Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB26 | |
| Amendments | |
| HB115 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 11, 2017
1:37 p.m.
1:37:33 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Randall Hoffbeck, Commissioner, Department of Revenue;
Jerry Burnett, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury Division,
Department of Revenue; Taneeka Hansen, Staff,
Representative Paul Seaton; Ken Alper, Director, Tax
Division, Department of Revenue; Representative Lora
Reinbold.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
HB 115 INCOME TAX; PFD CREDIT; PERM FUND INCOME
CSSB 26(FIN)
APPROP LIMIT & PER FUND:DIVIDEND;EARNINGS
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 26(FIN)
"An Act relating to an appropriation limit; relating
to the budget responsibilities of the governor;
relating to the Alaska permanent fund, the earnings of
the Alaska permanent fund, and the earnings reserve
account; relating to the mental health trust fund;
relating to deposits into the dividend fund; relating
to the calculation and payment of permanent fund
dividends; and providing for an effective date."
1:38:34 PM
^AMENDMENTS
1:38:40 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-GS1690\U.12
(Martin, 4/11/17) (copy on file):
Page 3, line 26, following "$1,400,000,000":
Insert ", adjusted annually for inflation based
on a formula provided by the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development, reflecting the change
from the previous year in the Consumer Price
Index for the Anchorage metropolitan area
compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics,
United States Department of Labor, and rounded to
the nearest $10,000,000"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the amendment. He thought that a
level of oil revenue should be established that would
trigger the decrease in the use of permanent fund earnings.
1:40:32 PM
Representative Kawasaki felt that the amendment did not say
anything specific about population growth. He queried the
nexus for inflation versus population growth.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed that the amendment only spoke to
inflation and not population growth. He said that there
would hopefully be a small annual increase in the amount of
available earnings reserve funds. He stated that by
allowing the trigger point to move with inflation some head
room to address population growth could be created.
Representative Wilson understood that the current bill
version would give less than $.80 on the dollar because of
inflation proofing.
Vice-Chair Gara explained that once the trigger point was
reached, 80 percent of the available earnings from the
permanent fund, which would otherwise be allowed by the 5
percent draw, would become unavailable for use. He said
that the trigger point would adjust with inflation and
would allow for more combined oil and permanent fund
revenue available for state services.
Representative Wilson surmised that the $1.4 million
trigger point would change and not the percentages.
Vice-Chair Gara replied in the affirmative.
Representative Pruitt was concerned the amendment would
dilute the value of the appropriation limit. He lamented
that the current appropriation limit in the State
Constitution had no value and was double of what was
currently being spent.
1:44:33 PM
Representative Thompson requested further explanation from
the Department of Revenue (DOR).
RANDALL HOFFBECK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
offered a history of the progression of the bill through
the legislative process. He relayed that modeling of the
amendment had shown that eventually the cap would exceed
the revenue, which would kill the draw limit function. He
stated that the current bill accounted for both inflation
proofing and population adjustments in the combined
revenues from royalties, production tax, and the POMV draw,
out 10 years. He related that the growth was lesser 25
years out, and that the fund would be less protected from
overdraws in the intermediate years. He concluded that the
administration did not support the amendment.
Representative Thompson surmised that the inflation of the
draw limit would have a negative effect on the state's
financial health.
Commissioner Hoffbeck agreed.
1:48:48 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke about a debate on the House
floor. He appreciated the history provided by Commissioner
Hoffbeck; however, he noted that the current legislature
was tasked with making decisions using the most current
information.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the amendment was
necessary to fund essential government.
Commissioner Hoffbeck answered that the administration
supported the current bill structure without the amendment.
1:50:03 PM
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
The MOTION PASSED (6/5).
1:50:53 PM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 8, lines 12 - 28:
Delete all material and insert:
"*Sec 19. Sections 17 and 18 of this Act take
effect immediately under AS Ol.10.070(c).
• Sec. 20. Section 6 of this Act takes effect
July 1, 2019.
• Sec. 21. Section 10 of this Act takes effect
June 30, 2020.
• Sec. 22 •• Except as provided in secs. 19 - 21,
this Act takes effect July 1, 2017."
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Thompson explained the amendment. He said
that the conditional language in the amendment would
require the enactment of HB 111 as passed by the house. He
said that by effectively combining three uniquely different
policy decisions into a "take it, or leave it" bill did not
serve the deliberative process. He believed that the
language in the section violated the legislature's
bicameral system.
Co-Chair Seaton spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
supported the conditional language included in the bill
that would provide a comprehensive fiscal plan. He lamented
that the section was necessary to negotiate with the other
chamber.
Representative Wilson remarked that the legislation was not
restructuring the dividend in the same way as previous
legislation had attempted to do. She spoke in support of
the amendment.
1:56:49 PM
Representative Tilton relayed she had spoken to the issue
on the House floor earlier in the day. She believed the
language in the bill violated the legislature's bicameral
structure. She believed the section inhibited the other
body's ability to act. She supported the amendment.
Representative Pruitt voiced support for the amendment. He
echoed the concerns of the pervious testifier. He thought
that agreement could have been reached between the two
bodies if it were not for Section 19 of the bill. He
thought that "add-ons" to the bill would force the
extension of the 90-day legislative process, and would lead
to no solution to the state's fiscal issues. He relayed a
story of the previous use of contingency language in a
budget bills.
2:02:40 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Lora Reinbold in
the audience.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed that both chambers needed to come
together on order to do the people's business. He believed
that it was common knowledge, to both the majority and the
minority, that a fiscal plan was needed that was balanced
for every socioeconomic level; a plan that was fair to both
rich and poor. He felt that a plan that only involved the
permanent fund would put the burden on the poorest in the
state, which was why the bill included a higher dividend
than the original bill. He hoped that the two bodies could
come together to forge a solution to the state's fiscal
crisis.
Representative Guttenberg spoke out against the amendment.
He believed that without the section there would be no
possibility of a solution. He felt that the behavior of the
other body was counter to reaching a compromise and was
contributing to further gridlock. He asserted that the
permanent fund could not be expected to be the only
solution to the fiscal crisis.
2:07:40 PM
Representative Thompson provided a closing statement on the
amendment. He did not believe the language would improve
the behavior of the other body. He spoke to other
components of the fiscal plan under consideration by the
legislature. He spoke to the restrictive nature of the
language in the bill. He maintained his support of the
amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION FAILED (4/7).
2:09:57 PM
AT EASE
2:13:01 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Thompson WITHDREW Amendments 3, 4, and 5
(copy on file).
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6
Page 3, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "80 cents for each dollar by which"
Insert "the difference between"
Page 3, line 26:
Delete "$1,400,000,000"
Insert "$1,200,000,000"
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Thompson explained that the amendment would
restore the draw limit supported by the administration and
other parties. He believed that the amendment strengthened
the permanent fund, urged the committee to support the
amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION FAILED (7/4).
2:16:12 PM
Representative Thompson WITHDREW Amendments 7 and 8.
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the fiscal note with the OMB
component number 2616.
Representative Wilson asked whether the bill version under
discussion should be reflected on the fiscal note.
2:18:03 PM
AT EASE
2:19:24 PM
RECONVENED
JERRY BURNETT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TREASURY DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, pointed to the identifier for the
fiscal note, which needed to be updated to reflect the
current bill version.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that the identifier could be
found on the top left hand of the first page of the fiscal
note.
Mr. Burnett lamented that there had been a typo on the
fiscal note.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the box titled, "Why
this fiscal note differs from previous version:" read that
the note had been updated to reflect changes in the house
finance CS.
2:22:11 PM
Vice-Chair Gara expressed confidence that the fiscal noted
were current to the bill version before the committee. He
addressed fiscal notes, OMB components 3121, 2726, 2310,
2952, and zero (copy on file).
2:25:48 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the fiscal note, OMB
Component 2952. She understood that the note reflected
taking $9,103,600, that did not exist without cutting the
permanent fund dividend, to find real money under the
Alaska Capital Fund. She wondered whether DOC would be
forced to have the funds available to cover the note in
perpetuity.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that the money would be directed
from the Alaska Capitol Income Fund to DOC each year.
Representative Wilson said that the intent of the fund was
to match federal funding in the Capital Budget. She
wondered what would happen all of $9.1 million were used to
match federal dollars, and whether the state would be
required to keep the amount of money in the fund from year
to year.
2:28:42 PM
Co-Chair Seaton answered there was about $26 million in the
fund and that the governor's budget had released using $9.1
as a funding source. He said that disputes over future
allocations would need to be worked out in conference
committee and by future legislatures.
Representative Wilson said that the normal method used
would be a fund switch, where the budget was decreased in
one area and increased in another. She asserted that note
should be indeterminate.
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that, historically, the state had
leveraged 90 percent funding from the federal government
for road projects using the general fund. He hoped that
this would be the continued method.
2:30:58 PM
Representative Ortiz asked about fiscal note, OMB Component
3121. He wondered why there was a gradual projected
increase from FY 18 to FY 23, except for a downfall from
2019 to 2020.
Representative Wilson noted that the fiscal note reflected
the decrease in the percentage draw from 5.25 to 5
beginning July 1, 2018.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HCS SB 26(FIN) out of
committee as amended with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She asserted that she did
not support tying the hands of the other body.
2:33:14 PM
Representative Tilton echoed the comments of her colleague.
Representative Pruitt felt that the bill had been hijacked
by the majority. He appreciated that the income tax had
been removed from the legislation. He lamented that it took
a threat from Bob Gillam for the income takes to be
separated from the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara called for a point of order. He suggested
that Representative Pruitt was misinformed of the
situation.
Representative Pruitt remarked that the information had
been in the Alaska Dispatch News. He spoke to the
conditional effect of the legislation. He thought that it
was unclear whether legislation had to be passed by January
1, 2019, or must the legislation be in place by January 1,
2019. He wondered whether the legislation could be halted
through a referendum. He agreed with choosing $1250 as the
permanent fund dividend amount, but he could not support
the legislation. He hoped that agreement could be reached
on the House Floor.
2:38:17 PM
Vice-Chair Gara agreed that the issue was challenging. He
said that touching the permanent fund should be considered
only after the state got a fair share for its oil. He
stated that the bill was intended to be fair to all
parties; that the miserable price of oil had been
unexpected, but action needed to be taken to address the
fiscal crisis. He noted that the bill contained inflation
proofing provisions. He believed that many people relied on
the dividend and supported the increased amount reflected
in the bill. He worried that without the legislation the
state would not be able to support basic and necessary
government spending.
Representative Thompson did not support the legislation. He
believed that language would be detrimental to the intent
of the bill.
Representative Guttenberg spoke in support of the bill. He
felt that the language in the amendment highlighted the
need for further dialogue.
2:45:09 PM
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson
The MOTION PASSED (7/4).
There being NO OBJECTION, HCS SB 26(FIN) was REPORTED out
of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with
attached fiscal notes.
2:46:02 PM
AT EASE
2:52:19 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to the permanent fund dividend; relating
to the appropriation of certain amounts of the earnings
reserve account; relating to the taxation of income of
individuals; relating to a payment against the individual
income tax from the permanent fund dividend disbursement;
repealing tax credits applied against the tax on
individuals under the Alaska Net Income Tax Act; and
providing for an effective date."
2:52:52 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 115, Work Draft 30-LS0125\K (Nauman,
4/7/17).
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
TANEEKA HANSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON,
explained that the current version contained the amendments
to the income tax section that had been adopted by the
committee. The sections referring to the permanent fund had
been removed. She said that there were three additional
changes; the sort title had been changed to reflect that
the bill was no longer a combined act, from the State
Revenue Restructuring Act to the Education Funding Act. She
directed committee attention to Page 22, line 12, which
directed that the legislature could appropriate the
estimated amount collected for the tax to the Public
Education Fund. She pointed to Page 5, subsection (g),
which was related to an amendment that had been adopted in
committee and was conceptually amended define "disabled
beneficiary" under AS 18.80.300, (a) and (b) only.
2:55:46 PM
Representative Wilson pointed to page 22, line 12. She had
initially thought a new fund was created, but she no longer
believed that was the case. She wondered why the word "may
had been used, and not "shall".
Ms. Hansen replied that a new fund was not being created.
She said that the reason for the use of "may" was due to
the Constitution; there always had to be an appropriation
done by the legislature. She relayed that the Public
Education Fund was distributed without further
appropriation, so the direction could not be that the
revenue "shall" go into a fund where there was no further
appropriation, the legislature had to appropriate the
revenue.
Representative Wilson stated no matter where the funds were
put outside of the General Fund, it was still General Fund
money. She requested further clarity.
Ms. Hansen answered that the bill could have no binding
effect on future legislatures and did not address revenue
beyond what was in the bill.
2:57:57 PM
Representative Wilson felt that it should be clear to the
public that the money could be appropriated for anything
and was not earmarked for education.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the Public Education Fund
was where the legislature put money for forward funding of
education; the money flowed from the fund automatically and
funded the formula and pupil transportation. He said that
an appropriation had to be made into the fund for the
deposit, but the funds automatically funded only education.
3:00:25 PM
Vice-Chair Gara preferred the use of the word "shall", but
explained that the word "may" had to be used under the
Constitution.
Representative Pruitt expressed his distaste for short
titles. He plugged the use of iPads in committee to easily
access information for bills that were accompanied by
excessive documents.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the issue of
electronic and telecommunications was under discussion in
Legislative Council.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (9/2).
3:03:22 PM
Vice-Chair Gara addressed the two fiscal notes attached to
the bill.
Representative Wilson reiterated her request that the bill
version on the notes be updated to reflect the committee
substitute. She asked about the inter-agency receipts on
FN1, she had understood that the hearings would be done by
the administration and not the court system.
3:06:15 PM
KEN ALPER, DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
replied that the interagency receipt meant DOR would pay
the funds to DOA. He said that it had been estimated that
$200,000 to $300,000 of the $1.2 million listed on the
services line of FN2 would be money paid to the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) for the purpose of appeals.
Representative Wilson understood that DOR would be paying
for the administrative hearings from collected taxes.
Mr. Alper replied that DOR would make the payments from its
general fund budget.
Representative Wilson asked whether a person could go to
the courts to appeal the income tax.
Mr. Alper replied that the first step would be the internal
appeals group, then OAH, and then to superior court.
Representative Wilson asked why there was not a fiscal note
for that process.
Mr. Alper responded that he did not know that the process
would require revenue spending. He said that the Department
of Law would support the state's position and the court
system would have costs as well, but forecasting the number
of cases would be difficult. He added that OAH had a metric
for the percentage of tax items that were appealed.
Representative Wilson hoped that the costs would be clearly
laid out.
Co-Chair Foster noted his staff would research the issue.
3:09:45 PM
Representative Pruitt addressed that regulations would have
to be written. He wondered whether DOR would need
additional money to write regulations.
Mr. Alper replied there was a $14 million capital budget
item in the fiscal note that would partially go to drafting
regulation.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 115(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson spoke to her OBJECTION.
3:12:11 PM
Representative Thompson said that 80 percent of the wages
paid to residents was in the Railbelt. He stated that a
person working on the North Slope that lived in the
Railbelt was not included in that 80 percent because they
would be considered a North Slope employee and not a
Railbelt resident. He thought that the bill needed further
vetting.
Vice-Chair Gara thought that the only way to tax more
people was to tax those at lower incomes. He was satisfied
that the legislation would not impose taxes at lower
incomes, which he felt would disproportionately hurt rural
and poor areas of the state. He stressed that he did not
want to tax more Alaskans. He noted that no taxes would be
imposed on the first $15,500 of earned income; for each
$1,000 above $15,500, a $25 tax would be imposed. He
expressed discomfort with the idea of taxing people at
lower incomes than $15,500. He lamented that areas in the
budget that could withstand further cuts were limited, and
he expressed concern that liberty and dignity for Alaskan
residents could be cut along with funding.
3:16:44 PM
Representative Pruitt offered a personal anecdote related
to the possible impacts of an income tax. He argued that a
person making $42,000 per year was not privileged, but
rather was a "regular Joe" out working in the world who
would be taxed $692.50 under the legislation.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified that he did not say that everyone
who would pay taxes under the bill came from a place of
privilege.
Representative Pruitt returned to the $692.50 figure. He
referred to seniors on fixed incomes in Alaska. He noted
that the figure would be spread out over the course of 12
months, roughly $58 per month, would be a burden. He spoke
to seniors on fixed incomes of $30,000 per year who would
struggle under the legislation. He offered another anecdote
related to a senior's fixed income budget. He lamented that
property taxes in Anchorage had recently increased. He
worried that an income tax would negatively affect
recruiting people in certain professions to work in the
state. He noted that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
already struggled with hiring people from out-of-state. He
queried that overall effect that an income tax would have
on the state's economy. He expounded on the reasons he
believed that an income tax was a bad idea.
3:24:33 PM
Co-Chair Seaton stated that the hope was to strike a
balance between the bill and the Permanent Fund reduction
bill. He stated the money from the tax would be directed at
education. He was perplexed to hear members stating the
committee had not heard from economists. He stated the
committee had heard from Institute of Social and Economic
Research (ISER) and among other experts. He remarked that
some public testimony had underscored that further cuts
were one of the worst things that could happen to the
economy. He shared that the bill represented one piece of a
four-part fiscal plan. He spoke about services such as road
maintenance, troopers, the university, and others that were
struggling under funding cuts. He reminded members that
individuals earning under $30,000 would be exempt. He noted
that the tax rate would be 2.5 percent, $25 per $1,000 over
$30,000. He stressed that social security for low-income
seniors would be exempt under federal law. He stated that
exempting the permanent fund dividend, and the $4,000
personal exemption, would help lower-income Alaskans. He
responded to the statement that 80 percent of the tax would
come from the Railbelt, but pointed out that 80 percent of
the state's population lived in the Railbelt. He stressed
that the bill was not a geographically discriminatory piece
of legislation. He believed that Alaskans should be willing
to pay for services, such as road maintenance, in order to
protect roads from deterioration. He felt that
the bill represented one component of a plan to solve the
fiscal problem. He stated if only a portion of the deficit
was solved it meant the legislature would be faced with
making further cuts. He spoke to potential impacts around
the state. He stated it came down to what the future of the
state should look like. He believed that the credit
legislation that had passed could not solve the problem on
its own.
3:30:46 PM
Representative Tilton remarked the members had different
philosophies on how the fiscal gap should be handled. She
said that state government could be funded sufficiently
with a $400 million cut. She echoed concern for hoe the tax
could affect seniors on a fixed income. She worried about
how the tax would affect the private sector. She asserted
that she was supportive of funding for education, but that
"an income tax was an income tax, no matter what you call
it."
3:33:27 PM
Representative Guttenberg agreed the situation was
difficult. He shared that even in time of financial
security he worried about not building out sustainable
infrastructure. He lamented that people took joy in the
building and ribbon cutting connected to increased
infrastructure, but that major maintenance of those
structures was less attractive. He thought that a
restructuring of the permanent fund would spread the burden
unfairly across the population. He believed that an income
tax would level out the financial burden to Alaska's
residents. He noted that many on his constituents in rural
Alaska, even during times of financial stability, had not
received the services they had needed. He lamented the
historical inequities in state spending. He stressed the
need for a stable economy. He hoped that industry would
commit to investing in the state. He felt that the most
important issues facing the state were controlling the size
of government and stabilizing the economy. He believed that
the solution to the fiscal crisis was multi-faceted. He
felt that the legislature was running out of time to act on
the issue. He expressed concern that the state was
currently unable to take advantage of economic
opportunities through the University because the
legislature was making deep cuts to their budget.
3:41:26 PM
AT EASE
3:44:45 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
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).
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 115(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation
and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of
Revenue and one new fiscal impact note from the Department
of Administration.
Co-Chair Foster discussed housekeeping. He recessed the
meeting to a call of the chair [Note: the meeting never
reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
3:46:54 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:46 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 115 CS WORK DRAFT v K_4.7.2017.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB 115_Sectional version K_long form_4.11.2017.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| SB 26 v.U Amendments 1-8.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 26 |
| SB 26 Fiscal Note PKT v.U.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 26 |
| HB 115 Fiscal Note PKT. v.K.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| SB26_Oppose_041117.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 26 |
| SB26_Support_041117.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 26 |
| HB115_Oppose_041117.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| HB115_Support_041117.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 115 |
| SB 26 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 26 |