Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

03/12/2019 03:30 PM STATE AFFAIRS

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

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

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SB 23 APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 23(STA) Out of Committee
+= SB 24 PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 24(STA) Out of Committee
+= SB 33 ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-Public Testimony Estimated to Start at 6:00 pm-
<Time Limit May Be Set>
+ Consideration of Governor's Appointees: TELECONFERENCED
Boards TBA
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        SB  23-APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:36:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  announced the consideration  of SENATE BILL  NO. 23                                                               
"An Act  making special appropriations from  the earnings reserve                                                               
account  for  the  payment  of   permanent  fund  dividends;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
He recapped  that the bill was  introduced at the request  of the                                                               
governor; it was  last heard on 3/7/19; and  public testimony was                                                               
heard  and closed.  He said  written testimony  will be  accepted                                                               
until 6:00 pm this evening.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER solicited a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:36:47 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL  moved to  adopt  Amendment  1, work  order  31-                                                               
GS1014\A.7 dated 3/9/19.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE              BY SENATOR SHOWER                                                                       
     TO:  SB 23                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 13:                                                                                                           
          Delete "$1,328"                                                                                                       
          Insert "$1,388"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:37:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI objected for discussion purposes.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:37:23 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:37:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  reconvened the  meeting. He  asked Mr.  Tangeman to                                                               
speak  to Amendment  1,  which the  Department  of Revenue  (DOR)                                                               
requested.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:38:10 PM                                                                                                                    
BRUCE  TANGEMAN, Commissioner  Designee,  Department of  Revenue,                                                               
Anchorage, explained that  Amendment 1 is technical  to correct a                                                               
miscalculation on  the amount  of the  2018 dividend.  The amount                                                               
$1,328 is replaced with $1,388.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the  legislature puts placeholders in                                                               
the budget for  the PFD because the exact amount  of the dividend                                                               
is unknown  until the  applicants have  been certified.  He asked                                                               
what factors will cause this payment to change.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE  TANGEMAN explained that DOR  estimated the                                                               
number of  applicants that will  be eligible for the  payment and                                                               
they acknowledge that  may change. However, the  dollar amount of                                                               
the payment will remain the same.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:39:47 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI removed his objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  if  there was  any  further  discussion  of                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  asked how  it  happened  that the  number  was                                                               
miscalculated.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE  TANGEMAN replied it was  nothing more than                                                               
a simple miscalculation in the spreadsheet.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD asked  what the  total unstructured  draw would                                                               
be, should the bill pass with the amendment.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  DESIGNEE TANGEMAN  replied it  would be  between $4                                                               
million and  $5 million,  depending on the  number of  people who                                                               
receive the dividend.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:40:45 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:41:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting  and asked Mr. Tangeman if he                                                               
had something to add.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN clarified  that DOR estimated that                                                               
about  530,000  people  would qualify  for  the  repayment.  That                                                               
number multiplied by  $1,388 is in the $40 million  range, not $4                                                               
million to $5 million.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:42:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion or objection and                                                                       
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:42:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI moved Amendment 2, [work order 31-GS1014\A.4                                                                   
dated 3/8/19].                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                          AMENDMENT 2                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
    OFFERED IN THE SENATE               BY SENATOR KAWASAKI                                                                     
          TO:  SB 23                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 5, following "of":                                                                                            
          Insert "a supplemental permanent fund dividend                                                                        
     of"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "and who are eligible to receive a 2019                                                                        
     permanent fund dividend,"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9, following "of":                                                                                            
          Insert "a supplemental permanent fund dividend                                                                        
     of"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 10 - 11:                                                                                                     
          Delete "and who are eligible to receive a 2020                                                                        
     permanent fund dividend,"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 13, following "of":                                                                                           
          Insert "a supplemental permanent fund dividend                                                                        
     of"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 1:                                                                                   
          Delete "and who are eligible to receive a 2021                                                                        
     permanent fund dividend,"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 18:                                                                                                 
     Insert new subsections to read:                                                                                            
          "(h)  An amount equal to $1,061 for each                                                                              
     individual  who  was  ineligible   to  receive  a  2016                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  under   AS 43.23.005(d)  is                                                                    
     appropriated   from   the  earnings   reserve   account                                                                    
     (AS 37.13.145)  to  the   restorative  justice  account                                                                    
     (AS 43.23.048).                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          (i)  An amount equal to $1,289 for each                                                                               
     individual  who  was  ineligible   to  receive  a  2017                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  under   AS 43.23.005(d)  is                                                                    
     appropriated   from   the  earnings   reserve   account                                                                    
     (AS 37.13.145)  to  the   restorative  justice  account                                                                    
     (AS 43.23.048).                                                                                                            
          (j)  An amount equal to $1,328 for each                                                                               
     individual  who  was  ineligible   to  receive  a  2018                                                                    
     permanent  fund   dividend  under   AS 43.23.005(d)  is                                                                    
     appropriated   from   the  earnings   reserve   account                                                                    
     (AS 37.13.145)  to  the   restorative  justice  account                                                                    
     (AS 43.23.048)."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          Page 2, line 21:                                                                                                      
          Delete "include certain payments"                                                                                     
          Insert "make certain payments to individuals who                                                                      
     were eligible"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          Page 2, lines 22 - 23:                                                                                                
          Delete "to be made to eligible individuals with                                                                       
     2019, 2020, and 2021 permanent fund dividend payments"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI said  he distributed  a  memo from  Legislative                                                               
Legal Services that discusses  the legality and constitutionality                                                               
of SB 23. He noted that the  packets also contain a memo from the                                                               
Civil  Division  of the  Department  of  Law that  discusses  the                                                               
reasons  they   view  the   bill  constitutional.   According  to                                                               
legislative legal,  there are two  solutions that would  cure the                                                               
suspected infirmity.  One solution  is to issue  the supplemental                                                               
payment  to all  individuals that  received a  dividend in  2016,                                                               
2017,  or 2018.  The  alternative is  to  issue the  supplemental                                                               
payment to  all individuals  that receive  the dividend  in 2019,                                                               
2020, or  2021, regardless of  their residency in 2019,  2020, or                                                               
2021.  He noted  that both  SB  23 and  SB  24 would  need to  be                                                               
changed.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He acknowledged  that the two  memos are in conflict  and offered                                                               
his  view  that  as  currently   written,  the  bill  won't  pass                                                               
constitutional muster. Should  the bill become law,  his worry is                                                               
that just one person could  object to the rational and jeopardize                                                               
future PFD payouts. He asked to hear from the commissioner.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:44:55 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN stated  that the Alaska Department                                                               
of Law believes the bill  is constitutional. He acknowledged that                                                               
Legislative  Legal Services  came to  a different  conclusion. He                                                               
opined that  Amendment 2  strays from  the governor's  intent and                                                               
greatly over  complicates the bill.  The larger  concerns include                                                               
that DOR would  be tasked with locating all  the individuals that                                                               
received the dividend in 2016 but  no longer live in Alaska. "Are                                                               
we going to then have to  track these people down to every corner                                                               
of  the globe  in  order  for them  to  get  their dividend?"  He                                                               
pointed  out  that the  PFD  application  asks the  applicant  to                                                               
certify that  on the date of  application they are and  intend to                                                               
remain an  Alaska resident indefinitely. He  acknowledged that is                                                               
intent language and explained that  the bill uses the approach it                                                               
does because the  individual signs that they are  still an Alaska                                                               
resident.  This  is a  less  complicated  approach that  is  more                                                               
streamlined and easier  to implement, he said. He  added that DOR                                                               
estimates that  over a three-year span  about 100,000 individuals                                                               
that received a  dividend no longer reside in  Alaska, have died,                                                               
or no  longer qualify  for some reason.  Should the  amendment be                                                               
adopted, it would increase the  cost of the back payments between                                                               
$150 million and $160 million.  He reiterated that implementation                                                               
would be onerous for the department.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:47:41 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  questioned why DOR  wouldn't use the  2016 list                                                               
of  applicants, that  includes their  addresses,  to process  the                                                               
repayment in 2019.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN  replied it's not as  easy as that                                                               
because  many of  the 600,000  plus applicants  may have  changed                                                               
bank accounts,  moved within the  state, moved out of  Alaska, or                                                               
died. It would be an onerous undertaking.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:49:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER  commented  that  the  committee  can  argue  about                                                               
complications   but   there's  not   much   choice   if  it's   a                                                               
constitutional  issue.   He  asked  Mr.  Milks   to  provide  the                                                               
Department of Law's view of the bill.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:49:45 PM                                                                                                                    
WILLIAM  MILKS,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Civil  Division,                                                               
Department of  Law, stated that  at the committee's  request, DOL                                                               
submitted a  memo articulating  the critical  facts that  led the                                                               
department  to  conclude  that  a court  would  determine  SB  23                                                               
constitutional. He  said he respects  the opinion  of Legislative                                                               
Legal Services on  this matter and understands  that the analysis                                                               
is   based  on   general   case  law   about  general   residency                                                               
requirements.  Nevertheless,  it  is   the  Department  of  Law's                                                               
opinion  that the  legislature has  the means  to accomplish  the                                                               
limited objective of SB 23. That  is to provide PFD back payments                                                               
for a  specific group  of Alaska  residents. He  highlighted that                                                               
the Permanent  Fund Dividend Program  is uniquely  different than                                                               
any other  benefit program that  states have enacted, that  SB 23                                                               
is not a  long-term change to the PFD program,  and that the bill                                                               
is addressed to specific facts.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS  explained that the  rational basis review is  the most                                                               
common review  of any legislature's enactments.  The U.S. Supreme                                                               
Court has  said that for  this analysis  it looks at  whether the                                                               
legislature had  any reasonably conceivable  state of  facts that                                                               
could provide  a rational basis  for the classification.  In this                                                               
case  the   classification  is  between  two   groups  of  Alaska                                                               
residents; those who qualified for a  PFD in the past but did not                                                               
receive the  statutory payment and  those who didn't  qualify for                                                               
that  past payment.  The Department  of Law  believes there  is a                                                               
rational basis to address that set of facts.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Furthermore,  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court has  talked  about  the                                                               
concern  that  the  PFD program  is  susceptible  to  individuals                                                               
establishing  minimal  and  temporary  ties  to  Alaska  to  take                                                               
advantage of the  state's benefit program because  the benefit is                                                               
portable. That, too, leads DOL  to the rational basis review when                                                               
the legislature  tries to impose safeguards.  The legislature has                                                               
the ability to address the issue, he said.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:54:04 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  said he very  recently received  the Department                                                               
of  Law's memo,  but  it doesn't  seem to  address  the issue  of                                                               
somebody  who is  a resident  now  versus somebody  who had  been                                                               
entitled to the PFD but hadn't gotten it.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS replied the memo  addresses this bill that provides for                                                               
two residency  requirements. Somebody who is  eligible to receive                                                               
the dividend  this year who  received the reduced PFD  payment in                                                               
2016  would  be  eligible  to   receive  the  back  payment.  The                                                               
Department  of  Law believes  that  is  a rational  approach  the                                                               
legislature could take.  It is not similar  to legislation that's                                                               
been  challenged  and reviewed  by  the  U.S. Supreme  Court  for                                                               
having   an  excessive   residency  requirement   to  receive   a                                                               
particular benefit such as welfare.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked if he  believes this could  be challenged                                                               
by  an  Alaska  resident  who qualified  and  received  the  2016                                                               
dividend but isn't eligible to apply in 2019.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS  replied an  individual certainly  could bring  a legal                                                               
challenge, but he believes it would be unsuccessful.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:58:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER asked  what would happen to the payback  if the bill                                                               
passed and somebody filed a legal challenge.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS responded  that a legal challenge would  probably be an                                                               
effort to get an injunction to stop the back payment.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  commented that could  put the  supplemental payment                                                               
in limbo for some time.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS clarified that the  judicial branch can review all laws                                                               
the legislature passes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:59:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL asked  for help  understanding the  criteria the                                                               
court will use to analyze each of the legal opinions.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS said  the courts generally do not  want to second-guess                                                               
the elected branches  of government, but the  typical standard is                                                               
whether there  is a  set of facts  that could  rationally support                                                               
the legislature making the distinction.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
If a bill passed that  made a distinction between residents based                                                               
on age,  race, gender,  or sex,  it would  be reviewed  under the                                                               
highest standard of  review, which is strict  scrutiny. The court                                                               
would be  looking for compelling  governmental reasons  to accept                                                               
the  distinction on  those criteria.  Residency requirements  are                                                               
usually analyzed on  a rational basis, but it could  go to strict                                                               
scrutiny, he said.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
A few years  ago the Alaska Supreme Court talked  about the right                                                               
to travel when it upheld  residency requirements for the PFD. The                                                               
court contrasted  cases that used  strict scrutiny and  said even                                                               
the U.S. Supreme  Court recognized that the  legislature is given                                                               
much greater leeway  when a state is providing  a highly portable                                                               
benefit. The permanent fund  dividend was specifically discussed.                                                               
Zobel is the  only case Alaska has about the  PFD program and the                                                               
U.S.  Supreme Court  applied rational  basis  standard review  in                                                               
that case, not strict scrutiny.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS summarized  that the Department of Law looked  at SB 23                                                               
as  a unique  bill  that deals  with a  unique  program and  they                                                               
believe the courts will conclude  that the legislative branch has                                                               
the ability to address these unique set of facts.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:05:23 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL said  he asked  because  he wanted  to hear  the                                                               
Department of Law talk about the tests.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:06:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE said he approaches  this from both the practical                                                               
and  legal  perspectives.  Practically, he  opposes  Amendment  2                                                               
because  the  PFD  was  designed  for  Alaska  residents  and  it                                                               
provides a  payment to  people who are  no longer  residents. The                                                               
original dividend  program required  longevity and  commitment to                                                               
stay  in Alaska.  The  Zobel  case did  away  with the  longevity                                                               
requirement  for the  dividend, but  applicants must  still check                                                               
the  box  on  their  application indicating  their  intention  to                                                               
remain in Alaska.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
He said  that from  the legal perspective  he believes  Harris v.                                                               
Hahn is  a fair  comparison on  the rational  basis. At  issue in                                                               
that  case  were  the  residency  requirements  for  veterans  to                                                               
qualify for tuition benefits  while attending public universities                                                               
- they  either enlisted in Texas  or were a resident  of Texas at                                                               
the  time  of  enlistment.   Senator  Micciche  summarized,  "The                                                               
rational  basis   that  found  it  constitutional   was  for  its                                                               
residency  at enlistment  requirement." He  said he  believes the                                                               
residency at  the time of  payment of the  dividend to be  a fair                                                               
comparison.  "I can't  think of  a  more rational  basis for  the                                                               
consideration  of   the  administration   and  I   support  their                                                               
approach." he said.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:08:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked what  would happen to  the PFD  payout if                                                               
somebody   challenged  the   payout   and  the   law  was   found                                                               
unconstitutional.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS said  if the state lost a challenge  at the trial court                                                               
level, it  would review  the case with  the attorney  general and                                                               
decide whether or not to file an appeal.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI clarified  that he was asking  what would happen                                                               
to the  PFD payout  if all  appeals are  exhausted and  the court                                                               
agrees with the  legislative legal memo and deems  the entire law                                                               
unconstitutional.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS said the payout wouldn't  be paid if the court ruled it                                                               
unconstitutional.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  suggested a  different  approach  to cure  the                                                               
infirmity in  the proposed  law would be  to have  people reapply                                                               
for the 2016 additional payment.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:12:00 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  DESIGNEE TANGEMAN  explained that  if people  apply                                                               
for the 2016 additional payment though  the 2019 dividend it is a                                                               
simple exercise to marry the two lists.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI  said he didn't  intend to push Amendments  2 or                                                               
3,  but his  concern is  that if  the PFD  is a  benefit owed  to                                                               
Alaskans, then  the addition payments  should be paid to  all the                                                               
people who received [the 2016,  2017, and 2018] dividends whether                                                               
they're still in  the state or not. He said  people have left the                                                               
state for  a lot of reasons.  There's been a down  market economy                                                               
and someone  in a trade union,  for example, could be  working in                                                               
Seattle  because they  couldn't find  a  job in  the state.  They                                                               
would be denied the ability to  have the back payment even though                                                               
the  governor and  many legislators  believe  that person  should                                                               
have  had the  full PFD  the whole  time. He  said that's  why he                                                               
introduced  the  amendments, but  he'll  review  the legal  memos                                                               
further.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:14:05 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KAWASAKI   withdraw  Amendment  2  and   did  not  offer                                                               
Amendment 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:14:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  said the amended  bill is before the  committee for                                                               
discussion. Finding none, he solicited a motion.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:15:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report  SB 23, work order 31-GS1014\A as                                                               
amended,   from   committee  with   individual   recommendations,                                                               
attached fiscal  note(s), and any technical  changes necessary to                                                               
conform Amendment 1.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  found no  objection and  CSSB 23(STA)  was reported                                                               
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
agenda
SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB0023A.PDF SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23 Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB0024A.PDF SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB24 Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB23 Follow up to SSA.3.6.2019.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
LEG.PFD.Supplemental.SB23.SB24.2.8.19.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
Letter re SB 23 and SB 24 permanent fund dividend payments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB23-24 (IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23-24 (NOT IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB23-24 (VARIOUS TESTIMONY) (uploaded 03-06-19).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 23 Amendments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24 Amendments.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 24
SB 33 Transmittal Letter.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB0033A.PDF SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Highilghts.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/19/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOL-FN#1.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DPS-FN#2.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#3.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOA-FN#4.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#5.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-DOC-FN#6.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB33-Court System-FN.pdf SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/14/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (In Favor) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Organizations Opposed).pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Opposed) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24
SB 23 & 24 Written Testimony (Various) - additional final tally.pdf SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 23
SB 24