Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/21/2017 04:30 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 | |
| SR3 | |
| SB21|| SB26 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 21-PERMANENT FUND: INCOME; POMV; DIVIDENDS
SB 26-PERM. FUND: DEPOSITS; DIVIDEND; EARNINGS
4:38:10 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order, and announced
the consideration of SB 21 and SB 26. He explained that SB 21
was introduced by Senator Stedman that is a percentage of market
value (POMV) bill regarding the permanent fund. He detailed that
SB 26 is also a POMV bill that was sponsored by the governor
through the Senate Rules Committee.
He opened public testimony for SB 21 and SB 26.
4:38:59 PM
WILLIAM DEATON, representing self and family, Cordova, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 21 and SB 26 because he and his
family would like to have their full permanent fund dividend
(PFD). He said he and his family support Chair Dunleavy's plan
to cut the budget and not impose new taxes. He said he and his
family support SB 1 and SB 2.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY pointed out that SB 1 and SB 2 are separate
issues and separate bills that are no longer in committee. He
specified that the committee is hearing testimony on SB 21 and
SB 26.
4:40:07 PM
TERRENCE SHANIGAN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He stated that he
supported Chair Dunleavy's plan to right-size government.
4:44:24 PM
PAUL D. KENDALL, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 21 or SB 26. He said there is nothing wrong
with the permanent fund or dividend. He suggested that the
budget be reduced to $2 billion and a head-tax introduced.
4:48:59 PM
DAVID BRIGHTON, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 21 and SB 26. He asserted that the state needs to
move forward with a balanced approach. He said he favored an
income tax and did not want to see the services that he enjoyed
decimated by budget cuts. He stated that he did not think it is
reasonable to balance a budget on the price of oil. He set forth
that he favored using the earnings reserve account to bring
about the important services that Alaskans have. He asserted
that this is the year to act and solve the state's problem.
4:50:27 PM
KURT SCHMIDT, representing self and family, Delta Junction,
Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26 because the
governor and Legislature wrongly assume that the permanent fund
is state money when it is the money of the people.
4:54:18 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing self, Kasilof, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He set forth that government
needs to restructure, not the permanent fund dividend. He asked
that there be a public vote to decide the use of the permanent
fund.
4:56:50 PM
ALEXANDER GUDSCHINSKY, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 21 and SB 26. He suggested that 20
percent of the earnings go to the permanent fund dividend and
the rest for government.
4:58:23 PM
KAREN PERRY, representing self and family, Chugiak, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. She stated that she
did not like changing the formula for calculating the permanent
fund dividend. She said taking the permanent fund dividend out
of local economies is detrimental to local businesses as well as
pushing many more Alaskans over the poverty line. She asked that
the bills be held until specific language is presented on Chair
Dunleavy's budget proposals. She set forth that government must
continue to cut the budget before taking the people's permanent
fund dividend. She asked that there be a constitutional
amendment to protect the permanent fund dividend and that the
vote be put to the people.
5:01:10 PM
JAMES SQUYRES, representing self, Deltana, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He set forth that the bills are
too extreme, not necessary, makes things too complex through
restructuring, and increases risk if the percentage of market
rate draws are too high or too low.
5:04:03 PM
PAM GOODE, representing self, Deltana, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. She asserted that spending with
no discipline is the problem, not revenue. She said the scope
and size of government must be reduced first.
5:05:49 PM
DIANA CHADWELL, representing self, Delta Junction, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. She asked that the
legislation be put to a public vote.
5:09:08 PM
DAVID OTNESS, representing self, Cordova, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He said the legislation is too
expedient and convenient, and covers up the tracks of very poor
financial policy.
5:12:26 PM
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, representing United for Liberty, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He remarked
that there has been a false flag of promotion that the
government has cut the budget. He opined that the governor and
Senator Stedman believe that the government economy takes
priority over the private economy. He said he supported Chair
Dunleavy's legislation to reduce the size of government and
protect the dividend.
5:15:02 PM
DAVID BOYLE, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He asserted that the budget must
be cut to a reasonable level before using the permanent fund to
fund state government.
5:19:19 PM
MARTIN STAPETIN, SR., representing self and family, Juneau,
Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He said
sustainability is important and supported taking money from the
permanent fund; however, the permanent fund draws proposed in
the two bills are too high. He added that he supported taxes to
pay "our own bills" as well.
5:22:53 PM
ANDREW NAVARRO, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He said the legislation takes
money from his permanent fund dividend.
5:25:02 PM
BRENDON HOPKINS, representing self, North Slope, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He said there is a
healthy distrust of state government. He opined that the state
has a revenue problem, but the bigger problem is spending.
5:30:14 PM
RANDY BEILFUSS, representing self, Eagle River, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He set forth that
the permanent fund dividend is the people's share of Alaska's
mineral wealth and has worked very well. He asserted that
government spending needs to be cut and noted that Alaska spends
four times the national average. He opined that the state does
not need new taxes yet.
5:31:51 PM
FRED STURMAN, representing self and family, Soldotna, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He said government
has spent too much money for the past 20 years and needs to cut
spending.
5:35:33 PM
ARENZA THIGPEN, JR., representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He said it is bad
for legislators to take something that does not belong to them.
He asserted that the state's resources are supposed to support
the welfare of Alaska's residents. He set forth that the weight
of government's financial mistakes should not be put on the
backs of Alaskans.
5:38:22 PM
BETH FREAD, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. She said to cut the budget, not
raid the permanent fund's corpus, earnings reserve or dividend,
and no new revenues until the budget is reduced.
5:41:41 PM
MARTIN SPARGO, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He set forth that the concept for
SB 21 and SB 26 is fair, but the people should have a voice on
how the permanent fund should be directed.
5:44:32 PM
GARVAN BUCARIA, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He opined that SB 21, SB 26 and
HB 115 puts the Alaska Permanent Fund at risk of being
politicized. He specified that the fund will not be free to
invest as the market and or conditions dictate by being
compelled to produce a return for the state and a dividend. He
said the draws from SB 21 and SB 26 are too great and government
spending should be cut.
5:48:07 PM
JESSE BJORKMAN, representing self, Nikiski, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 21 and SB 26. He said Alaska needs a fiscal plan
that works and is sustainable to secure the state's future. He
noted that Chair Dunleavy had said in an interview that no
government program has created a greater constituency than the
dividend program. He pointed out that history has shown that
people will vote for those that give them money. He asserted
that the state needs to explore all options available with the
earnings reserve account prior to levying taxes on Alaskans. He
said action needs to be taken that provides sustainable budgets
for schools, police, fire, mental health, and prisons. He
summarized that the state cannot have a scorched-earth policy of
cutting; however, certain cuts do need to be made so that Alaska
has an efficient government.
5:51:07 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 21 and in opposition of SB 26 due to its higher
draw and lower dividend. He opined that spending cuts should
continue to be made, but added that the state cannot cut its way
to a balanced budget in 3 years. He speculated that increased
oil production will ultimately close the state's fiscal gap. He
said SB 21 is not perfect and should be amended if needed.
5:53:52 PM
DORA BARR, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. She set forth that the permanent
fund and the dividend should not be reduced. She questioned
imposing a state income tax for new revenues when the people did
not touch the permanent fund.
5:56:36 PM
EVAN EADS, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 21. He explained that he found SB 21 preferable to
SB 26 with a few caveats. He specified that just a dividend
approach does not take into account out-of-state workers. He
suggested that an income tax be instituted that is capped for
residents at the dividend. He set forth that there needs to be a
marketplace of ideas to come up with a solution that can work
for all Alaskans.
6:00:06 PM
At ease.
6:13:52 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order.
6:14:11 PM
MYRANDA WALSO, representing self, Chugiak, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. She explained that her opposition
stems from the fact that the state has distribution mechanisms
in place that have never been utilized. She suggested that the
earnings reserve be used to determine which services are key
over the next year instead of making big changes that are
permanent and effect the entirety of the state for present and
future generations.
6:17:05 PM
ED MARTIN, representing self, Cooper Landing, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He set forth that the
permanent fund is not broken and asked that the Legislature find
another means of revenue. He stated that changing the structure
of the permanent fund or how the dividend is distributed should
be decided by a vote of the people. He suggested that a land-
voucher program be offered to Alaskans in lieu of the government
using the earnings reserve.
6:21:24 PM
CHRISTINE HUTCHISON, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 21 and SB 26. She said she preferred to leave
the permanent fund the way it is, but supported using the
permanent fund if it is the only way to address the deficit. She
set forth that using the permanent fund was better than an
income tax and favored cutting the state budget as well.
6:25:46 PM
HELEN ATTUNGANA, representing self and family, Delta Junction,
Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. She set
forth that Jay Hammond set the money aside in the permanent fund
to benefit future generations. She said the Legislature should
reduce spending and not steal money from the people.
6:26:29 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY noted agendas for upcoming committee meetings.
6:27:14 PM
At ease.
6:29:57 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order.
6:30:24 PM
At ease.
6:31:09 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order.
6:31:20 PM
PHILLIP FURBUSH, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He set forth that using the
permanent fund earnings for general spending by the state is the
beginning of the end of the permanent fund corpus and pointed
out the fact that the permanent fund has not been inflation
proofed. He said effective and efficient spending should be done
before doing anything like SB 21 and SB 26.
6:35:20 PM
MICHAEL SHELDON, representing self, Petersburg, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 21 and SB 26. He said there should
be a sustainable budget, former Governor Hammond's "50/50" plan
put into effect, and government should be downsized. He added
that the permanent fund dividend should be protected because the
program helps people and builds Alaska's economy.
6:37:13 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY held SB 21 and SB 26 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 21 & SB 26 - Public Testimony to SSTA (Opposition) 02.20.2017.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2017 4:30:00 PM |
SB 21 SB 26 |
| SB 21 & SB 26 - Public Testimony to SSTA (Support) 02.20.2017.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2017 4:30:00 PM |
SB 21 SB 26 |
| SB 21 & SB 26 - SSTA Public Testimony 02.21.2017.pdf |
SSTA 2/21/2017 4:30:00 PM |
SB 21 SB 26 |