Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519

02/27/2018 01:30 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
02:26:48 PM Start
02:27:43 PM HB285 || HB286
02:27:44 PM Special Appropriations Amendments
04:44:27 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 2:30 PM --
+= HB 286 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 285 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Subcommittee Reports & Amendments TELECONFERENCED
+ Language Amendments TELECONFERENCED
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 285                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act making  appropriations for  the operating  and                                                                    
     capital    expenses   of    the   state's    integrated                                                                    
     comprehensive mental health  program; and providing for                                                                    
     an effective date."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 286                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act making  appropriations for  the operating  and                                                                    
     loan  program  expenses  of state  government  and  for                                                                    
     certain   programs;    capitalizing   funds;   amending                                                                    
     appropriations;  making   supplemental  appropriations;                                                                    
     making  appropriations  under   art.  IX,  sec.  17(c),                                                                    
     Constitution  of   the  State   of  Alaska,   from  the                                                                    
     constitutional budget  reserve fund; and  providing for                                                                    
     an effective date."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:27:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
^SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENTS                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:27:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 1 (copy on                                                                     
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H SAP  1 -  Restores the  annual Legislative  Intent                                                                    
     language  discouraging   supplemental  budget  requests                                                                    
     Offered by Representative Seaton See 30-GH2564D1                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amends section  4 to make it  a Legislative Intent                                                                    
     section,   restores  the   annual  language   regarding                                                                    
     supplemental  budget requests,  and moves  the existing                                                                    
     language regarding  the costs of  job reclassifications                                                                    
     to a new subsection (b).                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  made a  comment about  the department                                                                    
paying  attention  to the  language  of  the amendment.  She                                                                    
hoped the department  took the language of  the amendment to                                                                    
heart. She  thought certain things  could have  been avoided                                                                    
and the department could have done a much better job.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 1 was ADOPTED.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 2 (copy on                                                                     
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H   SAP  2  -   Revert  to  the   Alaska  Industrial                                                                    
     Development  and  Export  Authority  dividend  language                                                                    
     used in FY18                                                                                                               
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D20                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This  amendment  reverts  the  wording  of  section  7,                                                                    
     regarding the AIDEA dividend, back  to the wording used                                                                    
     in  the FY18  budget that  deposited the  dividend into                                                                    
     the general fund.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  AIDEA  dividend  spends  as  unrestricted  general                                                                    
     fund.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     The  Governor's   budget  did   not  spend   any  AIDEA                                                                    
     dividend.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 2 was ADOPTED.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW Amendment L H SAP 3 (copy on                                                                           
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H  SAP 3 - Reduce  the ERA draw from  5.25 percent to                                                                    
     4.75  percent,  transfer  67  percent  to  the  GF  and                                                                    
     transfer 33 percent directly to the PFD Fund                                                                               
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D52                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amends  sec. 8(c)  by changing  to a  4.75 percent                                                                    
     ERA draw, a reduction  from the Governor's 5.25 percent                                                                    
     draw, and  transferring 67 percent  of the draw  to the                                                                    
     GF.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     This is a  GF revenue reduction of  $260,150.7 from the                                                                    
     Governor's  net transfer  of  $1,910,711.9  to the  GF,                                                                    
     down to $1,650,561.2.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     In  8(d), the  percentage of  the transfer  to the  PFD                                                                    
     Fund is  changed from the  Governor's 30 percent  to 33                                                                    
     percent.  The  amount,   however,  decreases  from  the                                                                    
     Governor's  $818,876.5 to  $812,963.0,  a reduction  of                                                                    
     $5,913.5.  This  amendment  transfers  the  33  percent                                                                    
     directly from  the ERA,  instead of  through the  GF as                                                                    
     the Governor proposed. The  Governor's PFD estimate was                                                                    
     $1216, while  this amendment results in  a PFD estimate                                                                    
     of $1,270.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Amendment L H SAP 3 was WITHDRAWN.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment Replacement L H                                                                      
SAP 3 (copy on file):                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     Replacement L H  SAP 3 - Reduce the ERA  draw from 5.25                                                                    
     percent to 4.75 percent, transfer  67 percent to the GF                                                                    
     and transfer 33 percent directly to the PFD Fund                                                                           
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D52                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amends  sec. 8(c)  by changing  to a  4.75 percent                                                                    
     ERA draw, a reduction  from the Governor's 5.25 percent                                                                    
     draw, and  transferring 67 percent  of the draw  to the                                                                    
     GF.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     This is a  GF revenue reduction of  $260,150.7 from the                                                                    
     Governor's  net transfer  of  $1,910,711.9  to the  GF,                                                                    
     down to $1,650,561.2.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     In  8(d), the  percentage of  the transfer  to the  PFD                                                                    
     Fund is  changed from the  Governor's 30 percent  to 33                                                                    
     percent.  The  amount,   however,  decreases  from  the                                                                    
     Governor's  $818,876.5 to  $812,963.0,  a reduction  of                                                                    
     $5,913.5.  This  amendment  transfers  the  33  percent                                                                    
     directly from  the ERA,  instead of  through the  GF as                                                                    
     the Governor proposed. The  Governor's PFD estimate was                                                                    
     $1216, while  this amendment results in  a PFD estimate                                                                    
     of $1,258.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:30:06 PM                                                                                                                    
At EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:30:55 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENNED                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt wondered  about the difference between                                                                    
the  original  amendment  and  the  new  one.  Chair  Seaton                                                                    
explained  that   in  the  replacement  amendment   the  PFD                                                                    
estimate was $1258.  In the original version  the amount was                                                                    
$1270. The newer version used  reported data provided by the                                                                    
Alaska  Permanent Fund  Corporation  (APFC)  rather than  an                                                                    
estimate.  He  read  Amendment  Replacement  H  SAP  3  (see                                                                    
above).                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair   Gara   thought   there  would   be   additional                                                                    
discussions  on all  of  the aspects  of  the amendment.  He                                                                    
mentioned that the public had  been clear that a dividend of                                                                    
$1000 was not  widely acceptable. He thought  that $1000 was                                                                    
the amount in the Senate's  version of the bill. He believed                                                                    
public support  was necessary.  He thought  a PFD  amount of                                                                    
$1250  was  a good  starting  place  for a  discussion.  The                                                                    
amount would not endanger the  Permanent Fund (PF). He added                                                                    
that  there had  been testimony  regarding the  draw between                                                                    
4.75  percent  (really  closer to  4.25  percent)  and  5.25                                                                    
percent (really  closer to 4.75 percent).  He thought either                                                                    
percentage would work  for a couple of years  but would have                                                                    
to be reduced in the long-term to be more conservative.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:34:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt thought the  amendment would result in                                                                    
a  long-term dialog  because of  its impacts.  He understood                                                                    
the reduction in  the amount of a draw from  the ERA. He was                                                                    
concerned about  the viability of  the ERA into  the future.                                                                    
He thought  the reasonableness  of a higher  percentage like                                                                    
5.25 percent  or 5.5 percent  was appropriate.  He explained                                                                    
that  it  was  possible  the  legislature  would  be  taking                                                                    
larger, unstructured draws in the  future which would have a                                                                    
long-term negative effect  on the fund. He  mentioned that a                                                                    
large  disagreement remained  within  the legislature  about                                                                    
instituting  an  income tax.  He  recognized  that the  $260                                                                    
million  being discussed  was about  the  equivalent to  the                                                                    
governor's proposed  payroll tax.  He believed  the governor                                                                    
wanted to use  the tax revenues for other items.  He asked a                                                                    
philosophical  question  about  the  use of  funds  from  an                                                                    
income  tax. It  was a  question he  felt would  have to  be                                                                    
answered. He wondered what roll  an income tax would play in                                                                    
Alaska's future.  He realized the  fund would not  remain at                                                                    
the same  level in the  long run. However, he  also believed                                                                    
that proper policy and engagement  in Alaska's economy would                                                                    
place  the  state in  a  position  of generating  additional                                                                    
revenues in the future, at which  point, the draw on the ERA                                                                    
could be  reduced. He thought  a higher draw was  prudent in                                                                    
order to stave  off an income tax. He would  be opposing the                                                                    
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:38:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Wilson   asked    if   the   reduction   of                                                                    
$260,150,700 moved the  draw from 5.25 percent  down to 4.75                                                                    
percent.  She  asked if  she  was  correct. Co-Chair  Seaton                                                                    
responded affirmatively.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson asked where  the figure came from. She                                                                    
thought  the conversation  should have  occurred first.  She                                                                    
was unclear  what the  gap was  at 4.75  percent or  at 5.25                                                                    
percent. She  asked for further clarification  about how the                                                                    
number was calculated and about the remaining revenue gap.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that the  amount of the draw was not                                                                    
based  on  the  state's  budget deficit.  The  amount  of  a                                                                    
Percent  of  Market  Value  (POMV) draw  was  based  on  the                                                                    
economics  of  an  endowment. In  the  previous  year,  both                                                                    
bodies  passed legislation  containing a  POMV draw  of 5.25                                                                    
for either  2 years  or 3  years and reducing  it down  to 5                                                                    
percent. A  draw of 5.25  percent was not sustainable  for a                                                                    
long period.  The draw would  be heftier at the  start while                                                                    
waiting  for  revenues to  come  online,  then it  would  be                                                                    
reduced. The Alaska Permanent  Fund Corporation (APFC) board                                                                    
of  directors adopted  new actuarial  reports  that were  .5                                                                    
percent  less. The  average  value return  used  to be  6.95                                                                    
percent for  the following 10  years. More recently,  it was                                                                    
6.5 percent for the same  period. In subtracting .5 percent,                                                                    
the  percentage  would  equal 4.75  percent  and  considered                                                                    
slightly  aggressive. He  could  distribute the  Legislative                                                                    
Finance Division  estimates, or he  could bring Mr.  Teal to                                                                    
the table to provide testimony.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton continued that a  sustainable draw was being                                                                    
discussed  rather  than  overdrawing in  the  short-term  in                                                                    
anticipation of doing something  in the long-term. Since the                                                                    
legislature was not doing anything  to address the long-term                                                                    
problem, he suggested making a  sustainable draw at present.                                                                    
He was  trying to  determine whether the  legislature should                                                                    
make a  sustainable draw. The amendment  indicated that 4.75                                                                    
was a sustainable  draw percentage that should  keep up with                                                                    
inflation and should allow the  PF to grow slowly. The basis                                                                    
for the ERA draw was the  endowment model and letting the PF                                                                    
value  grow with  inflation. He  wanted to  ensure that  the                                                                    
legislature  was  not  drawing   down  the  total  value  in                                                                    
relationship  to inflation  of  the fund.  He reported  that                                                                    
5.25 percent drew  down the value of the  Permanent Fund. He                                                                    
felt  that the  legislature  should be  discussing the  best                                                                    
sustainable  draw  that  would   not  reduce  the  inflation                                                                    
adjusted  value of  the  fund. He  concluded  that the  4.75                                                                    
percent  maintained  the  inflation adjusted  value  of  the                                                                    
fund.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  wondered what amount the  state would                                                                    
glean  with  the  draw and  anticipated  revenues.  Co-Chair                                                                    
Seaton responded  that if the  legislature adopted  the plan                                                                    
the  House sent  over  to  the Senate  on  early funding  of                                                                    
education (including  a draw from the  Constitutional Budget                                                                    
Reserve), and this amendment was  included, the budget would                                                                    
be fully balanced.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked about the bill  Co-Chair Seaton                                                                    
mentioned and  whether the $1.2  billion was  available. She                                                                    
asked  for  clarity  around which  funding  would  fill  the                                                                    
state's fiscal gap. Co-Chair Seaton  indicated that the bill                                                                    
that was  approved did not  include the particular  draw and                                                                    
would  require  about  $1.2 billion  to  fully  balance  the                                                                    
budget  and provide  some headroom  for future  supplemental                                                                    
requests.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson wanted  to understand  that the  $1.1                                                                    
billion included  the $200 million for  headroom. Otherwise,                                                                    
the state's  gap would  be about $900  million based  on the                                                                    
draw  from the  earnings  reserve.  Co-Chair Seaton  replied                                                                    
that the  number was  about $1.1  billion which  included an                                                                    
estimate of $200 million from the CBR for headroom.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson would  be maintaining  her objection.                                                                    
She thought  the legislature should  have had  the amendment                                                                    
at the beginning of the process  rather than at the end. She                                                                    
thought  the  legislature could  have  had  a more  targeted                                                                    
amount. She understood the explanation  between the 5.25 and                                                                    
4.75 percentage  and the Permanent  Fund not making  as much                                                                    
as  anticipated.  She  also  understood  the  draw  was  not                                                                    
sustainable for a long time.  She thought it would have been                                                                    
better to know  that with the suggested draw  there would be                                                                    
a deficit  of $900 million  that would  have to come  out of                                                                    
the CBR,  about half of  its value. She reiterated  that she                                                                    
wished the amendment would have been addressed sooner.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  thought it  was important  to clarify                                                                    
that  the analysis  presented to  APFC indicated  that there                                                                    
was a 48 percent chance that  over 10 years the value in the                                                                    
ERA would dip a dollar or  more below what it currently was,                                                                    
adjusted for inflation. It did  not mean the state would see                                                                    
a devaluation, but  there was a 48 percent  chance it could.                                                                    
The presentation  included looking  back at the  previous 10                                                                    
years with  a 30 percent  correction after the  second year.                                                                    
He thought to say that  the 5.25 would automatically devalue                                                                    
the fund was not true based  on the presentation to APFC. He                                                                    
wondered,   if  the   legislature  was   so  interested   in                                                                    
protecting the inflation value of  the fund, why there would                                                                    
be  the following  2 amendments  that remove  the inflation-                                                                    
proofing  language. He  suggested that  the legislature  did                                                                    
not have to draw 5.25 percent for 10 years.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:48:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  responded  that  there was  a  48  percent                                                                    
chance  of  devaluing  somewhat.  However, there  was  a  30                                                                    
percent  chance of  the entire  ERA dropping  to zero  which                                                                    
meant there  would be  no PFD  and no  POMV dollars  to draw                                                                    
from. He  was concerned  with the 30  percent chance  of the                                                                    
entire ERA disappearing.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt suggested,  then, that the legislature                                                                    
should  not be  increasing  the budget.  He  argued that  in                                                                    
every  portion of  the issue,  there could  be a  30 percent                                                                    
chance  of   the  permanent  fund  failing   altogether.  He                                                                    
continued  that  the  body  had chosen  not  to  reduce  the                                                                    
budget. He thought the legislature  had failed at its duties                                                                    
of  controlling  the  size  of   government  and  failed  at                                                                    
recognizing  5.25  percent did  not  work.  He continued  to                                                                    
argue  that  the  legislature  had  not  done  its  job.  He                                                                    
believed the  budget displayed a growth  in government which                                                                    
would require more  funds from the ERA or  through taxes. He                                                                    
would rather  adjust appropriately  and manage than  look at                                                                    
an income  tax. He  opined that the  increase in  the budget                                                                    
provided the opportunity to bust open the permanent fund.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara  understood   the  frustration  around  the                                                                    
table. He  stated that  the state  had been  rearranging the                                                                    
furniture  on the  Titanic.  He spoke  to  the dwindling  of                                                                    
savings over the previous 5  years. He thought balancing the                                                                    
budget  would mean  depleting the  savings without  a fiscal                                                                    
plan in  place. He  pointed out that  the amendment  did not                                                                    
reflect a sustainable course. He  disagreed with the comment                                                                    
that  there had  not been  reductions. There  had been  $3.5                                                                    
billion in  cuts, 40 percent  of the budget since  2013. The                                                                    
idea that  cutting the  budget would  solve the  deficit had                                                                    
not  worked;  it had  extended  the  recession. He  believed                                                                    
there were  ways to shore  up the  economy and shore  up the                                                                    
state's  finances  outside of  an  income  tax. He  admitted                                                                    
there was a vote the previous  year to impose a small income                                                                    
tax on  higher earners that  did not get enough  support. He                                                                    
believed there was  an easier way. He advocated  a simple 25                                                                    
percent tax on all company  profits (reflected in a bill the                                                                    
House passed)  which would have  raised $550 million  in the                                                                    
current  year.  It  would  have  raised  $700  million  that                                                                    
occurred  in oil  prices. As  long as  there was  resistance                                                                    
from  those with  the greatest  privilege  chipping in,  the                                                                    
circumstances  were what  people  were left  with. He  hoped                                                                    
that by  the end of the  session the issue would  not be the                                                                    
only one being discussed.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Thompson  agreed with Vice-Chair Gara  that a                                                                    
few years  back the state  had $17 billion in  savings which                                                                    
included money from  the CBR and the ERA  added together. He                                                                    
thought he was correct.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair    Gara   corrected    Representative   Thompson,                                                                    
indicating the CBR and the Statutory Budget Reserve (SBR).                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:53:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Pruitt   reminded    the   committee   that                                                                    
previously $3  billion was  placed in  retirement to  try to                                                                    
manage overall costs.  He spoke to having  tried to initiate                                                                    
reductions  while being  a member  of the  finance committee                                                                    
and argued  that everyone who  had sat in the  finance rooms                                                                    
over  the prior  10 years  had played  a role  in where  the                                                                    
state  was at  presently. He  suggested that  the state  was                                                                    
moving  in a  different  direction than  where  it had  been                                                                    
previously.  He added  that pointing  fingers  for what  had                                                                    
happened  in the  past was  not constructive.  The amendment                                                                    
was  an attempt  to address  the issue.  He did  not have  a                                                                    
problem with the disagreement on how to solve the issue.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster directed  members  to  keep their  comments                                                                    
specific to the topic.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson mentioned  that public testimony would                                                                    
be heard  on Thursday,  Friday, and Saturday.  The committee                                                                    
had  not  yet  addressed  the  amount of  the  PFD  and  the                                                                    
splitting of  funds. The amendment  reflected a split  of 66                                                                    
percent  going to  the government  and 33  percent going  to                                                                    
dividends. Currently the dividend  sat at $1258. She thought                                                                    
that the  changes to the PFD  would hit closer to  home. The                                                                    
governor's proposal  included a  70/30 split. She  wanted to                                                                    
make sure  the information was  correct for the sake  of the                                                                    
public. She relayed  that she was not frustrated.  She ran a                                                                    
private business and before she  spent money she had to know                                                                    
how much she  was making. Before creating her  budget at the                                                                    
beginning of  the year, she had  to know how much  money she                                                                    
had. She thought the legislature  had not looked at how much                                                                    
money  the  state had  before  being  well into  the  budget                                                                    
process. She  thought it  would be better  to know  how much                                                                    
could be  spent before designing  a budget and  addressing a                                                                    
fiscal gap. Co-Chair Seaton indicated  that the question had                                                                    
to do with what would be a sustainable draw amount.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:58:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVID  TEAL,  DIRECTOR,  LEGISLATIVE FINANCE  DIVISION,  was                                                                    
unclear of what information he was to provide.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton asked him to  speak to the sustainability of                                                                    
the proposed  draw in the  amendment in comparison  to other                                                                    
percentages.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Teal  suggested looking  at the  numbers. By  taking 6.5                                                                    
percent  of  earnings  and   subtracting  2.25  percent  for                                                                    
inflation, 4.25 percent  would be left as a draw  to be paid                                                                    
out. He did  not believe he had to review  the 5-year moving                                                                    
average concept. He continued that  the rate at 4.25 percent                                                                    
was essentially  less if looking  at the 5-year  average. He                                                                    
argued  that   a  5.5  percent  nominal   payout  was  still                                                                    
conservative, and  the state should be  gaining on inflation                                                                    
at a  4.5 percent payout.  He suggested that a  4.75 percent                                                                    
payout was slightly  aggressive. The real value  of the fund                                                                    
should  increase if  the fund  earned 6.5  percent. However,                                                                    
part of that  increase would be attributable  to the royalty                                                                    
money flowing into the fund.  He conveyed that 5 percent was                                                                    
aggressive but not out of  line. He thought the commissioner                                                                    
of  revenue  and  Angela  Rodell from  APFC  indicated  a  5                                                                    
percent payout  would be  okay -  aggressive but  doable. He                                                                    
added  that as  long  as  there were  deficits  there was  a                                                                    
problem.  It almost  did  not matter  what  payout rate  the                                                                    
legislature  defined.  The  state had  deficits  that  would                                                                    
eliminate the CBR within 2  years (at a $900 million deficit                                                                    
per year).                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Teal  continued to  explain that if  the state  paid out                                                                    
4.75  percent but  left  the state  a  $900 million  deficit                                                                    
without  any  other  reserve  account   to  draw  from,  the                                                                    
legislature  would  likely  end  up drawing  from  the  ERA.                                                                    
Although the  POMV payout might  be 4.75, it  would actually                                                                    
be much  higher if  4.75 plus another  $1 billion  was drawn                                                                    
from  the  ERA  making  the rate  substantially  higher  and                                                                    
unsustainable. The  real value  of the Permanent  Fund would                                                                    
fall,  and the  ERA would  begin to  dwindle. He  emphasized                                                                    
that until  the budget  was balanced, whether  through taxes                                                                    
or  additional  reductions,  it would  not  be  possible  to                                                                    
determine a sustainable  draw from the ERA.  The deficit had                                                                    
to be filled first. Currently,  the committee was looking at                                                                    
a 4.75 percent  draw, which was sustainable  and should keep                                                                    
pace  with inflation  for the  Permanent  Fund. However,  in                                                                    
order  to keep  pace with  inflation, the  legislature could                                                                    
not draw more  than 4.75 percent in the  form of unscheduled                                                                    
draws.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:04:31 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:04:40 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Foster, Seaton                                                                     
OPPOSED:    Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grenn was absent from the vote.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION  PASSED (6/4).  Amendment Replacement  L H  SAP 3                                                                    
was ADOPTED.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED  to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP  4 and L H                                                                    
SAP 5 together.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED to bundling the amendments.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment  L H SAP 4 (copy on                                                                    
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H SAP 4 - Delete FY16 - FY18 inflation-proofing of                                                                       
     the Alaska permanent fund                                                                                                  
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D11                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amendment  deletes section  8(e) which  would have                                                                    
     transferred  an   estimated  $1,450,000,000   from  the                                                                    
     earnings  reserve  account  to  the  principal  of  the                                                                    
     Alaska  permanent   fund  to  offset  the   effects  of                                                                    
     inflation on  the principal of  the fund during  FY16 -                                                                    
     FY18.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  spoke to  his objection.  He believed                                                                    
the legislature needed to inflation-proof  the corpus of the                                                                    
Permanent Fund. He  had been arguing the point  for 4 years.                                                                    
He elaborated that the pressure  would be on the legislature                                                                    
to control  the budget, and  it was  now seeking to  use the                                                                    
ERA. The one thing the  legislature could not do was devalue                                                                    
the corpus of  the fund. The legislature had  to protect it.                                                                    
He would  be removing his  objection, not because  he agreed                                                                    
with  the  decision,  but because  he  recognized  that  the                                                                    
momentum, the decision, and the fight was in the past.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara  spoke to his  objection. He  clarified that                                                                    
the  estimated $62  billion in  the Permanent  Fund was  the                                                                    
combination of the  principle and the ERA.  The amount would                                                                    
remain the  same whether  or not  the amendment  passed. The                                                                    
amendment  recognized that  the state  had done  a poor  job                                                                    
solving its  fiscal gap. Without pointing  any fingers there                                                                    
was a  huge fiscal gap  of $27  billion or $2.5  billion. He                                                                    
stated  that with  a real  construction  budget the  deficit                                                                    
would be closer  to $3 billion. The legislature  had to come                                                                    
up with a  solution to the fiscal problem. Before  he was in                                                                    
the  House Majority  there were  2 years  of not  inflation-                                                                    
proofing  the  Permanent  Fund.  Now  that  he  was  in  the                                                                    
Majority the fiscal  gap remained and would  until the state                                                                    
figured  it  out.  The  money  ultimately  remained  in  the                                                                    
Permanent Fund  in the ERA  portion. He thought it  would be                                                                    
smart  to start  putting  money in  the  principle once  the                                                                    
state figured out  how to deal with the  $2.7 billion budget                                                                    
deficit which had not happened in 5 years.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:09:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  wanted people  to understand  that it                                                                    
was counted  the same. However,  she thought  it [inflation-                                                                    
proofing dollars]  should be  put back  in as  revenue grew.                                                                    
She  suggested  inserting  intent language  that  the  money                                                                    
should be paid  back when the state had the  money to do so.                                                                    
If the  money was moved now,  the money would move  from the                                                                    
ERA into  the Corpus of  the fund.  The corpus could  not be                                                                    
touched without  a vote  of the  people. Although  the money                                                                    
was being utilized in terms  of interest earnings, there was                                                                    
a major  difference as to  whether it  was in the  corpus or                                                                    
the ERA. She reminded members  that the corpus was protected                                                                    
in the constitution.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 4 was ADOPTED.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment  L H SAP 5 (copy on                                                                    
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H SAP  5  - Delete  FY19  inflation-proofing of  the                                                                    
     Alaska permanent fund                                                                                                      
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D12                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This deletes section 8(f)  which would have transferred                                                                    
     an  estimated $943  million from  the earnings  reserve                                                                    
     account  to  the principal  of  the  permanent fund  to                                                                    
     offset the effects of inflation in FY19.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  spoke to his objection.  He explained                                                                    
that  there was  an  opportunity in  the  following year  to                                                                    
inflation proof  the fund. He disagreed  with continuing the                                                                    
practice from the past three  years of not putting inflation                                                                    
monies into  the corpus.  He wanted to  ensure the  value of                                                                    
the  fund  remained  in the  long-term.  He  reiterated  his                                                                    
position on protecting the value of the fund.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN  FAVOR:  Kawasaki,  Thompson,  Gara,  Grenn,  Guttenberg,                                                                    
Seaton, Foster                                                                                                                  
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). Amendment L H SAP 5 was ADOPTED.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment  L H SAP 6 (copy on                                                                    
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H  SAP 6 -  Amends sec. 9(f)  and adds new  sec. 9(g)                                                                    
     for legislative costs of actuarial analysis on bills                                                                       
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D41                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This  amends sec.  9(f)  by adding  the  not to  exceed                                                                    
     amount  of $500.0  for  retirement  plan sponsor  costs                                                                    
     instead of leaving an open-ended appropriation.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     This also  adds new  sec. 9(g) restoring  language used                                                                    
     in  FY18 to  appropriate  the amount  necessary to  the                                                                    
     Department of  Administration to cover  actuarial costs                                                                    
     associated  with bills  introduced by  the legislature.                                                                    
     This language should be  considered standard, though it                                                                    
     may not actually be used each and every year.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 6 was ADOPTED.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:14:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 7 and                                                                          
Amendment L H SAP 8(copy on file):                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H SAP  7 -  Delete  open-ended unrestricted  general                                                                    
     fund appropriation for Medicaid Services                                                                                   
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D3                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     This  amendment  deletes  sec.  14(a),  the  open-ended                                                                    
     unrestricted  general fund  appropriation for  Medicaid                                                                    
     Services that was requested by  the Governor. Given the                                                                    
     budgetary  implications  of  the Medicaid  program,  it                                                                    
     would be unwise for  the Legislature to grant unlimited                                                                    
     UGF without program review.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Also see  the related  amendment to delete  sec. 14(b),                                                                    
     the  open-ended appropriation  of federal  receipts for                                                                    
     the Medicaid program.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H  SAP  8  -   Delete  open-ended  federal  receipts                                                                    
     appropriation for Medicaid Services                                                                                        
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D4                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     This  amendment  deletes  subsection 14(b),  the  open-                                                                    
     ended  federal  receipts   appropriation  for  Medicaid                                                                    
     Services  that  was  requested   by  the  Governor.  If                                                                    
     additional  federal   receipts  are   anticipated,  the                                                                    
     Department of  Health and  Social Services  may request                                                                    
     expenditure  approval by  submitting a  revised program                                                                    
     (RPL)  to the  Legislative Budget  and Audit  Committee                                                                    
     during the  interim. Any such RPL  provides forewarning                                                                    
     that  a  general  fund   supplemental  will  likely  be                                                                    
     forthcoming during the next legislative session.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read both amendments (see above).                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Gara had  some issues  with  the amendments  but                                                                    
would be  supporting them. He  thought that until  the state                                                                    
solved its budget  crisis, which it had not, in  a small way                                                                    
some of the  hospitals and providers would have  to chip in.                                                                    
He argued  that when there  was not enough  Medicaid funding                                                                    
the  state  still  had  to  pay  its  bills.  If  there  was                                                                    
inadequate  money at  the end  of the  fiscal year,  and the                                                                    
state  did not  pass a  fast track  supplemental during  the                                                                    
session, hospitals and medical  providers would have to wait                                                                    
for  their payments.  Alaska statute  required the  state to                                                                    
make their payments,  the only question had to  do with when                                                                    
they paid them. If the department  ran out of money in April                                                                    
or May  and a  budget was not  passed, payment  would likely                                                                    
occur  in  July  or  August. He  understood  the  aspect  of                                                                    
accountability and why the amendment was being proposed.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson thought  the  amendments helped  with                                                                    
the  accountability  aspect  of   the  issue.  She  believed                                                                    
certain  adjustments   could  be  made  by   the  department                                                                    
depending  on  the  number  of people  and  the  costs.  She                                                                    
maintained  that the  amendments offered  some clarity.  She                                                                    
appreciated the co-chair for the amendments.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment  L H SAP 7 and Amendment                                                                    
L H SAP 8 were ADOPTED.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:18:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment  L H SAP 9 (copy on                                                                    
file):                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H  SAP 9 -  Relocate DOTPF debt,  school construction                                                                    
     debt and REAA School Fund  from sec. 30 and change fund                                                                    
     source                                                                                                                     
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D5                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     This amendment makes several changes:                                                                                      
     1)  It  amends  sec.  22(e)  by  relocating  and  using                                                                    
     general  funds  for  DOTPF  debt  provisions  that  the                                                                    
     Governor  had  funded  from the  Constitutional  Budget                                                                    
     Reserve  Fund (CBR)  in sec.  30(b) (Amendment  page 1,                                                                    
     line 5 -page 2, line 3).                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     2)  It  amends  sec.  22(m)  by  relocating  and  using                                                                    
     general   funds  for   the  school   construction  debt                                                                    
     provision that the Governor had  funded from the CBR in                                                                    
     sec. 30(d) (Amendment page 2, lines 7 - 14).                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     3) It adds  sec. 24(k) by relocating  and using general                                                                    
     funds for  the capitalization  of the REAA  School Fund                                                                    
     appropriation  that the  Governor had  funded from  the                                                                    
     CBR in sec. 30(e) (Amendment page 2, lines 16 - 20).                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     4)   Deletes  sec.   30(b)  DOTPF   debt,  (d)   school                                                                    
     construction   debt   and    (e)   REAA   School   Fund                                                                    
     capitalization (Amendment page 3, lines 1 - 7).                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     All  of  the other  items  in  the amendment  are  just                                                                    
     updating section reference numbers.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson spoke  to  her  objection. She  asked                                                                    
about funding  if the  amendment did  not to  pass. Co-Chair                                                                    
Seaton replied that  if amendment did not  pass, the funding                                                                    
would come from the CBR.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  believed  the   way  the  bill  read                                                                    
[without the  amendment] was the  governor's way  of showing                                                                    
that the  state's unrestricted general funds  had gone down,                                                                    
which they  had not. The  amendment would better  reflect an                                                                    
accurate picture  of the state's spending,  especially since                                                                    
they   were   ongoing    appropriations.   Co-Chair   Seaton                                                                    
responded, "That's correct."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 9 was ADOPTED.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  MOVED to ADOPT  Amendment L H SAP  10 (copy                                                                    
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H SAP 10 - Capitalize the Oil and Gas Tax Credit                                                                         
     Fund Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                      
     See 30-GH2564D33                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amends the Fund Capitalization section 24 by                                                                          
     adding a new subsection (f) capitalizing the oil and                                                                       
     gas tax credit fund with $49 million.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Another    amendment    deletes   the    $27    million                                                                    
     appropriation the Governor submitted for the interest                                                                      
     payment per the proposed bond financing legislation.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:21:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson spoke to  her objection. She heard the                                                                    
$206,000 figure.  She wondered if the  state was calculating                                                                    
the number differently than previously.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton responded that the  calculation was based on                                                                    
the  money received,  which was  in  the transmittal  letter                                                                    
from Governor  Parnell when he  transmitted the bill  to the                                                                    
legislature. It stated that money  received 10 percent above                                                                    
a $60 projected price or 15  percent below a $60 price would                                                                    
go into  the fund. The way  it was calculated on  10 percent                                                                    
or  15  percent  of  the tax  liability  calculation  before                                                                    
subtracting  the  credits. The  state  did  not receive  the                                                                    
money from the oil companies.  The amount the state received                                                                    
was the tax from the  oil companies minus their tax credits.                                                                    
The calculation was 15 percent  of the money received by the                                                                    
state from production  tax credits. He was  referring to the                                                                    
tax  calculation for  $49  million. He  noted  that the  oil                                                                    
companies'  tax calculation,  before  they subtracted  their                                                                    
credits, was  the $206 million figure  Representative Wilson                                                                    
had mentioned.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson remembered  having a conversation with                                                                    
Mr.  Alper from  the Tax  Division about  one design  of the                                                                    
calculation when there was  significant discussion about the                                                                    
tax bill  and whether Alaska  could afford the  tax credits.                                                                    
She mentioned  a memo from  the Department of  Revenue (DOA)                                                                    
that   stated   they   had  been   doing   the   calculation                                                                    
incorrectly.  She  was  concerned about  the  oil  companies                                                                    
having to wait because of  the department knowing that after                                                                    
certain things  were completed the  companies would  have to                                                                    
be paid.  She thought the  state was not calculating  in the                                                                    
same  way it  had  been a  few years  prior.  She asked  for                                                                    
clarification.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  replied  that  Representative  Pruitt  had                                                                    
asked a question  about a year prior  regarding the meaning.                                                                    
He had responded  to his question that there were  2 ways of                                                                    
interpreting the  statute. One way would  currently generate                                                                    
$206 million and  the other way would  generate $49 million.                                                                    
He  had asked  Legislative  Legal Services  to research  the                                                                    
intention of  the statute. There was  no legislative history                                                                    
of  intent other  than the  transmittal letter  sent by  the                                                                    
governor with his bill which  stated, "Money received by the                                                                    
oil companies".  The state did  not receive what  would make                                                                    
the $206  million calculation. The state  received the money                                                                    
that made the $49 million calculation.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson understood  Co-Chair Seaton's  point.                                                                    
She reported that  when she was speaking  with oil companies                                                                    
about what to do with the  backlog of tax credits, there was                                                                    
a significant amount of pressure  about paying the companies                                                                    
in  the  same  year.  She  had  responded  to  them  in  the                                                                    
negative. The  statute stated that  the state  made payments                                                                    
based on  the formula. She  was hearing Co-Chair  Seaton say                                                                    
that recently after the discussions  took place with the oil                                                                    
companies, someone decided the statute  was not clear on how                                                                    
the  number  should  be  calculated.  She  thought  the  new                                                                    
decision regarding  the calculation  impeded trust.  She was                                                                    
questioning the change.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  wanted  to  hear  from  Commissioner                                                                    
Fisher. He asked Co-Chair Seaton  which calculation was used                                                                    
for the  previous year's  budget. Co-Chair  Seaton responded                                                                    
that in  the prior  year the calculation  was reduced  by 50                                                                    
percent.  [Inaudible   section]  They  compromised   at  $77                                                                    
million.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  noted that it was  the minimum amount                                                                    
based on the  statute as it had been read  for several years                                                                    
prior.  He   asked  if  he  was   correct.  Co-Chair  Seaton                                                                    
responded, "That's correct."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  asked Commissioner Fisher  to comment                                                                    
on  the  desire of  the  administration.  He asked  how  the                                                                    
legislature should  handle the  issue, recognizing  that the                                                                    
legislature  was removing  language  initially requested  by                                                                    
DOR as a result of the  bill not being passed. The state was                                                                    
acting under current  law. He asked how the  current law was                                                                    
defined and recognized by DOR.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:28:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHELDON   FISHER,  COMMISSIONER,   DEPARTMENT  OF   REVENUE,                                                                    
responded that  the department had issued  a revenue sources                                                                    
book for the  previous number of years.  The revenue sources                                                                    
book  issued in  the Fall  had  $206 million  listed as  the                                                                    
estimated  minimum  statutory  tax  credit  liability  under                                                                    
current  statute.  The  administration's position  was  that                                                                    
there  was a  method  before the  legislature  that had  not                                                                    
passed   to-date  that   they   thought   was  prudent   and                                                                    
appropriate. However, it  was founded on the  notion that it                                                                    
would  be discounted  based  on a  stream  of payments  that                                                                    
recognized  the higher  (gross)  amount. The  administration                                                                    
had communicated what they thought  should be applied in the                                                                    
current year.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  mentioned the governor  having vetoed                                                                    
some tax credit funds. He  asked what the amounts were after                                                                    
applying the  veto. Commissioner  Fisher responded  that the                                                                    
state and  the administration had  always paid at  an amount                                                                    
equivalent to the gross amount  of the liability, the higher                                                                    
number  being discussed  presently. It  was consistent  with                                                                    
that formula.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  noted that  in  the  prior year  the                                                                    
legislature, without the need of  a veto pen, calculated the                                                                    
payout  in the  same manner.  He  asked if  he was  correct.                                                                    
Commissioner Fisher responded  affirmatively. He thought the                                                                    
discussion described  presently was accurate -  a portion of                                                                    
it  was in  the  operating budget  and  another portion  was                                                                    
added  in  the   capital  budget.  The  sum   of  those  two                                                                    
appropriations equated to the higher formula.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt indicated  that  DOR had  a fall  and                                                                    
spring forecast.  Numbers could  be different from  the fall                                                                    
forecast to the  spring forecast. Over each  of the previous                                                                    
2 years, he  wondered if the state had  adjusted the initial                                                                    
amount  proposed by  the administration  based  on the  fall                                                                    
forecast. He asked if the  state concluded, after a veto pen                                                                    
or  the previous  year's agreements,  its gross  calculation                                                                    
based on  the spring  numbers. Commissioner  Fisher differed                                                                    
to Mr. Alper from the tax division.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:31:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEN ALPER,  DIRECTOR, TAX  DIVISION, DEPARTMENT  OF REVENUE,                                                                    
responded  that in  the  prior year  the  Fall 2016  Revenue                                                                    
Sources Book  number would  have been  $74 million  based on                                                                    
the   gross  calculation,   the   percentage   of  the   tax                                                                    
calculation before the application  of credits. It was based                                                                    
on the  $74 million  that Co-Chair Seaton's  earlier comment                                                                    
about  the  prior year's  finance  committee  budget of  $37                                                                    
million was  half of that  number. He continued that  by the                                                                    
time  the  spring forecast  came  out  the $74  million  was                                                                    
adjusted  upward  to  $77  million,  ultimately  the  amount                                                                    
appropriated  by  the   legislature  between  the  operating                                                                    
budget bill and the capital  budget bill. For fiscal year 17                                                                    
the number discussed during the  regular session in 2016 was                                                                    
about  $50 million.  The number  went down  to $30  million.                                                                    
That was the year there  was an actual veto. The legislature                                                                    
passed  a  $30 million  appropriation  in  one place  and  a                                                                    
subsequent  $430 million  in another  place linked  with the                                                                    
CBR,  which  was the  portion  Governor  Walker vetoed.  The                                                                    
result  of that  veto was  a $30  million appropriation.  He                                                                    
indicated that  the $30 million  would have been  the larger                                                                    
number. The  same calculation  was used  for FY  17 equaling                                                                    
$30 million and for FY 19 totaling $206 million.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Alper continued  that for  the FY  16 budget,  although                                                                    
there was  some discussion  in session and  a number  of $91                                                                    
million  was kicked  around as  a  statutory language,  $500                                                                    
million  was ultimately  appropriated.  The  governor did  a                                                                    
partial veto.  He relayed that  what had been passed  by the                                                                    
legislature  had been  open-ended language  that stated  the                                                                    
amount requested  was appropriated and estimated  to be $700                                                                    
million. The governor struck out  that language and replaced                                                                    
it with $500 million.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt thought  it was fair to  say that over                                                                    
the previous 3 years the state  had set a precedent of using                                                                    
the gross  numbers as its  minimum tax for  calculation from                                                                    
which the state paid. He asked if he was correct.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Alper  replied that  what  he  described had  been  the                                                                    
state's  practice  and  analysis.   He  could  not  say  the                                                                    
administration  contemplated  the  alternative,  but  simply                                                                    
went   forward  on   the  assumption   that  that   was  the                                                                    
calculation. The  issue of their possibly  being another way                                                                    
of  calculating   it  was  not   something  the   state  was                                                                    
considering prior to  the current year. He  pointed out that                                                                    
the  difference between  the two  numbers in  previous years                                                                    
would have been relatively low,  $10 million to $20 million.                                                                    
There were a  couple of idiosyncrasies in the  FY 19 revenue                                                                    
calculation  in the  relatively higher  oil price/relatively                                                                    
lower oil company spending range.  The delta between the two                                                                    
calculation  methods  was  somewhat  larger  by  about  $150                                                                    
million.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:34:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Pruitt   asked   how  a   change   in   the                                                                    
interpretation of  the statute  would be construed  by other                                                                    
parties including companies, investors, and lenders.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner Fisher  responded regarding  the impact  on the                                                                    
industry.  The  tax  credit  being  discussed  went  to  the                                                                    
smaller  producers  rather  than  the  larger  ones  in  the                                                                    
industry.  Part of  the motivation  of  instituting the  tax                                                                    
credits initially  was to attract small  producers in Alaska                                                                    
to provide  additional competition  for the  development and                                                                    
exploration  of oil,  particularly  on the  North Slope.  As                                                                    
smaller  companies  they  did   not  necessarily  have  deep                                                                    
sources of capital. The major  oil companies had more assets                                                                    
and  could  withstand  variation and  changes.  The  smaller                                                                    
companies struggled.  He thought a financial  hardship could                                                                    
occur for some of the  smaller companies. They might have to                                                                    
curtail  or shut  down  operations for  a  time without  the                                                                    
issue being cleaned up.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner  Fisher furthered  that part  of the  issue was                                                                    
that they  had borrowed  money from  other sources  based on                                                                    
the assumption that  the state would be paying  on a certain                                                                    
schedule.  The  department had  been  in  discussion with  a                                                                    
couple of banks that had  been very active in Alaska lending                                                                    
to the  smaller companies.  They indicated that  because the                                                                    
debt  instruments were  in forbearance  or in  default, they                                                                    
were not  currently in a  position to continue  lending. One                                                                    
of the benefits of the  bill the administration proposed was                                                                    
that it would clean the slate  and allow the companies to be                                                                    
able  to  access  capitol  in  a way  they  had  before.  He                                                                    
believed it  would continue  to be  a financial  hardship on                                                                    
the smaller  companies and reduce their  economic activities                                                                    
in the state.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  asked the  commissioner about  how he                                                                    
saw  redefining  a  statute   after  a  precedent  had  been                                                                    
established.  He suggested  that trust  had been  broken for                                                                    
other groups the state might associate with.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner  Fisher responded  that  there needed  to be  a                                                                    
concern about the  issue. He had shared  that the department                                                                    
went out  and marketed  aggressively to  try to  attract the                                                                    
small  companies  and  made representations  about  how  the                                                                    
state  would behave  in terms  of paying  these credits.  He                                                                    
noted a somewhat  famous picture of a moose  holding a large                                                                    
wad of  cash stating  that if  a person  came to  Alaska the                                                                    
state would make  it available. He shared  the sentiments of                                                                    
several  legislators  that  the   companies  relied  on  the                                                                    
statements  by the  state. However,  he argued  that it  was                                                                    
their  responsibility  to  make  sure  they  understood  the                                                                    
statute  and  its  framework.   He  thought  making  certain                                                                    
declarations about  paying tax  credits as they  were issued                                                                    
and  behaving in  a certain  way to  attract companies  then                                                                    
moving  to making  payments based  on the  statutory formula                                                                    
redefining how  they were paid, created  a credibility issue                                                                    
generally harmful to the state.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:40:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Alper added that the fact  that the topic was subject to                                                                    
debate from year-to-year was a  source of uncertainty in the                                                                    
industry. It  was an obligation  the state  would eventually                                                                    
have to clear, whether it paid  $200 million for a period of                                                                    
5 years  or $50 million for  a period of 20  years. The time                                                                    
factor made  a significant difference  to the people  on the                                                                    
other   side  of   the  transaction.   The  administration's                                                                    
position  did  not  favor  one number  over  the  other.  He                                                                    
suggested   getting  past   the  current   era  by   passing                                                                    
legislation that  was not  in the  current committee  and he                                                                    
noted he probably  should not be speaking to  it. Should the                                                                    
legislation happen, all of the  issues being discussed could                                                                    
be set  aside, the decks  cleared at  no loss to  the state.                                                                    
The legislature  would not have  to worry about how  much to                                                                    
appropriate other than interest payments in future years.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt recognized  that the  bill Mr.  Alper                                                                    
referred to had  not passed yet. He suggested  that what was                                                                    
currently  before  the  committee  was to  try  to  get  the                                                                    
credits paid  off. He thought  the point had been  made that                                                                    
the debate  could happen over  the following 5 years  or the                                                                    
next 20 years. Either way,  the legislature was changing the                                                                    
interpretation  of  a  statute  of  which  a  precedent  had                                                                    
already been set. Both the  governor and the legislature had                                                                    
decided  on a  settlement  amount. The  legislature did  not                                                                    
just settle on the number  that was estimated from the fall.                                                                    
The number was adjusted so that  it fit the gross number. He                                                                    
believed that what had passed  out of the legislature in the                                                                    
past year  was essentially  a sanctioning, a  concurrence by                                                                    
the legislature agreeing with the  way the governor had read                                                                    
the  statute and  defined  it at  the  gross number.  Hence,                                                                    
there was a concern with  the $49 million amount versus $206                                                                    
million. He was interested in continuing the conversation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:42:52 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:47:10 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  moved conceptual  amendment 1 to  L H                                                                    
SAP 10.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt relayed  the  amendment details.  The                                                                    
amendment would  change the  amount of  $49 million  to $206                                                                    
million.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton spoke  to his  objection.  He believed  the                                                                    
committee  should  take  the  statute  as  it  came  to  the                                                                    
legislature.  As the  legislature understood  it, the  state                                                                    
was paying either  10 percent or 15 percent of  the money it                                                                    
received from the  production tax into the  tax credit fund.                                                                    
In the  current calculation the  state paid over  50 percent                                                                    
of what  the state would  receive in total  production taxes                                                                    
in the tax  credit fund. The state was  supposed to receive,                                                                    
based on  the minimum tax  calculations, a minimum  of about                                                                    
$302 million  and would  pay out about  $206 million  to the                                                                    
tax credit fund. He did  not think anyone in the legislature                                                                    
anticipated that  when the state  had a provision to  pay 10                                                                    
percent to 15 percent, it would  pay 60 to 70 percent of all                                                                    
the money  received in  production taxes  to the  tax credit                                                                    
fund. He would be opposing the amendment.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson agreed  with the conceptual amendment.                                                                    
She  thought  it  was unfair  that  the  interpretation  was                                                                    
changed midstream because the  legislature had already set a                                                                    
precedent. She was  concerned it would kill  the industry to                                                                    
change  in  midstream.  She thought  the  state's  word  was                                                                    
important. She argued against changing the game.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:51:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara  did not  think the state  had the  money to                                                                    
pay  4  times the  amount  in  oil  company tax  credits  as                                                                    
proposed by  the amendment. He  argued that the state  was 2                                                                    
years away  from running  out of savings  and being  able to                                                                    
keep  the state  afloat. He  did not  see spending  an extra                                                                    
$150 million in  oil tax credit payments  as wise budgeting.                                                                    
In terms  of staying  consistent with  the statute,  the law                                                                    
had always been  clear that, depending on the  price of oil,                                                                    
the state collected  either 10 percent or 15  percent of the                                                                    
production taxes.  It was  not 10 percent  or 15  percent of                                                                    
the production taxes  the state wished it  collected. It was                                                                    
not 10  percent or 15 percent  of a mythical 35  percent tax                                                                    
rate that  did not apply. At  $60 per barrel of  oil the tax                                                                    
rate was close  to 10 percent. The state paid  10 percent or                                                                    
15 percent  of the  money the  state received  in production                                                                    
taxes. The  goal of the statute  was to make sure  the state                                                                    
did  not have  to pay  money  it did  not have.  He did  not                                                                    
support the amendment to the amendment.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt thought  it was  important to  make a                                                                    
clarification about  a gross  or net  amount. He  thought it                                                                    
was important  to discuss legislative history.  He explained                                                                    
that  in the  discussion on  HB 111  [Legislation passed  in                                                                    
2017 -  Short Title: Oil  and Gas Production  Tax; Payments;                                                                    
Credits] there was a committee  substitute brought up in the                                                                    
Senate  Resources  Committee.   The  committee  removed  the                                                                    
language in  statute that maintained  the oil and  gas fund.                                                                    
An argument was made that  the legislature should not remove                                                                    
the fund  because in the  statute there was a  definition of                                                                    
the minimum  that was  to be paid.  The reason  the argument                                                                    
was made was  because the legislature needed  to ensure that                                                                    
the certainty of  having the minimum tax  remained for those                                                                    
that  would   be  receiving.   The  legislative   intent  in                                                                    
discussions  from  the previous  year  in  a different  bill                                                                    
maintained  wanting a  minimum  tax. In  the  same year  the                                                                    
legislature  decided to  set a  precedent  of utilizing  the                                                                    
gross  number  for  evaluation. He  continued  that  in  the                                                                    
previous  year   in  two  separate  actions   taken  by  the                                                                    
legislature, members re-affirmed using  the gross numbers as                                                                    
had been  done for several  years. Although he did  not like                                                                    
the idea  of spending a  significantly larger amount  in the                                                                    
current year, the  state had the debt which had  to be paid.                                                                    
He argued  that it was  important to stick to  the precedent                                                                    
that  had  already been  set.  He  asked members  for  their                                                                    
support.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn                                                                               
OPPOSED: GARA, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The  MOTION FAILED  (5/6). Conceptual  Amendment 1  to amend                                                                    
Amendment L H SAP 10 FAILED.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken on  the motion to ADOPT  L H SAP                                                                    
10.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg,  Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton                                                                    
OPPOSED: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). Amendment L H SAP 10 was ADOPTED.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:57:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Thompson asked for  reconsideration of a vote                                                                    
on Amendment L H SAP 5.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, it  was so ordered. The motion was                                                                    
RECINDED.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:57:56 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:58:29 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENNED                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster  asked the committee  secretary to  call the                                                                    
roll for a reconsideration vote for L H SAP 5.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster, Seaton                                                                     
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). Amendment l H SAP 5 was ADOPTED                                                                        
upon reconsideration.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:59:24 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:08:14 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster called the meeting back to order. He asked                                                                      
Co-Chair Seaton to move the next amendment.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 11 (copy                                                                       
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H  SAP 11  - Deposit into  the Public  Education Fund                                                                    
     for  state   aid  for   K-12  Foundation   and  Student                                                                    
     Transportation Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                            
     See 30-GH2564D28                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amendment does three things:                                                                                          
     1) It consolidates sec. 24(g)  and (h) into new (g) and                                                                    
     adds contingency  language so  that state aid  for K-12                                                                    
     education  is not  double funded  if another  education                                                                    
     appropriation bill is passed.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     2) It consolidates sec. 24(i)  and (j) into new (h) for                                                                    
     the  appropriation of  general  funds  into the  Public                                                                    
     Education  Fund  for  student transportation  and  adds                                                                    
     contingency language so  that student transportation is                                                                    
     not  double funded  if another  education appropriation                                                                    
     bill is passed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     3) It  also adds  a separate contingency  provision for                                                                    
     the  three  other   education  appropriations  made  in                                                                    
     another education  funding bill,  so that if  the other                                                                    
     bill is passed, there is no double funding.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 11 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 12 (copy                                                                       
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H  SAP  12  -  Add provision  for  the  civil  legal                                                                    
     services fund                                                                                                              
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D27                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Amend  section  25, Fund  Transfers,  by  adding a  new                                                                    
     subsection  with the  same language  used  in the  FY18                                                                    
     budget for the civil legal services fund.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 12 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 13 (copy                                                                       
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H SAP  13 -  Fund  source change  of CBR  to GF  for                                                                    
     retirement  appropriations,  delete  savings,  and  add                                                                    
     intent                                                                                                                     
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D39                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The Governor funded the  state assistance to retirement                                                                    
     program appropriations  from the  Constitutional Budget                                                                    
     Reserve Fund in sec. 30 (f)-(l).                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This  amendment changes  the fund  source  back to  the                                                                    
     unrestricted general fund and  restores a separate bill                                                                    
     section for these appropriations.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  amendment   deletes  the  $25.5   million  savings                                                                    
     appropriation, what had been  sec. 30(h), as the Alaska                                                                    
     Retirement  Management   Board  did  not   approve  the                                                                    
     application of  the anticipated savings to  the PERS (-                                                                    
     $22.15   million)  and   TRS  (-$3.35   million)  state                                                                    
     assistance deposits.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     The amendment  also adds intent language  directing the                                                                    
     ARM Board to  consider the funding ratio  of the Alaska                                                                    
     National  Guard  and  Alaska Naval  Militia  retirement                                                                    
     system when  recommending a retirement  system deposit.                                                                    
     This system  has a  funding ratio  at 123  percent, but                                                                    
     the  ARM  Board  approved   a  resolution  setting  the                                                                    
     deposit at $851,686.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Wilson   spoke   to  her   objection.   She                                                                    
understood  that  the  Alaska  Retirement  Management  (ARM)                                                                    
Board did not  approve the $25.5 million.  She asked whether                                                                    
it was savings.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  indicated that it was  anticipated savings.                                                                    
He did not know whether  the savings would occur because the                                                                    
timeframe in  which they anticipated the  savings might fall                                                                    
in the following year. It had  to do with taking the savings                                                                    
at the  anticipated time  or when  it actually  occurred. It                                                                    
was unknow  if it  would perform  as anticipated.  The state                                                                    
generally looked  at the actuarial  and the  retirement fund                                                                    
resolutions and what was adopted  adopting those rather than                                                                    
generating them.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:13:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked if  the state was  still behind                                                                    
on  payments into  the retirement  fund. She  was trying  to                                                                    
understand how the state could  have savings. She thought it                                                                    
would be better  to leave any excess amount  in savings. She                                                                    
asked  if  an  amount  normally came  out.  Co-Chair  Seaton                                                                    
responded  that   it  had  to  deal   with  determining  the                                                                    
functionality of  the program. He  did not want to  get into                                                                    
details of  how the program  was supposed to  work. However,                                                                    
the state  would not realize  savings until the  program had                                                                    
at least a year to demonstrate itself.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  understood why the money  was back in                                                                    
place. She  expressed concerns  about the  use of  the term,                                                                    
savings  since  there  were   outstanding  payments  to  the                                                                    
retirement fund.  Co-Chair Seaton thought they  were talking                                                                    
about a  calculated amount that was  to be put in  and a new                                                                    
program that was supposed to cost less.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Teal  thought  the  confusion   was  around  the  word,                                                                    
savings.  He suggested  the governor  meant he  was reducing                                                                    
the contribution by $25 million  over what the actuaries had                                                                    
stated.  The language  removed the  reduction and  deposited                                                                    
$25.5 million into the state's retirement fund.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson thought  Mr. Teal's  explanation made                                                                    
more sense. She wanted to  clarify that the state was making                                                                    
a smaller payment.  It would be another yearly  payment on a                                                                    
retirement  account  that  the  state  owed.  Also,  in  the                                                                    
state's normal practice  the state has used  whatever was in                                                                    
the general fund. If the amount  was not enough, it came out                                                                    
of  the  CBR.  She  asked if  Co-Chair  Seaton  was  putting                                                                    
payments back together that had  been split up. She asked if                                                                    
she  was   accurate.  Co-Chair  Seaton   responded,  "That's                                                                    
correct."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Ortiz  asked if  the impact of  the amendment                                                                    
was  to  restore  a  deposit   of  $25.5  million  into  the                                                                    
retirement system  that the  administration proposed  not to                                                                    
make in its budget. Co-Chair Seaton concurred.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 13 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:18:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  MOVED to ADOPT  Amendment L H SAP  14 (copy                                                                    
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H SAP 14 - Delete use of Statutory Budget Reserve                                                                        
     Fund Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                      
     See 30-GH2564D30                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The amendment deletes sec. 29 which used the Statutory                                                                     
     Budget Reserve Fund to help fill the deficit.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson asked for the balance of the CBR.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  responded $170 million to  $172 million. He                                                                    
noted that  the bill that  was sent  over to the  other body                                                                    
included  using $78  million for  pupil transportation.  The                                                                    
balance would  be $68  million if the  rest was  funded from                                                                    
the CBR.  It was only $68  million that was used  but it was                                                                    
the amount "not to exceed."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked if  the number was  $78 million                                                                    
or $68 million. Co-Chair Seaton  responded that as it passed                                                                    
the House  a set amount  of $1.2 billion would  be withdrawn                                                                    
from the  CBR, and the  amount needed, $67.8 million  at the                                                                    
time,  would come  from the  SBR. He  furthered that  of the                                                                    
$1.2 billion,  about $10 million  was appropriated  to pupil                                                                    
transportation. He  suggested that when the  CBR vote failed                                                                    
and   since  it   was  the   amount   necessary  for   pupil                                                                    
transportation,  it  went  up  to the  full  amount  of  $78                                                                    
million.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 14 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  MOVED to ADOPT  Amendment L H SAP  15 (copy                                                                    
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H SAP  15 - Delete the $27 million  for interest on a                                                                    
     financing mechanism  to retire oil and  gas tax credits                                                                    
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D14                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This deletes section 30(c),  the Governor's request for                                                                    
     an estimated $27 million appropriation  from the CBR to                                                                    
     pay  interest on  a financing  mechanism to  retire oil                                                                    
     and gas  tax credits. The appropriation  should be made                                                                    
     via  a  fiscal note  to  the  legislation creating  the                                                                    
     financing mechanism.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     There's another amendment that  will capitalize the oil                                                                    
     and gas tax credit fund at $49 million.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 15 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 16 (copy                                                                       
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H SAP 16 -  Add the necessary CBR cash-flow borrowing                                                                    
     language                                                                                                                   
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D15                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This  amends   section  30  by  adding   the  necessary                                                                    
     Constitutional Budget Reserve  Fund cash-flow borrowing                                                                    
     language.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 16 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:22:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 17 (copy                                                                       
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H  SAP 17 -  CBR used  to balance budget  and provide                                                                    
     for $200 million headroom for FY19 supplementals                                                                           
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D34                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amendment adds two subsections  to section 30, the                                                                    
     Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) Fund section.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     New subsection  (m) uses  the CBR  to balance  the FY19                                                                    
     budget after the draw from the ERA.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     New  subsection  (n) allows  for  $200  million of  CBR                                                                    
     "headroom"  for  potential  FY19 supplementals  as  was                                                                    
     done for FY18 supplementals.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt asked how  the $200 million amount was                                                                    
derived.  Co-Chair Seaton  responded that  the $200  million                                                                    
was an  approximate number used  in the past. Last  year the                                                                    
amount was  placed in the budget  in case of large  fires or                                                                    
storms. The money would be used for supplementals.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt asked  what the  number was  prior to                                                                    
last year  at $200  million. He wondered  if the  number had                                                                    
been  consistent. Co-Chair  Seaton  thought it  had been  as                                                                    
high as $500 million and as low as $100 million.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt mentioned  that  the first  amendment                                                                    
addressed  by   the  committee   outlined  not   having  any                                                                    
supplementals.  The  current  amendment would  provide  $200                                                                    
million  for   that  purpose.  He  thought   the  issue  was                                                                    
addressed  in the  meeting regarding  intent language  about                                                                    
avoiding supplemental  budget requests. He wondered  if $200                                                                    
million  was still  necessary. He  suggested a  lower number                                                                    
might be  more appropriate.  He asked for  people's thoughts                                                                    
on the issue.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that when  he was in the minority he                                                                    
had  had  concerns  because there  was  unlimited  headroom,                                                                    
which he  thought was a  blank check. The  legislature ended                                                                    
up putting  a number of  $500 million to recognize  that the                                                                    
CBR  vote was  a protection  and  required time  out of  the                                                                    
legislative session for  a vote. He suggested  that to allow                                                                    
headroom,  he  wanted to  ensure  that  there was  only  one                                                                    
wrangling CBR  battle during the  year rather  than multiple                                                                    
ones. He  had caught the  element of unlimited  headroom and                                                                    
contested it. The legislature then  settled on $500 million.                                                                    
He   thought  $200   million  was   within   the  range   of                                                                    
conservative numbers.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  noted   that  supplemental  appropriations                                                                    
still had  to be approved.  The headroom provided  a funding                                                                    
source through which funds were available.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  wondered if  the committee  wanted to                                                                    
send a  true message.  She had heard  around the  table that                                                                    
the state  did not have  the money  or a plan.  She believed                                                                    
that leaving  $200 million in  place made it seem  as though                                                                    
the legislature was  not really serious about  what had been                                                                    
stated  in   a  previous  amendment  about   not  wanting  a                                                                    
supplemental.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:27:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Thompson  recalled that when  the legislature                                                                    
allowed  for $500  million in  headroom it  was because  the                                                                    
Alaska  Gasline  Development   Corporation  (AGDC)  expected                                                                    
certain expenses in  order to move forward  with the gasline                                                                    
project. The corporation did not use all of the money.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  appreciated Representative Thompson's                                                                    
comments.  He suggested  that it  would be  easier to  get a                                                                    
supplemental through  if it was  within a  preapproved range                                                                    
to be funded  through the CBR. He remarked  that when people                                                                    
budgeted, they liked to manage  within that budget. A person                                                                    
might not  focus on the  intent language with a  headroom of                                                                    
$200 million. He wanted to offer a conceptual amendment.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt MOVED to  ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1                                                                    
to Amendment  L H  SAP 17. The  amendment would  delete $200                                                                    
million and insert $100 million.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton OBJECTED.  He  explained that  in the  past                                                                    
year there  was $200  million in  headroom funding  and $170                                                                    
million  in  supplemental  requests. He  remarked  that  the                                                                    
supplemental   amounts   were   carefully   considered   for                                                                    
necessity  and legitimacy.  He thought  $200  million was  a                                                                    
reasonable amount.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Pruitt  replied  that  the  $92  million  in                                                                    
Medicaid was  higher than expected  because the goal  was to                                                                    
try to clean up past years.  The money was given to Medicaid                                                                    
to shore  everything up.  He reported  that the  $92 million                                                                    
was part of the $170 million.  He thought the state was in a                                                                    
different situation  going into  the next  year than  in the                                                                    
current year.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken on the  amendment to amend  L H                                                                    
SAP 17.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Grenn, Ortiz, Pruitt, Thompson                                                                        
OPPOSED:    Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Seaton, Foster                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The  MOTION   PASSED  (6/5).   Conceptual  Amendment   1  to                                                                    
Amendment L H SAP 17 was ADOPTED.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 17 as amended                                                                       
was ADOPTED.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:33:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 18 (copy                                                                       
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H SAP 18 -  Delete the contingency language regarding                                                                    
     the funding for the senior benefits program                                                                                
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The  Governor's budget  included  $20  million for  the                                                                    
     senior benefits program  though legislation is required                                                                    
     to extend  the program into FY19  and added contingency                                                                    
     language in section 33.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     This  amendment  deletes  section 33,  the  contingency                                                                    
     provision   regarding  the   senior  benefits   program                                                                    
     funding  as   the  Department  of  Health   and  Social                                                                    
     Services  budget   subcommittee  recommends   that  the                                                                    
     funding be removed from section  1 of the bill. Funding                                                                    
     for  the  extension  of  the  senior  benefits  program                                                                    
     should  be  reflected on  a  fiscal  note, rather  than                                                                    
     retained in the budget bill.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 18 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment L H SAP 19 and L H                                                                     
SAP 20 (copies on file):                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H  SAP 19 -  Technical wording correction  in section                                                                    
     26  that   changes  "reduced"  to  "adjusted"   as  the                                                                    
     Governor submitted.                                                                                                        
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D16                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This is  a technical  correction to wording  in section                                                                    
     26, Salary  and Benefit Adjustments, changing  the word                                                                    
     "reduced"   back   to   "adjusted"  as   the   Governor                                                                    
     submitted.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     There is  an identical amendment submitted  for HB 285,                                                                    
     the mental health budget bill.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L  H  SAP 20  -  MH:  Technical wording  correction  in                                                                    
     section 9  that changes "reduced" to  "adjusted" as the                                                                    
     Governor submitted.                                                                                                        
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2566J1                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     This is  a technical  correction to wording  in section                                                                    
     9, Salary  and Benefit  Adjustments, changing  the word                                                                    
     "reduced"   back   to   "adjusted"  as   the   Governor                                                                    
     submitted.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     There is an identical amendment for HB 286.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 19 and L H SAP                                                                      
20 were ADOPTED.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:35:55 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:36:09 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW Amendment L H SAP 21 (copy on                                                                          
file).                                                                                                                          
     L H SAP  21 - Cut supplemental requests  and change eff                                                                    
     dates for the Comm  Assist, Renewable Energy Grant, and                                                                    
     AKLNG Funds Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                               
     See 30-GH2564D46                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amendment  deletes all supplemental items  from HB                                                                    
     286.   The   supplementals   will  be   considered   in                                                                    
     conjunction with other budget bills.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     The  line numbers  refer  to the  line  numbers of  the                                                                    
     amendment document:                                                                                                        
     Lines 1 and 2 make a conforming title change.                                                                              
     Lines 4 and 5 delete  section 9(g), the Public Defender                                                                    
     Agency supplemental.                                                                                                       
     Lines  7 and  8 delete  section 11,  the Department  of                                                                    
     Corrections   supplementals   and   section   12,   the                                                                    
     Department   of   Education   and   Early   Development                                                                    
     supplementals.                                                                                                             
     Lines 12 - 14 update a section number reference.                                                                           
     Lines 16  and 17 deletes  the Department of  Health and                                                                    
     Social Services supplementals in section 14(c)-(f).                                                                        
     Lines 19  and 20 delete  section 16, the  Department of                                                                    
     Law supplementals.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2 of the amendment:                                                                                                   
     Lines  1 -  5  delete the  Department  of Military  and                                                                    
     Veterans'  Affairs supplementals  in section  17(b) and                                                                    
     (c). Lines  7 and 8  delete section 19,  the Department                                                                    
     of Transportation and Public Facilities supplemental.                                                                      
     Lines  12 -  13  delete section  24(l), the  open-ended                                                                    
     SDPR  appropriation for  FY18  and FY19  to the  Alaska                                                                    
     Gasline Development Corporation.                                                                                           
     Lines 17 - 19 update a section reference number                                                                            
     Lines 21 - 23 update a section reference number                                                                            
     Lines 25  - 26 delete  section 25(f),  the supplemental                                                                    
     for the Alaska marine highway system.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     The   remainder  of   the  amendment   updates  section                                                                    
     reference numbers.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     There  are, however,  three substantive  effective date                                                                    
     changes from June  30, 2018 to July 1,  2018 (from FY18                                                                    
     to FY19) for the following appropriations:                                                                                 
     1.  the  deposit  of  PCE   Endowment  Funds  into  the                                                                    
    Community Assistance Fund (original section 24(f))                                                                          
     2.  the  deposit  of  PCE   Endowment  Funds  into  the                                                                    
     Renewable Energy Grant Fund (original section 25(e))                                                                       
     3. the transfer of the  balance of the in-state natural                                                                    
     gas pipeline fund to the  AK LNG project fund (original                                                                    
     section 24(m))                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Amendment L H SAP 21 was WITHDRAWN.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment Replacement L H                                                                      
SAP 21 (copy on file):                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     Replacement L H SAP 21  - Cut supplemental requests and                                                                    
     change eff dates for the  Comm Assist, Renewable Energy                                                                    
     Grant, and AKLNG Funds                                                                                                     
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
     See 30-GH2564D56                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This amendment  deletes all supplemental items  from HB                                                                    
     286 except  the Alaska Gasline  Development Corporation                                                                    
     multi-year   Statutory   Designated   Program   Receipt                                                                    
     authority  request. The  deleted supplementals  will be                                                                    
    considered in conjunction with other budget bills.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  line numbers  refer  to the  line  numbers of  the                                                                    
     amendment document:                                                                                                        
     Lines 1 and 2 make a conforming title change.                                                                              
     Lines 4 and 5 delete  section 9(g), the Public Defender                                                                    
     Agency supplemental.                                                                                                       
     Lines  7 and  8 delete  section 11,  the Department  of                                                                    
     Corrections   supplementals   and   section   12,   the                                                                    
     Department   of   Education   and   Early   Development                                                                    
     supplementals.                                                                                                             
     Lines  12 -  14 deletes  the Department  of Health  and                                                                    
     Social Services supplementals in section 14(c)-(f).                                                                        
     Lines 15  and 16 delete  section 16, the  Department of                                                                    
     Law supplementals.                                                                                                         
     Lines 20  - 23  delete the  Department of  Military and                                                                    
     Veterans'  Affairs supplementals  in section  17(b) and                                                                    
     (c).                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2 of the amendment                                                                                                    
     Lines  3 and  4 delete  section 19,  the Department  of                                                                    
    Transportation and Public Facilities supplemental.                                                                          
     Lines 8 - 10 update a section reference number.                                                                            
     Lines 12  - 13 delete  section 25(f),  the supplemental                                                                    
     for the Alaska marine highway system.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     The   remainder  of   the  amendment   updates  section                                                                    
     reference numbers.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     There  are, however,  three substantive  effective date                                                                    
     changes from June  30, 2018 to July 1,  2018 (from FY18                                                                    
     to FY19) for the following appropriations:                                                                                 
     1. the deposit of PCE Endowment Funds into the                                                                             
    Community Assistance Fund (original section 24(f))                                                                          
     2. the deposit of PCE Endowment Funds into the                                                                             
     Renewable Energy Grant Fund (original section 25(e))                                                                       
     3. the transfer of the balance of the in-state natural                                                                     
     gas pipeline fund to the AK LNG project fund (original                                                                     
     section 24(m))                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  turned to page  2 of 2.  She referred                                                                    
to number  3, the  transfer of the  balance of  the in-state                                                                    
natural gas  pipeline fund  to the  AKLNG project  fund. She                                                                    
asked  if  the  amount   was  currently  in  the  fast-track                                                                    
supplemental or if it was something new.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:37:49 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:38:47 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  responded  that  the  date  changes  would                                                                    
change  them  from  FY  18   supplemental  items  to  FY  19                                                                    
operating budget items.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pruitt  did not see the  open-ended statutory                                                                    
designated program receipt appropriation for  FY 18 - FY 19.                                                                    
He  suggested  that the  legislature  would  be leaving  the                                                                    
language as  it was in  the bill. Co-Chair  Seaton responded                                                                    
affirmatively.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO  OBJECTION, Replacement Amendment L  H SAP 21                                                                    
was ADOPTED.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  MOVED to ADOPT  Amendment L H SAP  22 (copy                                                                    
on file):                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Language Amendments                                                                                                        
     L H SAP 22 - Remove capital project for MH Essential                                                                       
     Program Equipment                                                                                                          
     Offered by Representative Seaton                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     This  deletes a  mental health  capital project  in the                                                                    
     Department of  Health and Social Services.  The project                                                                    
     is "MH  Essential Program Equipment"  and it  is funded                                                                    
     with $250.0 of  AHFC Dividend Fund (UGF)  and $250.0 of                                                                    
     MHTAAR.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     The amendment shows zero,  rather than -$500.0, because                                                                    
     the project  appears in the  capital budget  system and                                                                    
     reports track only operating budget amendments.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     The  House always  deletes  one  mental health  capital                                                                    
     project  and the  other body  deletes all  other mental                                                                    
     health capital projects, thus making  all of the mental                                                                    
     health   capital   projects   subject   to   conference                                                                    
     committee action.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked why there was  a distinction on                                                                    
the  $250,000  as  the Alaska  Housing  Finance  Corporation                                                                    
(AHFC) dividend fund if it  was truly just UGF. She wondered                                                                    
if it  was for accounting  reasons. Co-Chair Seaton  did not                                                                    
know. He deferred to Ms. Sanders.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:41:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LACEY  SANDERS,   ANALYST,  LEGISLATIVE   FINANCE  DIVISION,                                                                    
responded that  it was a  tracking code  to be able  to keep                                                                    
track of how much the state  was spending of the dividend to                                                                    
make sure it was not being over-appropriated.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked if  the legislature  received a                                                                    
report on  how the dividend  was spent. Ms.  Sanders offered                                                                    
that  the Legislative  Finance Division  could run  a report                                                                    
for the system using that specific fund code.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment L H SAP 22 was ADOPTED.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:42:37 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:42:58 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Seaton  reported  that   the  committee  had  gone                                                                    
through  all  of  the amendments.  The  Legislative  Finance                                                                    
Division and  Legislative Legal  Services would  develop new                                                                    
committee substitutes for HB 285 and HB 286.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster  moved  to  give  the  Legislative  Finance                                                                    
Division and Legislative Legal Services  the ability to make                                                                    
technical  and conforming  changes when  developing the  new                                                                    
committee substitute for HB 285 (FIN).                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Foster  moved  to  give  the  Legislative  Finance                                                                    
Division and Legislative Legal Services  the ability to make                                                                    
technical  and conforming  changes when  developing the  new                                                                    
committee substitute for HB 286 (FIN).                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton  reviewed the agenda for  the following day.                                                                    
The  committed  would  plan  to   adopt  the  new  committee                                                                    
substitutes  for  HB  285  and   HB  286  incorporating  the                                                                    
amendments the committee  had review for the  past few days.                                                                    
The bills would  then be posted on basis  and made available                                                                    
to  the public  for public  testimony which  would begin  on                                                                    
Thursday afternoon [March 1, 2018].                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 286 HB 285 Subc Reports Language Amendments SAP-Packet.pdf HFIN 2/27/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 285
HB 286
HB 286 HB 285 Language Replacement H SAP3.pdf HFIN 2/27/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 285
HB 286
HB 286 & HB 285 Language Replacement H SAP21.pdf HFIN 2/27/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 285
HB 286