAIR SHOWER asked what the UGF assumption is for the different
scenarios.
MR. KING replied the spending assumption for the ad hoc draws is
$4.8 billion in FY19 and it grows with inflation and population.
He pointed out that trying to fund that size budget and getting
these returns causes the earnings reserve to run out faster
under SB 23. However, the principal of the fund continues to
earn money, so the earnings reserve starts to recover in this
scenario. Thus it's hard to say what failure means, he said. Is
it failure at any point, at the end, because of SB 23, or some
other factor?
4:29:42 PM
MR. KING turned to Scenario 3 that beats the fund's projections
nearly every year through 2029 and grows to over 40 billion.
With SB 23 the fund grows to about $37 billion. If the full FY19
budget is funded in this scenario, the fund balance stays flat.
4:30:29 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed appreciation for the information and
commented that it's clear that if everything goes fine with SB
23 and SB 24, then everything will be fine. However, everything
won't be fine without reductions. He said it's helpful to take
it to that basic level to understand why the bills are receiving
such careful evaluation. He asked if that is a fair statement.
MR. KING replied that's a very fair statement. He added that DOR
runs the Monte Carlo simulations to see how often one scenario
comes up versus another and to understand what the risk looks
like. But it's clear that withdrawing more money than is
currently allowed increases the likelihood of a bad outcome.
SENATOR COGHILL commented on the importance of the assumptions,
the POMV, and inflation proofing, all of which he would take
into account.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said this administration has
chosen to limit risk by starting with the available revenues and
building the budget from there. Starting with the FY19 budget
and allowing it to run increases the risk profile and reduces
the options over the coming years.
4:33:45 PM
MR. KING explained that an assumption he built into the model
was that the legislature would follow the law. However, that
might not be a good assumption if the ERA balance runs low and
the legislature decides to prolong the balance of the fund by
not inflation proofing the fund or not paying a full PFD. He
acknowledged that the legislature could also prolong the balance
by asking the corporation to sell an unrealized gain. The
legislature has that prerogative, but that will impact the fund,
he said.
SENATOR COGHILL expressed appreciation for the reminder.
4:35:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER commented that the committee spent an hour to say,
"It depends." He asked if he was wrong.
MR. KING replied you're not wrong.
CHAIR SHOWER said there really aren't a lot of options between
reducing the dividend or reducing spending or adopting some type
of tax. What happens next depends, he said.
4:35:43 PM
MR. KING said the last two slides address questions that come up
frequently when the payback is discussed. He clarified that the
governor views the money in the fund as excess to what the fund
value should be. From that perspective, these would not be
losses, he said, they'd be returns to normal.
He said many people have asked what impact SB 23 would have on
the future POMV. The answer is that removing money from the fund
results in it earning less and the balance gets smaller. "Five
percent of a smaller number is a smaller number." The chart on
slide 15 shows how that plays out. The full effect isn't seen
for a few years because of the five-year averaging, but it
eventually stabilizes and the POMV calculation is $130 million
less than it would have been if the money was left in the fund.
MR. KING turned to slide 16 that shows the impact of SB 23 on
the PFD. The additional payments the next three years reduce the
balance which means that dividends will be lower thereafter. He
noted that the breakeven point for receiving the back pay comes
after 30 years.
SENATOR MICCICHE added, "For context, you're talking about a
Department of Public "Safetyish" difference on the POMV draw."
He pointed out that the numbers on slide 16 can also vary
dramatically in the scenario of continuous budget growth and
unstructured draws. He continued, "We're going to do what we
can. We've got a challenging mix in the legislature. This can
vary dramatically because that impact can hit much earlier and
cause somewhat dramatic reductions. This can vary dramatically
because that impact can hit much earlier and cause somewhat
dramatic reductions or the elimination of the dividend much
earlier than when you start seeing the impact in this chart. So
again, if everything goes well, this will be great. If
everything doesn't it will have a fairly dramatic impacts on
future dividends as well as will every other aspect of the state
economy."
MR. KING responded that the numbers on slide 16 are an average
of the infinite number of possible futures. He thanked Senator
Micciche for the comments and said he agrees.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that life is a risk. He thanked the
presenters.
He held SB 23 and SB 24 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA .pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Agenda |
| SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB0023A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB0024A.PDF |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB24 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
DOR response to committee |
| SB23 Follow up to SSA.3.6.2019.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| Leg. Legal Memo on SB 24.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |