Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/29/2019 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| HB20 | |
| Presentation: a Look-back in Criminal Justice Reform | |
| HB96 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 29, 2019
1:30 p.m.
1:30:11 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
John Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Representative Zack Fields, Bill Sponsor; Janet
Henderson, Self, Juneau; Representative Johnathan
Kreiss-Tompkins, Bill Sponsor; Kevin McGowan, Staff,
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tompkins; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Representative
Laddie Shaw, Bill Sponsor; Representative Steve Thompson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Margie Beedle, Self, Juneau; Brad Rider, Self, Juneau; Fred
Koken, Self, Juneau; Aves Thompson, Self, Anchorage; Sharon
Long, Self, Anchorage; William Harrington, Self, Anchorage;
Rocky Plotnick, Self, Anchorage; George Paul, Self,
Wasilla; Angela Rodell, Executive Director, Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation.
SUMMARY
HB 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 31 APPROP: EARNINGS RESERVE TO PERM FUND
HB 31 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 96 PIONEERS' HOME AND VETERANS' HOME RATES
HB 96 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
PRESENTATION: A LOOK-BACK IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send
sexual assault examination kits for testing within six
months after collection; and providing for an
effective date."
1:30:48 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if anyone had a question on the
fiscal note regarding 9 new employees within the Department
of Law. There were no questions from members.
^PRESENTATION: A LOOK-BACK IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
1:31:12 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, introduced the PowerPoint presentation: "A Look-back
in Criminal Justice Reform." He had been asked to provide a
review of criminal justice reform. He began with slide 2:
Goals of Reform." He relayed that the quote on the slide
was from the Alaska Criminal Justice Committee's 2015
annual report, dated February 1, 2016. He read from the
slide:
"Local legislative interest in these efforts were
heightened by reports that the Alaska prison
population was up 27 percent over the last decade,
growing at a rate of 3 percent a year, and that
recidivism remained high with nearly two out of three
offenders returning to prison or jail within three
years. Absent further reforms, it was projected that
the number of persons incarcerated would soon exceed
current hard-bed capacity."
Mr. Skidmore indicated that the two goals of reform were to
reduce Alaska's prison population and recidivism. There
might have been some additional goals, but he mentioned the
primary goals of the Criminal Justice Committee when they
began. He wanted to take a look at the state's prison
population to recall what the committee was reviewing at
the time.
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 3: Projected Prison
Population." He drew attention to the lower left-hand
corner which was dated 2016 and copyrighted by The Pew
Charitable Trusts. It was a slide the organization put
together during the time SB 91 [Legislation passed in 2016
regarding criminal law and procedure and corrections) was
being debated. The slide was frequently displayed that
discussed Alaska's prison populations. He noted the
historical line moving from actual to projected as of
July 1, 2016. The trend line continued up during the period
between July 1, 2014 through July 1, 2016. He highlighted
the projected area and the line [in grey] which went up
absent further reform. He suggested that with reform, the
dotted blue line indicating the prison population would
decline dramatically over the following 2 years from July
1, 2017 [2016] through July 1, 2018. He clarified that the
state had been told that absent prison reform the prison
population would increase. The following slide showed the
actual prison population during the same period.
1:34:36 PM
Mr. Skidmore discussed slide 4: "Actual Prison Population."
The slide reflected the actual prison population in 2018.
He relayed that the source of the data came from the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission's 2018 annual report. In
general, there was a rise in prison population from 2010 to
2014. He highlighted that as of 2014 up to the time of
implementation of SB 91 in mid 2016 there was a downward
rather than an upward trend as projected. He reminded
members that the previous slide was copywritten in 2016. He
did not know why there was a difference in the numbers. One
of the slides was from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the
other was from the Alaska Justice Commission. He was merely
pointing out what each reflected. The Department of
Corrections provided the information for slide 4.
Supposedly, according to The Pew Charitable Trust, the
Department of Corrections provided the information for
slide 3 as well. He concluded that the slide dramatically
showed that the prison population was going down rather
than up before the state had criminal justice reform.
Mr. Skidmore drew attention to when SB 91 was implemented
in the middle of 2016. He referred back to slide 3 which
reflected the implementation of SB 91. He noted the drop
which would take about a year to kick in. One year later,
the drop that was predicted did not materialize. He
indicated there was a slight decrease before the line
trended up and swept back down slightly. He made a personal
comment about him and his wife making lasagna together. He
compared the layers of lasagna to the reform details. He
would discuss what some of the reforms were that were
supposed to bring the numbers down.
Mr. Skidmore continued that after SB 91 was implemented
there should have been a decrease in the line for
sentencing, not property and drug offenses. He reported
that every sentence was reduced, aside from those related
to sex offences. The state had decriminalized the crime of
driving with a suspended license which equaled 17 percent
of the state's misdemeanor case load and carried mandatory
minimums. Previously, the state had filed about 2500 cases
which dropped to less than 500 cases per year with the
implementation of SB 91. The legislation stipulated that
for anyone awaiting sentencing, their sentence would be
reduced. Drug crimes were dramatically changed in SB 91.
Possession went from a Class C felony to a Class A
misdemeanor. Not only did a drug possession move to a
Class A misdemeanor, the first 2 offences came with zero
jail time. Felony drug prosecutions had dropped prior to
and after SB 91 resulting in a drop of filed cases by over
700 per year. Misdemeanors also went down. In 2017, the
reforms related to probation and parole took effect. The
legislation expanded the people that were eligible for
discretionary parole. It was mandated that everyone that
became eligible had a hearing. The presumptions were
changed making it easier to be released on discretionary
parole. In addition, a cap was placed on the type of
sentences that were imposed for a violation of probation or
parole. For example, a technical violation was currently
capped at 3,5, or 10 days. All of the different reforms
were supposed to make the prison population decrease. He
indicated that slide 4 showed the actual prison population
trend.
1:41:04 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the misdemeanor drop in
numbers and the timeframe relating to the implementation of
SB 91. Mr. Skidmore responded that SB 91 passed in July
2016. He believed an immediate effective date applied to
the sentencing. He reported that the other phases of the
bill (probation and parole and pretrial) applied in 2017
and 2018. The sentencing and classifications happened
almost immediately after the passage of SB 91 with an
effective date of July 1, 2016.
Vice-Chair Johnston noted the prison population increasing
in 2013 and 2014 and decreasing slightly in 2015. She asked
if it was accurate to say that the state's recession and
drug crisis started in 2015. Mr. Skidmore responded that he
could not speak to a recession. However, he reported that
the opioid crisis started in 2014 or 2015.
Vice-Chair Johnston suggested that with the passage of
SB 91, the state began treating some aspects of the opioid
problem differently - the state lowered the penalties for
drug possession. Mr. Skidmore responded that the sentencing
was reduced and that no jail time was required for the
first 2 offences. Vice-Chair Johnston was correct.
Vice-Chair Johnston wondered, taking into consideration the
recession and the opioid problem, whether the prison
population numbers would have looked different had SB 91
not passed. Mr. Skidmore responded that he could not speak
to her scenario. He was before the committee to report what
had been projected to happen and what actually happened. He
only knew that prior to SB 91 the prisoner population was
going down. He could not answer her question.
Representative Knopp thought it would be interesting to
have a comparison graph from the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) regarding arrests within the same timeframe.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated she would request the comparison
from DPS. She queried whether something else was occurring,
such as additional treatment availability, that would
explain the downturn. She wondered if there was a way to
look at the years from 2014-2016 to see if anything had
changed that would account for the decrease.
1:46:38 PM
Mr. Skidmore did not have a precise answer. He told of
having a number of conversations during the timeframe with
the Commissioner for Department of Corrections (DOC), Ron
Taylor, who was trying to implement several changes within
the department at the time. However, he did not know if the
changes were the cause for the drop. He offered that
because of what the committee was currently looking at, it
would be appropriate to look to DOC for some answers. He
could not recall any other major legislation having to do
with the criminal justice system from 2014 to 2016. He
mentioned SB 64 [Legislation passed in 2014 Short Title:
Omnibus Crime/Corrections/Recidivism] that had passed a
year prior that proposed significant changes, but no
significant changes were made until the implementation of
SB 91.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that she had heard many people
had been arrested but charges had not been brought forward.
Representative Knopp suggested that the numbers be broken
down by crime type when Co-Chair Wilson made her request to
DOC. He asked Mr. Skidmore whether the changes and fixes in
SB 54 and SB 55 were reflected in the chart. Mr. Skidmore
replied that SB 54 was reflected on the chart in the last
quarter of 2017. He recalled that SB 54 was enacted after
the special session that occurred in October 2017. The
count provided by the Criminal Justice Commission in the
2018 report ended about the time 2018 began.
Representative Carpenter suggested Mr. Skidmore jump
forward several slides to address Representative Knopp's
question. Mr. Skidmore indicated that crime rates would be
addressed further later in the presentation. He wanted to
cover a couple of additional items prior to looking at
crime rates.
Mr. Skidmore scrolled to slide 5: Goal: Reduce Recidivism."
The second goal of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
was to reduce the recidivism rate in Alaska. He read
directly from the slide:
"The state's growing prison population and increased
corrections spending, however, had not produced
commensurate improvements in public safety outcomes:
nearly two out of every three people released from
Alaska prisons returned within three years."
Mr. Skidmore summarized that Alaska had a problem with
recidivism, and it was not getting any better. During the
criminal justice reform debate for SB 91 Alaska's
recidivism rate was one of the worst rates in the country.
It was suggested that the state could do better with
criminal justice reform. The recidivism rate had gone
unchanged for decades, and without enacting reforms it was
thought the recidivism rate could not go down.
1:51:26 PM
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 6: Recidivism: National
Perspective." The special report referred to on the slide
came from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. He relayed that it
was a special report that followed up on a look at
recidivism nationwide that had been conducted for about 9
years. He indicated that 2014 was the last year in which
people were tracked, but the report was not released until
May 2018.
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 7: "States included in the
BJS recidivism study of prisoners released in 2005." The
report looked at 30 different states in which prisoners
were released in 2005 and followed for 9 years. Alaska was
one of the 30 states that were followed. He wanted to draw
the members attention to Alaska, Utah, Oregon, Texas,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Dakota. He highlighted
these states because in looking at the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission's report (Justice Reinvestment,
published in December 2015) on page 5 it indicated that
there were many other states that had adopted policies to
reign in the size and cost of their corrections spending
through justice reinvestment strategy. They named a number
of states that Alaska should look at and model itself after
including Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Utah. He noted that many of the states
mentioned were also involved in the national recidivism
study. It was a significant point which he would return to
later in his presentation.
Mr. Skidmore explained slide 8: "What is Recidivism." He
mentioned the importance of having a common definition of
recidivism so that the same thing was being measured. He
read the list:
Measuring recidivism
Recidivism measures require three characteristics:
• a starting event, such as a release from prison;
• a measure of failure following the starting
event, such as a subsequent arrest, conviction,
or return to prison;
• an observation or follow-up period that generally
extends from the date of the starting event to a
predefined end date (e.g., 6 months, 1 year, 3
years, 5 years, or 9 years).
1:54:30 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 9: "National Recidivism":
• The 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 had an
estimated 1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period -
an average of 5 arrests per released prisoner.
• An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested
within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9
years.
• More than three-quarters (77%) of released drug
offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within 9
years.
Mr. Skidmore concluded that recidivism was associated with
certain individuals. Alaska's recidivism rate was around
two-thirds which was not good but on par with the national
average. He also noted that the further out in the
timeline, the more people were recidivating. He also
pointed out that within the study of about 400,000 people
more than three-quarters or 77 percent of released drug
offenders were rearrested within a 9-year period for
non-drug crimes. He believed the legislature had heard from
prosecutors and law enforcement that individuals suffering
from substance abuse ended up being the same people who
contributed to other crimes in the state such as property
crimes to support their habit.
Mr. Skidmore moved to the next portion of his presentation
looking at Alaska's Recidivism and Reentry. He was
presenting slides the committee had already seen from a
meeting on February 5, 2019 by DOC. He took the slides
directly from that presentation.
Mr. Skidmore turned to the definition of recidivism on
slide 11: "Recidivism":
An offender who is re-incarcerated within three years
of release as a result of:
• Parole or probation violations
• New felony crime
• New misdemeanor crime
Mr. Skidmore talked about the findings on slide 12: "Alaska
Recidivism Rates." In 2011 there was a 67.47 percent
recidivism rate, just under the national average of 68
percent. Alaska was told, as it engaged in criminal justice
reform, that with its reform efforts it would not be able
to bring down its recidivism rates. It was suggested that
reform efforts were needed to bring down recidivism rates.
In 2012, recidivism rates dropped slightly but crept back
up in 2013. He continued that in 2014 it dropped again and
in 2015 it dropped all the way down to just over 61
percent. He reminded members that SB 91 was implemented in
2016. He concluded that Alaska's recidivism rate and prison
population were declining prior to SB 91.
1:59:16 PM
Mr. Skidmore detailed slide 13: "Recidivism - By Offense."
He reported that within the first 6 months, offenders
returned to incarceration because of probation and parole
violations. He suggested focusing on the area of probation
and parole violations to reduce recidivism. Offenders also
committed felonies and misdemeanors within the first 6
months of release. At the 3-year mark of being released,
about 50 percent of offenders committed new crimes.
Probation and Parole also played a significant role.
Mr. Skidmore scrolled to slide 14: "Recidivism - New
Crimes." In 2011, the recidivism rate for new crimes was
about 40 percent. By 2015, prior to the implementation of
criminal justice reform, the rate had dropped to 32 percent
for new crimes.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Skidmore to review a technical
violation of probation and parole. Mr. Skidmore responded
by giving examples of violations of probation and parole.
If a person violated any of their conditions of probation
or parole, other than committing another crime, it was
considered a technical violation.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted Mr. Skidmore had mentioned the 58
percent figure resulting from probation and parole
violations. He asked how the state could focus on reducing
probation and parole violations. Mr. Skidmore responded
that if the state wanted to bring down its recidivism rate,
it should focus on what happened to people when they
committed probation or parole violations. He suggested
looking at what other sanctions could be taken other than
returning a person to prison. Perhaps certain programs or
other reentry plans could be considered that might reduce
the recidivism rate. He did not have a specific example.
2:03:08 PM
Mr. Skidmore explained slide 15: "Alaska's Recidivism
Before SB 91." He suggested that between 2011 to 2015
Alaska's recidivism rate declined 6 percent. He believed
the state could do better. Although the state had hovered
around the same place for over 2 decades and had been told
it could not do anything without reforms, it had managed to
drop its number anyway. Alaska had also been told there
were other states in the country that were doing far
better. Yet, by 2015, Alaska was 7 percent below the
national average of 2005 (the most recent average Mr.
Skidmore had found).
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 16: "All Violent Crime: All
Property Crime." He thought the slide would address some of
Representative Knopp's question regarding crime rates. He
reminded members of the states he had listed previously:
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota,
Texas, and Utah. The slide contained information taken from
the FBI's uniform crime report data for various states
including Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina,
Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. The U.S. national
average was also included. Every state listed, with the
exception of Kentucky, was a state that came from the FBI
report of who Alaska should compare itself with. Kentucky
was added because of some of Alaska's pretrial reforms. The
pretrial reforms that Alaska implemented were similar to
those made by Kentucky. He noted on the topic of successes
that most of what he had seen the Criminal Justice
Commission report about was the prison population and the
recidivism rate. The commission did not talk about the
crime rate. He had heard some people say that the crime
rate could be driven by many things not all of which were
connected to reform. He understood the argument. However,
he pointed out the paragraph below the one that highlight
the 5 states on page 5 of the report from December 2015. He
read from the page:
"In 2011, for example, policy makers in Georgia faced
a projected 8 percent increase in the prison
population over the next 5 years at a cost of $264
million. Rather than spend additional tax dollars on
prisons, Georgia's leaders looked for more cost-
effective solutions. The state legislature unanimously
passed a set of reforms that controlled prison growth
through changes to drug and property offence statutes
and improved public safety by investing in drug and
mental health courts and treatment. Between 2012 and
2014, the most recent year with available crime data,
the state crime rate had fallen 3 percent."
Mr. Skidmore commented that when he looked at crime rates,
he did not look at them simply because he thought it was
the right thing to do. He thought crime rates reflected
what was going on in the state. He highlighted that when
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission members considered
enacting the reforms, they took into account crime rates
declining in other states that had enacted criminal justice
reform. It was the measure that other states had chosen to
use. He noted that there was a different color line for
each state with an index at the bottom of the slide. He
mentioned that there was a star on each line. Each star
denoted when a particular state began participating in
criminal justice reform. Violent crime rates were on the
top of the page and property crime rates were on the bottom
of the page. In looking at the violent crime rates, they
seemed to go down with a couple of exceptions. South Dakota
[represented in brown] went up following its criminal
justice reform in 2013. It was true that there were many
factors that influenced crime rates. In South Dakota there
was a significant population increase at the time which
partially explained the increase. Oregon held steady. Every
other state appeared to be going down except for Alaska
shown in red.
Mr. Skidmore drew attention to the property crime chart. He
highlighted that property crimes went down with the
exception of Alaska. He highlighted Georgia. He
reemphasized that in both charts Alaska's crime rate went
up.
Mr. Skidmore commented that there were several things
Alaska had done well over the previous 20 to 30 years; the
crime rates had gone down. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission stated in its 2018 report on page 40:
"Research into the nationwide decline in crime rates
over the last 30 years shows that between 10 percent
and 25 percent of the decline in crime was
attributable to the effect of increased incarceration
rates."
Mr. Skidmore restated that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission reported that the nationwide data and study
indicated that crime went down over the 30-year period
because of getting-tough-on-crime policies. The report went
on to say that the policies had diminishing returns. In
other words, doubling down by increasing sentences further
would not work. However, throwing out what had been done
for the previous 30 years was not the right approach
either.
2:11:07 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what might explain an
increase in violent crimes and property crimes at the same
time the state was seeing a decline in prison population.
Mr. Skidmore indicated he would be able to answer the
representative's question in one of the following slides.
Mr. Skidmore reviewed slide 17: "Comparison of PEW Reform
States." The Pew Charitable Trusts' chart reflected all of
the states they had worked with. He pointed out that the
top of the chart showed the years in which the states
participated in criminal justice reform. On the far left
the reforms were broken down into several different
categories. The checkmarks showed which reforms the various
states engaged in. He opined that the chart was a helpful
tool to compare the different reforms the state
participated in. He added the colors to the chart to mirror
the colors in the crime rate charts. He reviewed the
different colors and the corresponding states. Alaska was
represented in red.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the timeframe for each
checkmark. She wondered if the Pew Charitable Trusts had
further detail. Mr. Skidmore did not know how the reforms
were implemented in other states.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that SB 91 was implemented in
phases and did not think it was phased in properly. She
thought treatment had been slated further into the future
than anticipated. She asked Mr. Skidmore his opinion about
the way SB 91 was phased in.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that he had not in any way stated
that SB 91 had caused the state's problems. In his
presentation, he had highlighted the goals of reform and
reported that they were already being achieved before the
implementation of SB 91. It was too early to report on
recidivism, as no statistics were available yet. He did not
have information regarding prison population but thought it
could be provided by DOC. His main point was that the goals
that were highlighted were being achieved prior to the
implementation of SB 91. He added that after reform was
implemented, Alaska's crime rates continued to climb. The
reforms were intended to be implemented without having a
negative impact on Alaska's crime rates. He indicated that
crime rates were starting to go up prior to reform. He
would discuss the reason for the upward trend shortly. The
reforms did not result in crime rates leveling out or
declining which was what was promised through the reform
process.
2:15:04 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to the two goals brought up at
the beginning of the presentation. He queried if Mr.
Skidmore had done any analysis to explain the state's
progress prior to SB 91. He thought the stats had not been
available when SB 91 was under consideration by the
legislature. He asked if he was correct.
Mr. Skidmore agreed that the information necessary to
understand how recidivism worked at the time was
incomplete. Some information was available for 2011 and
2012. However, the third year was not available but
necessary for a proper analysis. He believed that if the
representative were to ask DOC about the prison population
presently, the department could provide the information. He
was uncertain why the legislature was told that the prison
population was continuing to increase through 2015 and
2016. He did not know why The Pew Charitable Trusts' slide
showed the prison population going up despite the fact that
it was going down.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the gains made in recidivism
prior to SB 91. He queried if it was true that the state
was putting more resources into funding for substance abuse
treatment in certain years. He asked if it was the reason
for the state's gains in recidivism. Mr. Skidmore did not
have an answer. He thought it would be significant for any
policy maker to know what was going on at the time that
allowed the state to make changes. He encouraged the
legislature to reach out to DOC to talk about what was
going on at the time.
Co-Chair Wilson reported that she was reaching out to some
of the state's past commissioners. She hoped the committee
would get to talk to them the following day.
Representative Josephson asked about slides 6 and 7. He had
been told the 2015 cohort would reflect later years - years
closer to the present. He suggested that if it was true, he
thought SB 91 could be a part of the reason for the
decline.
Mr. Skidmore responded that Representative Josephson was
partially correct. He reiterated that in a previous slide
it showed people reoffending, typically for probation and
parole violations, within the first 6 months of release. It
seemed to be supported, as SB 91 was not in effect the
first 6 months of 2015. He was speaking of the calendar
year for 2015. Senate Bill 91 was not implemented until
about a year following the period. There were 2 years that
were impacted by SB 91. However, the recidivism rate was
dropping previously to that time. His point was that the
state was bringing down recidivism prior to SB 91. Although
the legislation might have had an influence, it was unclear
how much influence it had.
2:20:09 PM
Representative Josephson asked if it would have made a
difference if the stakeholders supporting SB 91 had
received the money they were anticipating for reentry,
reform, and rehabilitation. He wondered if they had
received the money. He was trying to figure out whether
there was a worthy argument.
Mr. Skidmore was not sure about money disbursement. He was
aware that money was disbursed through SB 91 and other
budget measures. He did not have any details. He reminded
everyone that SB 91 was phased in beginning in 2016 with
Phase 1. Phase 2 began in 2017, and Phase 3 began in 2018.
He advised members to keep the phasing in mind when looking
at the impacts on recidivism.
Representative Josephson was trying to figure out why
Alaskans had a red line so remarkably different than other
states. He wondered what was going on. He thought Mr.
Skidmore was saying there was anecdotal evidence that
people knew they could get off. He was trying to get Mr.
Skidmore's thesis as to why the red lines were different.
2:23:49 PM
Mr. Skidmore commented that the differences on the slide
comparing state reforms, helped to understand. He was
trying to focus his presentation on HB 20 relating to drug
crimes. He used food as a metaphor for Criminal Justice
Reform. One of the goals of reforms was for the state to
reduce the period of time people were on probation. There
were a few option. First, the maximum period of probation
could be reduced. Second, earned compliance credits could
be implemented, allowing for a reduction in a person's
probation period based on good behavior. Third, early
termination of probation and parole could be recommended.
He compared the state's reform system to ordering
everything off the menu giving the state indigestion.
Although there were sound concepts throughout SB 91,
implementing them all was like ordering everything off a
menu. He drew members' attention back to the provisions of
HB 20.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that Mr. Skidmore was likely
hearing the frustration of members. While legislators
wanted to ensure punishment at the proper level, they were
unsure of the correct levels. She wondered how to write
treatment programs into statute for those people who truly
want to change their lives. She was looking for a balance.
She did not think anyone should be surprised that a person
getting out of prison without any reform was likely to
reoffend.
Mr. Skidmore replied that Co-Chair Wilson's question was
the right question to ask. He would answer her question as
he continued the presentation.
2:27:58 PM
Mr. Skidmore returned to his presentation on slide 18:
"Violent v. Non-violent Offenses." He wanted to make the
distinction between a violent crime and a property crime.
Currently in Alaska, violent crimes were generally
considered something under Alaska Statute 11.41. The crimes
included homicide, assault, stalking, kidnapping, human
trafficking, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of a minor.
The list was not complete but provided a sense of what was
a violent crime. He continued that non-violent crimes were
considered all other crimes for the purpose of crime
statistics. He read the list of non-violent crimes
including theft, criminal mischief (property damage),
forgery, bribery, gambling, hindering prosecution, and
impersonating a public servant.
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 19 and clarified that when
talking about crime statistics and referring to non-violent
crimes, there were other crimes listed. He read the list
which included misconduct involving weapons, drug
trafficking, arson, burglary, promoting contraband,
rioting, sending an explicit image of a minor, misconduct
involving a corpse, cruelty to animals, and sex
trafficking. He noted that misconduct involving weapons and
drug trafficking were substantially related to violent
crimes. He encouraged the legislature to ask the
appropriate questions so that members knew what people were
referring to when they mentioned non-violent crimes.
Mr. Skidmore returned to the violent crimes and property
crimes slide [Note: reinserted as slide 20]. He asserted
that it was not possible to claim that the reform caused
the increase in crime. However, when the state adjusted its
criminal justice system with SB 91, it significantly
impacted law enforcement and the prosecution's ability to
respond to increases in crime.
2:30:54 PM
Mr. Skidmore concluded his presentation with slide 21: "Why
did Crime Rise Before SB 91?" He explained there were many
factors that influenced Alaska's crime rates. However, the
opioid crisis was one of the largest influences. He
reported that overdose deaths from opioids had dramatically
increased from 2013 to 2017. The chart on the right of the
slide showed hospital care associated with opioids. He
highlighted that inpatient treatment between 2016 and 2017
decreased. The number of people receiving in-patient
treatment for substance abuse, specifically, opioids, went
down. He spoke to Representative Josephson's comment, money
was spent for additional treatment. As a prosecutor, he did
not want to put someone with a drug addiction in jail. He
would rather see them get into treatment. He agreed that
treatment was the proper place for someone with an
addiction, but treatment numbers declined. Conversely,
emergency care skyrocketed. House Bill 20 returned drug
provisions to where they were prior to SB 91. He elaborated
that possession of a controlled substance went from a
misdemeanor with no jail time for the first 2 offences to a
felony crime.
Mr. Skidmore conveyed that there were many good aspects of
SB 91 including a Suspended Entry of Judgment (SEJ). The
Suspended Entry of Judgement was a new tool. There had been
something on the state's books called a Suspended
Imposition of Sentence (SIS) that was supposed to allow
prosecutors to address those first-time offenders or
individuals that they did not think needed to end up with a
conviction on their record. It suspended the imposition of
sentence, but it still left the person saddled with a
felony conviction. There were collateral consequences to a
felony conviction. The state needed to find a way to avoid
the felony conviction, which the SEJ does. He explained
that when someone was charged with a crime, such as a
possessory drug crime, and the prosecution believed
treatment was a better option than jail, the person would
be advised to plead guilty to the crime but would not be
found guilty. The judgement would not be entered. The
person would be placed under conditions including going to
treatment. If a person met the conditions by going to
treatment, their case would be dismissed. The conviction
would not be entered, and the person would not experience
the collateral consequences associated with a conviction.
The Suspended Entry of Judgement was a new and positive
tool. It could be very helpful for people. He commented
that there had to be an incentive to get people to attend
residential treatment from 30 to 180 days. He suggested
that without an appropriate incentive, treatment was not an
attractive option. House Bill 20 incentivized in-patient
treatment. It would allow the criminal justice system to
play a role in helping combat the drug crisis. The bill
would also return the ability to aggressively go after
individuals dealing poison to Alaska's citizens. Under
current law, the Class A felony for drug trafficking was
eliminated and the penalties for drug trafficking were
reduced from A to B and B to C. House Bill 20 had
provisions that changed the drug laws. He implored the
legislature to return tools to attorneys and law
enforcement.
2:38:16 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the final slide. She asked
if the emergency numbers applied to the total population of
the state. Mr. Skidmore responded that figure 36 came from
the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of
Public Health. Epidemiology indicated that the slide
reflected the rate of hospital care, specifically
in-patient treatment, associated with opioids.
Vice-Chair Johnston wanted to find out what was considered
in-patient treatment. It would be interesting to know the
wait time statistics in getting into treatment and the
number of positions available in the state for treatment.
She was not referring to a 3-day in-patient treatment.
Co-Chair Wilson thought she had requested the information
from DOC. She would get back to the committee.
Representative Josephson relayed that an SEJ had to be
agreed to by all parties. He wondered how all parties could
be assured that prosecutors would follow through with an
SEJ agreement. He queried whether additional language was
needed regarding treatment if a person was charged with
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth
degree. Mr. Skidmore thought Representative Josephson was
asking what sort of guarantees were available that
prosecutors would want to use an SEJ. Representative
Josephson responded, "Yes."
Mr. Skidmore responded that the prosecutors that worked in
Alaska wanted to see the state improve. Folks that worked
for him across the state did it because they wanted to make
Alaska a better place - they did not get paid proportionate
to their efforts. Prosecutors understood the need for
treatment in order to properly address the opioid crisis
and drug abuse. He relayed he would aggressively use the
SEJ for drug possession if it was returned to a Class C
felony. He wanted to see people in treatment. He had the
ability to direct the people working for him that SEJs
would be used. The tool would be applied to a significant
portion of related cases.
2:43:26 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to slide 16. He wondered if the
comparable states were also involved with criminal justice
reform. He thought the difference was the level of reform,
which he suspected was less than the reform in Alaska
through SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the states were chosen because
they were specifically called out by the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission's report, Justice Reinvestment, in
December 2015. Every state, with the exception of Kentucky,
was listed on page 5 of the report and were states Alaska
could look to for comparison. Alaska's pre-trial reforms
were modeled after Kentucky, which was the reason for its
inclusion. The included states were chosen because they had
engaged in reforms that Alaska was considering. He included
the chart from Pew because the reform categories and the
states that had engaged in reform were listed. He could not
provide specifics but would be undertaking an intensive
research project at a later time.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if it was safe to say that the
reforms made in the states Alaska was comparing itself to
were less broad-based. He suggested Alaska ordered
everything off the menu unlike the other states. Mr.
Skidmore responded, "That's correct." He elaborated that a
person from Texas that told him Alaska should be putting
people in jail that it was afraid of rather than mad at. He
drew attention to the blue box on slide 16.
2:45:44 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz queried whether Mr. Skidmore had studied
economics. He suggested that a certain result would happen
to the demand when the price increased for a certain item.
However, he suggested many things changed in the
marketplace. He wondered if Mr. Skidmore experienced
frustration with determining what direction the state
should take when looking at available data in the area of
criminal reform.
Mr. Skidmore had not studied economics but was familiar
with the principle Representative Ortiz described. He
agreed with the representative 100 percent. He reported
that it was very difficult, when conducting a study or
experiment, to hold everything equal other than what was
being studied. In other words, it was very difficult to
isolate one change. He agreed that it played havoc with the
state's ability to understand what has happened in the
state's criminal justice system. However, simultaneously,
science was not his forte'. He indicated that SB 91 made 96
changes that went into effect simultaneously. It made it
difficult to discuss the impacts of any one of those
changes.
Representative Carpenter recalled that there was a national
discussion about the opioid crisis beginning in 2013 or
2014. He suggested it was not just Alaska that was
affected. Mr. Skidmore replied, "That's correct."
Representative Carpenter returned to the crime rate slide.
He pointed out that from 2013 to 2017 there was an opioid
epidemic not just in Alaska but in the nation. However,
Alaska was the only state that had an anomaly in the trend
of the crime rate. He asked if other states were dealing
with the epidemic in a different way or whether there was
another factor that had not been discussed. He asked Mr.
Skidmore to comment.
Mr. Skidmore did not have an answer to Representative
Carpenter's question. He offered that there was a problem
with the opioid epidemic which had a dramatic impact on
Alaska. He could not confirm whether the opioid crisis was
the only thing that affected Alaska's crime rates. There
were clearly other factors that had an impact. He focused
on drugs because they were the focus of HB 20. At the time,
when Alaska was experiencing an increase in its crime rate,
the state chose to engage in criminal justice reform
dramatically shifting how Alaska addressed opioids. He did
not believe the shift turned out in the state's favor. He
was laying out the case for the state to go back to certain
drug laws with some changes. The state needed some of its
previous tools back.
Representative Josephson believed Mr. Skidmore when he
stated the SEJ would be used liberally. He wanted to see
where the SEJ would be paid for in the fiscal notes.
2:52:12 PM
Co-Chair Wilson responded that the request would be added.
Representative Knopp understood numbers as opposed to
percentages, and he did not like surveys with "per capita"
because of Alaska's location. He asked how to take a state
like Alaska with its small population and compare it to
other states. He suggested using real numbers for
comparison. He did not believe the comparison was accurate.
He asked Mr. Skidmore to comment. He provided an example.
He was unclear as to the basis of the studies.
Mr. Skidmore agreed about the importance of understanding
all of the ingredients in the charts. He thought
Representative Knopp could have access to the underlying
numbers. He suggested that when it came to comparing Alaska
to other states such as Texas, Oregon, or Utah,
statisticians used 100,000. The raw numbers could be
provided. The slide containing the crime rates contained
actual numbers. The recidivism numbers could be obtained
through DOC.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked Mr. Skidmore for his presentation
and indicated the committee would transition to the next
bill, HB 96.
2:55:39 PM
At EASE
2:57:23 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 96
"An Act relating to Alaska Pioneers' Home and Alaska
Veterans' Home rates and services."
2:57:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, BILL SPONSOR, introduced
himself.
REPRESENTATIVE LADDIE SHAW, BILL SPONSOR, introduced
himself.
Representative Fields thanked the committee for allowing
him to present HB 96. He turned to slide 2: "Goal of House
Bill 96" to explain the goals of the legislation. He
offered that the bill had a couple of simple goals. The
first goal was to maintain the Pioneer Homes' commitment
for Alaska elders. The following day marked the 106th
anniversary of the Pioneer Homes system. The second goal
was to grow revenues and improve the financial stability of
the Pioneers Home. He thanked Representative Shaw,
Representative Ortiz, and Representative Josephson for
being the original cosponsors of the bill. He also thanked
Representative Johnston for co-chairing the Health and
Social Services Committee and making sure there was
adequate funding for the Pioneer Homes. The bill was a two-
part effort of making sure there was adequate funding while
at the same time addressing the statutes. He turned the
presentation over to Representative Shaw to talk about his
involvement with the bill and some of the reasons he was
working to protect the Pioneer Homes.
Representative Shaw explained that when he was working for
the administration in 1999, he was looking at the potential
for a Veteran's home in Alaska, as it did not have one at
the time. The cost of building a Veteran's home would be
cost prohibitive. Instead, he approached the Pioneer Homes
to discuss the possibility of tying in with the Pioneer
Homes system. He had hoped to bring about a Veteran's home
in the state regardless of its size. The Pioneer Homes were
onboard with the idea. The process was initiated in 2001
and designated the Pioneer Home in Palmer as the Pioneer
and Veteran's Home for Alaska. He was about to establish a
Veteran's home commitment. Alaska ended up being the last
of the 50 states to have its own Veteran's home. The
process took place and was initiated after he had left the
administration in 2003. It was put into place in 2007.
Currently, the State of Alaska had a representation of a
Veteran's home. He was pleased to be an initial part of the
process.
Representative Fields turned to slide 3: "Pioneer Homes:
Background." He thought Representative Shaw helped frame
the backdrop which was that Alaska had an amazing system
built over the previous 100 years in Sitka, Fairbanks,
Palmer, Anchorage, Ketchikan, and Juneau. However,
currently the Pioneer Homes faced some challenges which he
asserted were two-fold. Currently, Pioneer Home rates were
adjusted by regulation. It was a time-consuming contentious
process. He surmised that because the regulation process
was time-consuming and contentions, the real value of rates
had actually fallen by about 15 percent. In other words,
the real value of rates had fallen as the division had
adjusted rates periodically but not enough to keep pace
with real value. At the same time, the state had an aging
population with a rising rate of dementia. He reported that
about half of residents had dementia. The state also had
budgetary challenges. The goal of the bill was to protect
the incredible system that so many Alaskans, including
Representatives Shaw, helped build.
3:01:06 PM
Representative Fields moved to slide 4: "Resident
Population." He highlight an important point with respect
to the financial sustainability of the Pioneer Homes:
Presently 51 percent of residents were self-pay. In other
words, they paid the advertised rates in the respective
Pioneer Homes and contributed about $17 million annually to
the system. It was very significant in terms of the system
being self-supporting. One of the reasons he introduced the
bill and one of his concerns was inadvertently pushing out
self-pay people. The departments were not allowed to
advertise the rates, which were very high. He wanted to
avoid having an adverse selection process, where self-pay
people leave and go to private care, while those who would
take their places would be more subsidized by the state. He
suggested that if that were to happen the state would find
itself with more obligations as the number of self-pay
residents declined. He did not have a problem with having a
larger population of poor seniors supported by the state.
However, looking at the long-time mission of the Pioneer
Homes, the diversity of their population was integral to
their mission. He thought the housing should continue to be
affordable even for those families that could pay their own
way.
Representative Fields reviewed the changes to the committee
substitute on slide 5: "Committee Substitute for House Bill
96." The rates were adjusted to reflect real cost increases
since 2004. Levels 4 and 5 were added to allow for more
complex care, so the bill would have 5 levels of care
consistent with the direction of the department. It was
consistent with the Agnew Beck Report which was issued
following SB 74 [Legislation passed in 2016: Short Title:
Medicaid Reform; Telemedicine; Drug Database] in broader
Medicaid reforms.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard had heard that for some
residents, because of a change in their health like
Dementia or Alzheimer's, they were being transferred from
the Pioneer Homes to Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for
care or housing. If the information was correct, she asked
that Representative Fields provide an explanation. She
wondered if the added levels of care took the circumstance
into account.
Representative Fields had not heard about residents being
transferred from Pioneer Homes to API. However, he was
aware of seniors with complex behavior health issues
including severe dementia who were housed at API for a cost
of more than a half million dollars per year per person. He
reported that Agnew Beck and DHSS wanted to have behavioral
health neighborhoods in some of the Pioneer Homes where
people with severe dementia would be physically separated
to be safe - a care level of 5. He noted that the cost of
level 5 care was about $15,000 per month, which was
expensive but much less than $500,000 per year, per person.
He thought, when looking at the broader system of how to
save money in healthcare and long-term care, the Pioneer
Homes were an important part. Some of the most
expensive-to-care-for seniors could be taken out of API and
placed into the Pioneer Homes system in a safe environment
while saving hundreds of dollars. It would be part of a
broader evolution where there was an increasingly elderly
population at the Pioneer Homes with a rising rate of
residents with dementia.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Representative Fields to explain the
difference between assisted living and a nursing home,
since the Pioneer Homes were no longer nursing homes.
Representative Fields responded that assisted living
generally had a lower acuity or intensity of care compared
to a nursing home. There were different reimbursement rates
for federal healthcare programs. He understood that
Medicaid-eligible residents in the Pioneer Homes were under
the Residential Supported Living (RSL) Medicaid Program
which billed at a daily rate of approximately $160 per day
resulting in a cost of $4880 per month. The monthly amount
was not sufficient to cover the cost for the higher level
of care. Aside from level 5, the Pioneer Homes system was
assisted living, just higher on the acuity scale. The
Pioneer Homes system served an important need. He
elaborated that in some cases in the private market, a
person would have a difficult time finding assisted living
homes at a higher level of care for people with dementia.
He concluded that the Pioneer Homes offered a higher acuity
of care without reaching the level of care at a nursing
home.
Co-Chair Wilson asked what the rate would be if the Pioneer
Homes were nursing homes. Representative Fields did not
know the rates in terms of the federal programs. In a
subsequent slide he would discuss the significant cost
differences.
3:06:07 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston thought there might be a great output
of capital costs for the Pioneer Homes system to the meet
the requirements of a nursing home.
Co-Chair Wilson was concerned with trying to provide a
certain level of care without being certified to provide
that level of care.
Vice-Chair Johnston clarified that the Pioneer Home in
Anchorage had a separate wing for patients with dementia.
Representative Fields added that there was a wide range of
category for assisted living. The Pioneer Homes system fell
within the assisted living category. It was not at the
nursing home rate. Many of the Pioneer Home residents were
at the upper end of the spectrum for assisted living care.
Co-Chair Wilson agreed that many of the homes fell under
the assisted living category. She was concerned that the
Pioneer Homes were starting to behave like nursing homes
where the level of care was much different. She was trying
to better understand the line of distinction between
assisted living and nursing home care. She thought the
committee could get her queries answered at a later time.
Representative Fields turned to slide 6: "CSHB 96: Proposed
Levels of Care." He reported that under the committee
substitute there was a wide range of rates. The goal was to
be competitive and to keep self-pay people in the system
with relatively affordable rates of care for level 1 and 2.
Under the committee substitute (CS) the rate increases
could be annual and could be as high as the Social Security
rate of inflation - a more efficient process that could
keep pace with the cost of care, rather than having to go
through the more arduous public comment process. The
concept would ideally keep the state from falling back into
a hole like it had over the previous 15 years.
Representative Tilton asked about the Social Security rate
of inflation compared to a health care inflation rate she
had heard of that was higher. Representative Fields
responded that he was aware of the health care rate of
inflation which had generally been higher. Most of the
Pioneer Homes' costs related to personnel were higher. He
mentioned that the sum had been discussed in the Health and
Social Services Committee. He suggested that, in reality,
the Pioneer Homes' costs would not perfectly reflect either
the health care costs or the CPI [Consumer Price Index]. He
thought it would be somewhere in the middle.
Representative Fields explained slide 7: "Complexity of
Care." The slide reflected the changes from 3 levels of
care to 5 levels of care. He reiterated the levels of care
were consistent with where the department was going and
consistent with Agnew Beck and the broader changes made to
the state's health care system in SB 74.
3:09:44 PM
Representative Fields reviewed slide 8: "Would you buy a
$37 hamburger?" He stated that Pioneer Homes were assisted
living homes which existed in a competitive marketplace. He
reemphasized the importance of retaining the self-paying
residents. He commended the Pioneer Homes' staff and
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) leadership
at the division director level about adapting to changing
in very challenging circumstances. His concern with the
department's proposed rate increases was that it was
assuming inelastic demand - if a certain price was charged,
fees would be collected from a significant number of
people. He had heard from people in his district and people
who had left the Pioneer Homes system based on the threat
of price increases. They were self-pay residents. He did
not want to see the state go into an adverse selection
process where more and more residents were fully subsidized
by the state. He believed it was in the interest as a state
to have a financially viable system with a health mix of
self-pay individuals.
Representative Fields continued that under the CS, the
prices for levels 1 and 2 of care would continue to be
competitive in Alaska's region and to make sure to retain
the self-paying individuals that contributed $17 million
annually to the system. The bill did not put a cap on the
rates for level 5 because it was a different set of
reimbursement that was separate from Residential Support
Living (RSL). The state could set a high price at level 5
and continue to save money as a state by shifting people
out of API and other environments that were less
appropriate.
Representative Fields turned to slide 9: "Cost of Long-Term
Care in Pacific Northwest" which was an illustration of
regional costs. He pointed out that in the Pacific
Northwest and in Anchorage assisted living care rates were
in the range of $5000 to $6000 which was competitive with
the bill he had laid out.
Representative Fields moved to slide 10: "Social Security
Cost of Living Adjustment." He explained that the slide was
an illustration of the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). He
indicated that if the state had been adjusting rates every
year, it would not have fallen into a hole like the state
had over the previous 15 years. He thanked the committee
for hearing his presentation and made himself available for
questions.
Representative Josephson asked how the cost increases
proposed in the bill compared to the administration's
regulatory increase. Representative Fields replied that
they were substantially less. He returned to side 8. He
pointed out that the blue bars represented the current
monthly rate; the orange bars reflected the department's
proposal; and the green bar indicated rates advertised
under the bill.
Representative Josephson asked what the administration was
going to do with the extra dollars. Representative Fields
responded that the administration's proposal regarding
advertised rates corresponded to a change in the way they
put forward a budget. The department still requested a
significant amount of general funds but changed it to a
needs-based payment assistance program. The reality was
that either under the administration's plan or the bill,
the state would continue to invest a significant amount of
money into the Pioneer Homes. The question remained about
what the advertised rated would be. He deferred to the
division for additional details.
Representative Josephson referred to the topic of state
assistance. He wondered about the difference between the
general fund subsidy and state assistance. Representative
Fields responded that the orange bars equated to what the
division said was the true cost of providing care. In
looking at the difference between the green bar and the
orange bar for level 1, there would be a small differential
between what people paid and the actual cost to provide
care, if HB 96 passed as written. The traditional general
fund allocation would fill the very small gap. Under the
administration's bill, if people were able to pay the
rates, there would be no gaps and no state subsidy needed.
Representative Carpenter asked if there was an inverse
relationship with demand. He wondered if there was more
demand at level 1 than level 5 and across the spectrum.
Representative Fields replied that he thought people
recognized the Pioneer Homes provided quality care and many
people got on the waitlist before they were at level 4. He
reemphasized the importance of having competitive pricing
at levels 1 and 2 because, regardless of when people
actually enter the Pioneer Homes, many of them get on the
list before being at level 1. Once people enter the Pioneer
Homes it was not unusual for people to move up the tiers.
They might end up paying at levels 1, 2 and 3.
3:15:30 PM
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED Public Testimony
3:15:48 PM
MARGIE BEEDLE, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), reported
being in support of HB 96. She represented 119 people that
had signed a letter in support of the bill. Her mother was
a self-pay resident of the Pioneer Home in Juneau. The
governor's budget proposed increases up to 140 percent for
some residents to mitigate the state's cost to run the
Pioneer Homes. The governor's proposal illuminated how much
the state had subsidized the Pioneer Homes previously. She
informed the committee that many of the residents of the
Pioneer Home came to Juneau before statehood. They helped
develop and defend the state. She mentioned that they paid
a state income tax for most of the years they had worked
including during the time of inception of the Pioneer
Homes. She thought the people in the Pioneer Homes had
contributed greatly to the state and deserved proper care.
She relayed a number of contributions made by the elderly
in the community. Her mother worked until she was 87 years
old. She had been good and generous to the community. She
thought the state should meet her half way at supporting
her care. House Bill 96 was a compromise. She urged support
for the bill. She submitted a letter signed by 120 people.
3:19:31 PM
BRAD RIDER, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), favored
HB 96 and supported Alaska's elders. He thought they had
been kicked around with all of the suggested pieces of
legislation. He opined that from the beginning of time
people have taken care of their elders and thought the
state should continue to do so. He reiterated his support
of the bill.
3:21:11 PM
FRED KOKEN, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), appreciated
the committee's time. He had been a resident of Alaska for
about 50 years. His wife was a resident of the Pioneer Home
in Juneau. He had worked in the state for 30 years as a
financial consultant. He relayed that when he received the
information regarding the administration's proposed rate
increase, it was like a punch in the gut. He suggested that
the current residents within the Pioneer Homes should be
grandfathered with the prices they currently paid and had
budgeted for. He implored members to support HB 96 and
urged them not to balance the budget on the backs of the
elderly.
3:23:25 PM
JANET HENDERSON, SELF, JUNEAU, reported that her mother was
currently in the Pioneer Home. Her mother had worked in the
school district and her father had worked as a contractor
and an employee of the state. Both parents had paid into
the system and planned to enter into the Pioneer Home. Her
mother was scared about the future and finances. She
supported the bill. She did not think it was fair to raise
the elders' rent by 140 percent.
3:25:07 PM
AVES THOMPSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
thought HB 96 was a step in the right direction. His wife
was currently in the Anchorage Pioneer Home. He paid over
$6,795 per month for his wife to be there. The annual cost
was over $81,540 per year. The governor's proposed change
would increase the rate to $13,333 per month or $159,996
per year. The annual increase would equate to $78,456. He
thought the increase was driven by the fact that the
governor's amended budget proposal zeroed out about $34
million in undesignated general funds shifting the entire
fund source to user fees. He continued that the Alaska
House of Representatives just passed a budget that included
the fund shift. However, it was not a budget reduction, it
was a change in the fund source shifting all of the burden
to the user.
Mr. Thompson continued that his wife was a self-paying
resident of the Pioneer Home and received no monetary
subsidies from the state or federal governments. He had a
small amount of long-term care insurance that would last
about 12 to 13 months. The rest of the cost was paid for by
their retirement income and personal savings. The proposed
cost increase would displace his wife out of the Pioneer
Home. In the long run, many of the residents would be
subsidized by public dollars. The proposed 30 percent
increase remained excessive in his mind. He quoted
Representative Foster from an article in the Anchorage
Daily News. He urged members to carefully consider the
impact of an increase and to support HB 96.
3:29:17 PM
SHARON LONG, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), was the
wife of a 2-year resident of the Pioneer Home and a friend
of a 92-year-old resident, Mrs. Lucy Gross. Lucy could not
sit back and watch Alaska's pioneers and veterans get
bludgeoned with exploited rates. She created a petition
that members should have that gave families a voice. She
urged members to read the letter signed by over 1120 people
petitioning a change in the proposed increase in rates. She
was speaking on behalf of the petitioners who were scared
and bewildered by how the state they helped build was
threatening their financial bearings and peace of mind.
She thanked the committee for attempting to find a
legislative solution to repeal the regulatory authority
under which the administration was making unprecedented and
draconian changes to the mission and operation of the
Pioneer Homes and for confirming existing rates as drafted
in the original version of HB 96. She thought the Social
Security COLA was a rational and incremental approach to
increases and something people could plan for. She
encouraged the committee to do the right thing for the
elders of the state.
3:32:10 PM
WILLIAM HARRINGTON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
was a 70-year-old resident and believed an elder subsidy
should be equal for all residents. He proposed several
amendments to the bill. He thought a business should be run
by a business or should be out of business. He suggested
the golden years would be tough everywhere. He hoped the
legislature could come up with some solutions.
3:33:26 PM
ROCKY PLOTNICK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
thanked members for hearing her testimony. She was
currently looking for assisted living in Seattle for her
92-year-old mother. She was testifying in favor of HB 96.
Her husband was in his 70s and lived in the Anchorage
Pioneer Home with Parkinson's disease. He had spent most of
his years as a physician working throughout Alaska. He was
a level 2 self-pay resident. Currently, they paid $56,304
per month. If HB 96 were to pass, their costs at the
Pioneer Home would increase to $75,600 per month. She hoped
the rate would not increase any more than what was proposed
in HB 96. She was grateful to know that her husband was
safe at the Pioneer Home.
3:36:22 PM
GEORGE PAUL, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), supported
the concept of HB 96. He had been in the nursing field
since 1999. He supported the governor's proposed amendment.
He had worked at two different Pioneer Homes and currently
worked at a private assisted living facility. He spoke of
the different services provided at the Pioneer Homes that
were not provided at private sector facilities. He provided
some examples. He argued that services such as physical
therapy that had to be sought independently of a private
facility should be subsidized to make things equitable.
3:40:09 PM
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated amendments were due Thursday,
May 2, 2019 by 5:00 P.M. The committee would review
amendments and the fiscal notes at another hearing.
HB 96 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act making a special appropriation to the Alaska
permanent fund; and providing for an effective date."
3:40:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNATHAN KREISS-TOMPKINS, BILL SPONSOR,
indicated that HB 31 was a simple bill that transferred
$5.5 billion from the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA) to the
corpus of the Alaska Permanent Fund (PF). He introduced the
PowerPoint presentation: "HB 31: $5.5 billion transfer from
the ERA to the Corpus." The presentation had a number of
slides that would contextualize the impacts of the
legislation or such a transfer especially given actions
taken in the other body on the previous Friday. He would
discuss the impacts of different sizes of transfers. He
noted that the House was interested in the concept before
the Senate.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins turned to slide 2: "If the
deficits continue, the CBR is most likely gone." He
reported that since he became a legislator in 2013, he had
seen the legislature collectively spend down all the
state's savings. He found it discouraging and thought it
was a collective action problem. The genesis of the ERA to
principal transfer reflected his grave fear and concern
that the legislature might soon regard the ERA as just
another savings account that was available to spend down as
opposed to an intergenerational asset for the benefit of
future generations of Alaskans.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins spoke to slide 3: "Other
ERA-to-principal transfer proposals." He reported that in
the previous year in the operating budget, Amendment 58 was
considered but not voted on. The amendment reflected a $5.5
billion transfer from the ERA to the principal of the
Alaska PF. On the previous Friday, the Senate Finance
Committee dropped a bomb shell by amending the budget to
reflect a $12 billion transfer from the ERA to the
principal. The amendment was passed without objection from
the minority Democrats to the Mat-Su Republicans to the co-
chair. He thought the action taken by the Senate Finance
Committee made his bill containing a $5.5 billion transfer
look like minor league baseball in comparison.
3:44:35 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins discussed slide 4: "History
of Legislative Appropriations to the Principal." He relayed
that it was not out of the ordinary for the legislature to
have transferred funds from the ERA to the principal of the
PF. The legislature had an inflation-proofing transfer most
years. There were a couple of missed years in recent
history. Most years the legislature abided by the operating
budget. The current year included the inflation transfer.
The slide showed an inventory or summary of all the other
ERA-to-Principal transfers above and beyond inflation
proofing. The high-water mark was $1.3 billion even if the
figure was inflation adjusted. The numbers that had been
proposed, $5.5 billion or $12 billion, were well in excess
of the highest recorded number. He noted that the balance
of the ERA was at an all-time historic high.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins moved to slide 5: "Permanent
Fund Account Structure." He reported that the slide
reflected the year-end projections of the account balances
for the PF. He noted that there were large amounts in both
the principal and the ERA.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins turned to slide 6: "Earnings
Reserve Account: $18.9 billion balance." He reported that
HB 31 called for a $5.5 billion transfer. The number was a
carryover from the operating budget in the previous year.
The number in the previous year was not random. It was
based on an analysis of prudence and conservatism. Under
SB 26 [Legislation passed in 2018: Short Title:
Appropriations Limit and Permanent Fund Dividend and
Earnings], there was a structure and framework to sustain
and properly manage the PF and manage it for future
generations. He indicated that the legislature would not
want to take more than 5 percent of market value in any 1
year after the first 3 years. He continued that the $5.5
billion figure, as proposed in the operating budget in the
previous year, would have drawn down all of the money in
the ERA until an amount equal to 4 times the 5 percent draw
was left in the account. If the math was calculated with
the numbers in the PF in the prior year, the pink number on
the slide would have been $5.5 billion. Moving forward a
year, the ERA accumulated more earnings. Applying the same
analysis would lead to about an $8 billion transfer
presently. He indicated that the $8 billion was a number
that should be considered by the committee. He suggested
that transferring $8 billion for the ERA to the principle
would still leave 4 times the 5 percent POMV [Percent of
Market Value] draw amount in the ERA while protecting a
huge amount of money permanently and for the benefit of
future generations.
3:48:05 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins turned to slide 7:
"Scenario: Moderate bear market from FY 21- FY 23." He
suggested that when the legislature considered the amount
of money to transfer from the ERA to the principal, it was
a balance and a legitimate conversation that needed to
happen. The transfer amount needed to be balanced against
the function of the ERA - the only pot of cash the
legislature had to pay for dividends and state services. He
added that the ERA could fluctuate depending on market
conditions. If the state had poor returns, the ERA would
get smaller which could happen quickly. He indicated that
the scenario on the slide, as worked out by the Legislative
Finance Division, projected 3 consecutive years of 3
percent returns. He noted it wound not be that bearish of a
market.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins mentioned the recession in
2008 and 2009 the state had -17.9 percent return and the
year preceding there was a -3.6 return. He admitted it was
a severe recession, but it helped to provide context. If
the stock market was not doing well, the legislature would
be starting to play with fire the more money it
transferred. Some liquidity needed to be maintained in the
account - a shock absorber for bad market years. He pointed
out that the 3 graphs demonstrated how the ERA would
perform in a moderate bear market. He noted that with a
transfer of $5.5 billion there would be a significant
amount of shock absorption left in the ERA after 3
consecutive bear market years. A transfer of $8 billion
would leave slightly less of a cushion. A transfer of
$12 billion would leave just enough in the account but
would be riskier. He noted that a $13 billion transfer when
the bear market was slightly worse would leave the balance
at zero. There would be no money to pay for dividends or
public services. At such a point, the legislature would be
up against a hard wall.
Representative Merrick asked where the other body got the
$12 billion and $14 billion figures. Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins did not know.
Co-Chair Wilson thought it was not appropriate to comment
on the reasoning of the other body.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins commented that a person
could consider the ERA in isolation and what amount might
make sense to transfer to the principal. There were
constitutional amendments moving through the legislature
currently. He was a sponsor of a constitutional amendment
that would create a constitutional POMV and combine the
earnings reserves and the principal. If and when the
combination were to happen, it would eliminate the problem
of the ERA hitting zero because of a simpler classic
endowment model. There could be some merit in moving a
large amount of cash to the principal if it was done in
tandem with restructuring the PF to have a constitutional
cap and combine the ERA and the principal.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the Director of
the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation offered an opinion on
the transfer of $12 billion versus $5.5 billion.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded that he had not
spoken directly with her, though, he thought she was
online.
3:52:40 PM
ANGELA RODELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION (via teleconference), responded that the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) did not take a position
on the amount.
Vice-Chair Ortiz indicated that the slide showed what might
happen if a bear market were to start in FY 21. He asked if
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed that if a bear market
were to begin in FY 20, the model would potentially look
significantly worse. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins
responded in the positive. He suggested that if the bear
market were 4 years instead of 3 years or 1 percent instead
of 3 percent, all of the charts would look worse. He eluded
to his previous reference of playing with fire.
Vice-Chair Johnston understood why 2.72 percent was used in
the prior year. She asked if the draw should have been 2.9
percent in the current year.
3:54:39 PM
KEVIN MCGOWAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-
TOMPKINS, responded that the percentage was used because of
the effective date was immediate. If the bill were to pass
in the current year, it would be effective immediately. If
it did not pass until the following year, it would make
sense to adjust it.
Vice-Chair Johnston referred to the charts on slide 7. She
had been reminded that in 2008, when the ERA went under, it
was the first time the legislature looked at paying the
dividend with general fund dollars. She was a firm believer
in putting funds into the corpus but wanted to bring up the
issue.
Representative Josephson asked if the other proposal, where
all funds would be placed in the corpus, would be workable
because it would have to be accompanied by the allowance
for the legislature to use the corpus in a sustained way.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins did not want to respond to
what the other body might be thinking. He thought it made
sense if the legislature moved all or almost all of the
funds (about $14 billion) into the corpus in tandem with
restructuring the fund to be all constitutionally protected
and combining the ERA with the principal. His suggested
scenario would eliminate risk of a bad market year and not
having enough money to pay for dividends or public
services.
Representative Josephson had some concerns relative to the
2007-2009 period. He asked if Representative
Kreiss-Tompkins used 3 percent in a bear market in his
hypothetical scenario. He noted it was not a bad
experience, not like presently. He thought Representative
Kreiss-Tompkins had mentioned -17 percent in a calendar
year. He asked if he had heard the representative
correctly.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that he was
accurate. He emphasized that it was a moderate bear market
rather than a severe market. In 2008 and 2009 the market
returns were -18 percent and -3.5 percent. In 2001 and 2002
immediately following September 11th, the market turndown
was -3.25 percent and -2.25 percent respectively for 2
consecutive years. All of the graphs would look
substantially worse if they were modeled over those
scenarios which had happened before and would certainly
happen again.
3:58:25 PM
Representative Josephson shared the concern of the history
of postponement of fiscal planning and that the legislature
might draw down all of its earnings. He wondered about
undermining the use of a POMV or devastating the dividend.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins asked Representative
Josephson to repeat his question.
Representative Josephson suggested that even with the 2
deterrents from an overdraw and reckless spending - the
lack of a dividend and the lack of sustainability of a POMV
- the legislature might still abuse the ERA.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied, "Yes, that's my
concern." He had only been around the legislature for 7
years but had heard a marked shift in public dialog about
the inviolateness of the PF. He wanted to severe the
conversation from how large the dividend should be.
However, he thought all of the legislators could or should
agree on not spending down the PF. It would be easy to do
for a year or two, even if it put the state in a tough
position a generation from present day. Based on recent
discussions, he thought it was very possible to spend down
the fund. He explained when the legislature struggled to
balance the budget or reach a fiscal plan, it kicked the
can down the road. His goal was to have enough money
protected permanently in the PF that the legislature could
continue to have the argument about how to spend the money.
However, if the legislature spent that money down
currently, the state would not have money in 20 years to
argue about how it should be spent or how large the
dividend should be.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that the committee was currently
talking about the PF Earnings Reserve. The Permanent Fund
Corpus could not be touched by anyone without a vote of the
people.
4:01:20 PM
Representative Carpenter thought it was disconcerting that
legislators were having conversations about what to do with
the money when there were laws in place dictating where it
should be spent. Lawmakers had subsequently disregarded the
laws. The money in reference was supposed to go out to the
people over the previously several years in the form of
dividend checks that instead, stayed in the ERA. There were
individuals that were rightly upset about it. Presently,
the committee was having a conversation about taking the
money and not paying it to them as requested. Instead, what
was being suggested was to lock it away forever, a portion
of which would come back in the form of future PF
dividends.
Co-Chair Wilson corrected Representative Carpenter about
what was being discussed. The bill did not take all of the
money in the ERA. Currently, the bill was in committee and
reflected $5.5 billion. It did not reflect the back pay or
the dividend. Both could still be paid even with the
transfer. She did not want the wrong message sent to
Alaskans.
Representative Carpenter explained that the question he was
getting to was about the requirement to back the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR). The state had a very
small balance in the CBR and an unfunded liability of sorts
to fund it. He asked why it would be more appropriate,
considering it was important for the legislature to follow
the law, to put it into the PF corpus rather than the CBR
to meet its obligation.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded that the
representative first talked about money that was not
distributed as dividends but stayed in the ERA. He thought
the instance referred to the time Governor Walker vetoed
part of the dividend. The money was retained in the ERA.
Speaking to that scenario, it was a small fraction of the
total amount of cash in the ERA presently. He elaborated
that the vast majority, $16 billion or $17 billion of the
$18.9 billion in the ERA, was from market returns
independent of the point Representative Carpenter was
making. The reason there was so much money in the ERA was
mostly independent of the decisions made by past governors
regarding dividends.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins addressed Representative
Carpenter's question about the CBR account replenishment.
The Constitutional Budget Reserve Account was designed to
be spent down when the legislature deemed the need
sufficient. The goal was to protect the PF monies forever
for the benefit of future generations. There were different
purposes for the CBR and the ERA. Taking money from the PF
and putting it into the CBR was effectively equivalent to
spending down the PF. There would be a time delay, but it
would be tantamount to spending the PF.
Co-Chair Wilson added, for the purpose of accuracy, that
Governor Walker vetoed the dividend 1 year and the
legislature in the following 2 years chose an amount out of
the sky versus following the prescribed formula.
Representative Carpenter did not understand the equation
between spending down the PF when the corpus was not
getting spent, while spending down the CBR, the account in
which the legislature was required to pull from in lean
times.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that the POMV draw came from the
PF ERA. The difference between putting $5.5 billion into
the corpus versus the CBR was to protect the savings from
being used except with a vote of the people. She emphasized
that once money was placed into the corpus, it could not be
accessed without a vote of the people. If the money was
placed into the CBR, it could be used to fulfill the budget
as had been done in the past. If the legislature wanted to
protect the ERA, which only required a vote of 21/11, the
money could be placed into the corpus of the PF or into the
CBR. The money in the CBR could be spent by the
legislature. If the legislature truly wanted to protect the
earnings, it would be best to transfer the money into the
corpus because it required a vote of the people to spend.
The question came down to how much the legislature wanted
to protect the PF.
4:07:01 PM
Representative Carpenter understood the reasons. He pointed
to the requirement for the legislature to pay back the CBR.
He thought they were effectively ignoring the requirement
to repay the CBR if the money went towards the PF corpus.
Co-Chair Wilson asked the sponsor to follow up with a
reference to the statutory requirement for the money to go
to the CBR first. She appreciate Representative Carpenter
bringing up the point.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins would look up the statutory
requirement. He noted that the state had other obligations
such as paying down the oil tax credits, the unfunded
liability of the state pension, and the replenishment of
the CBR. All of the obligations exist, but there was sort
of a Chinese wall with the PF. The money in the ERA was not
available for government spending whether it was
replenishing the CBR or paying down the pension obligation.
Everything under the 5 percent draw was fair game, but
everything above that amount should be off limits. The
legislature had set rules around the 5 percent mark in
order to guarantee a sustainable PF. He did not want to
take more than 5 percent from the PF in any given year.
Representative LeBon recalled that funding for the CBR
began about 15 years previously. High oil prices and a
significant throughput allowed for a build up in the CBR
over a 5 or 6 year period. He asked if his recollection was
accurate. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins deferred to the
Legislative Finance Division.
Representative LeBon iterated his point of the ramp up of
the CBR due to a higher price for oil and revenue rather
than from earnings from the PF or the ERA. If he was
correct, the legislature enacted a decision to spend down
the money. If the money were to be replaced, he wondered if
it should be from business and oil revenues at a future
date versus earnings of the PF.
4:10:25 PM
Co-Chair Wilson addressed the constitutional mandate to
repay the CBR. She was unclear about where the money could
come from to repay the CBR.
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
addressed the question about which money went to the CBR
and indicated that the requirement was defined in the
Alaska Constitution rather than in statute. He explained
that at the end of each year general fund balances were
swept into the CBR as long as there was a liability to the
CBR. The legislature has typically reversed the sweep each
year so that the state was not repaying unless there was a
surplus. The state would not be repaying unless it truly
had a surplus as the state did when oil prices increased as
they did a few years prior. At the time, the state repaid
all of its liability to the CBR. He suggested that the
legislature could appropriate earnings reserve balances.
They would not normally be swept into the CBR, but they
could be appropriated there if the legislature chose to do
so.
Representative LeBon asked if repaying the CBR from normal
revenue sources would be predicated on the price and
production of oil.
Mr. Teal answered it was the way foreseen by the
constitution. The surplus revenue was automatically swept
into the CBR without an appropriation. The legislature also
appropriated general funds to the CBR in addition to the
constitutional requirement. The logic behind that action
was that if the money was swept constitutionally, the
legislature received no credit for repaying the CBR. In
times of a large surplus there was an effort to appropriate
money to the CBR as well.
Representative Carpenter asked about earnings. He asked if
the legislature was trading the PF earnings as revenue. He
suggested that it all spent the same by the government.
Mr. Teal answered they did not consider the ERA as revenue.
If it was considered revenue, the state would currently
have a general fund surplus of $ 18 billion. He indicated
that the ERA was not shown as a general fund balance, it
was a balance in the PF. In the PF section of the
constitution stated that earnings of the PF went into the
general fund unless otherwise specified by law. There was a
statute that stated that the earnings reserves are part of
the PF. If the legislature wanted to it could require the
entire ERA appear as general fund revenue; however, LFD
looked at revenue as a cashflow issue. Therefore, the PF
balance should not be counted as general fund revenue. The
only portion of the earnings reserve that was counted as
revenue was the 5 percent or 5.25 percent POMV payout. The
state counted approximately $3 billion from the ERA as
general fund revenue.
4:15:47 PM
Representative Josephson wanted to confirm that the CBR
language in Section 17 of Article 9 referred to repayment
but did not designate a timeline. He was struck that given
the state's other obligations and because there was no
interest requirement, he suggested the legislature did not
receive credit for repayment.
Mr. Teal responded that there was no timeline on repayment.
He relayed that the timing envisioned by the constitution
was that if there was a surplus, the state would make
repayment. If there was not a surplus, the state might have
additional draws from the CBR if needed. However, the
constitution did not envision a repayment schedule, nor was
interest assessed.
4:17:05 PM
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED Public Testimony.
4:17:16 PM
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated the bill would be set aside.
Amendments for HB 31 were due in her office by Thursday,
May 2, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting scheduled at 5:00 pm
in the current day was canceled.
HB 31 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
4:18:02 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 House Finance Criminal Justice Reform.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN |
| HB031 Sponsor Statement 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB031 Sectional Analysis ver U 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| CSHB 96 Sectional Analysis Version M 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Sponsor Statement 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Summary of Changes Version M to Version U 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Supporting Document Combined Letters of Support 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Supporting Document PPT Presentation 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB031 Presentation 4.29.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB 96 Supporting Doc. Support .pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB 96 Supporting Doc Petition of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |