Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519

03/12/2018 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
Download Video part 2. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 10 Minutes Following Session --
-- Will Recess to 7:00 pm --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Moved CSHB 97(STA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      March 12, 2018                                                                                            
                         3:11 p.m.                                                                                              
3:11:21 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Foster  called the House Finance  Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 3:11 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                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Representative   Paul   Seaton;   Arnold   Liebelt,   Staff,                                                                    
Representative   Paul   Seaton;  Doug   Gardner,   Director,                                                                    
Legislative   Legal  Services;   Angela  Rodell,   Executive                                                                    
Director, Alaska Permanent  Fund Corporation; Representative                                                                    
Steve  Thompson;  Max  Thompson, Son,  Representative  Steve                                                                    
Thompson;   Forrest  Wolfe,   Staff,  Representative   Steve                                                                    
Thompson; Martin  Stepetin Sr, Self,  Juneau; Representative                                                                    
Justin Parish; Representative  Louise Stutes; Representative                                                                    
Geran Tarr.                                                                                                                     
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Loretta  Jones,  Self,  Wrangell;  Michael  Chambers,  Self,                                                                    
Anchorage;  Michael  Garhart,  Self, Wasilla;  Joel  Sigman,                                                                    
Self,  Wasilla;  Mike  Alexander,  Self,  Big  Lake;  Muriel                                                                    
Gillette,  Self,  Big  Lake; Cris  Eichenlaub,  Self,  Eagle                                                                    
River; Richard  Heller, Self, Chugiak; James  Squyers, Self,                                                                    
Rural  Deltana; Mike  Coons,  Self,  Palmer; Herman  Morgan,                                                                    
Self, Aniak;  Lynette Clark, Self, Fox;  Kurt Schmitt, Self,                                                                    
Delta Junction;  William Topel, Self, Anchorage;  Ed Martin,                                                                    
Self, Cooper Landing; Ronald  Larkin, Self, Fairbanks; Randy                                                                    
Griffin,  Self, Fairbanks;  Garvan  Bucaria, Self,  Wasilla;                                                                    
William Deaton, self, Cordova;  Wayne Ozosky, Self, Wasilla;                                                                    
Bill  Reiner,  Self,  Anchorage;  Benjamin  Williams,  Self,                                                                    
North   Pole;   Mikki   Barker,   Self,   Fairbanks;   David                                                                    
Strickland,  Self,   Delta  Junction;  Karen   Perry,  Self,                                                                    
Chugiak;  Bonnie  Lilley,  Self, Anchorage;  Sally  Johnson,                                                                    
Self, Palmer;  Steven Wright, Self, Palmer;  Gail Kozlowski,                                                                    
Self, Wasilla;  Ed Kaiser, Self, Wasilla;  Bert Houghtaling,                                                                    
Self, Big  Lake; William Lambert, Self,  North Pole; Michael                                                                    
Boll,  Self,  Wasilla;  Sarah   Vance,  Self,  Homer;  Libby                                                                    
Dalton,  Self,  Fairbanks;   Hilda  Lestron,  Self,  Seward;                                                                    
Robert  Christianson,  Self,   Fairbanks;  Michael  Sheldon,                                                                    
Self,   Petersburg;  Jim   Weidner,  Self,   Fairbanks;  Joe                                                                    
Schlanger, Self,  Wasilla; Leslie Dodge, Self,  Houston; Tom                                                                    
Lakosh, Self, Anchorage; John  Vandiest, Self, Palmer; Janet                                                                    
Mclain, Self, Palmer.                                                                                                           
HB 97     REPEAL AK FIRE STANDS. COUNCIL TAX CREDIT                                                                             
          HB 97(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with a                                                                       
          "do pass" recommendation and with one zero fiscal                                                                     
          note from the Department of Public Safety.                                                                            
HJR 23    CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV; DIVIDEND;                                                                             
          HJR 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.                                                                                    
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23                                                                                                 
     Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State                                                                      
     of Alaska relating to the Alaska permanent fund.                                                                           
3:12:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara  MOVED  to  ADOPT  the  proposed  committee                                                                    
substitute  for  HJR  23, Work  Draft  30-LS0838\T  (Martin,                                                                    
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
3:13:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  asked for the difference  between the                                                                    
previous bill as well.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  PAUL SEATON,  explained the  changes in  the                                                                    
work draft. He  relayed that the option in the  bill had not                                                                    
been the first  choice. He detailed that  the initial choice                                                                    
had been a comprehensive fiscal  plan to balance the state's                                                                    
revenues  with its  expenditures,  which  would protect  the                                                                    
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). The  PFD was in statute only,                                                                    
not in the constitution. There  had been challenges with the                                                                    
other  body   that  had  communicated  there   would  be  no                                                                    
diversification of  the state's revenues until  PFDs were no                                                                    
longer sent out. He explained  it meant that the only source                                                                    
of readily  available revenue  in the  future was  to reduce                                                                    
the PFD or eliminate it,  which the House Majority coalition                                                                    
was adamantly  against. The bill provided  an alternative to                                                                    
protecting the  PFD was  to include  it in  the constitution                                                                    
through a vote of the public.                                                                                                   
3:16:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Seaton  explained that HJR 23  was a constitutional                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster recognized  Representative Pruitt had joined                                                                    
the meeting.                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Seaton provided  a PowerPoint  presentation titled                                                                    
"HJR  23 -  Constitutional Amendment  Permanent Fund;  POMV;                                                                    
Dividend" (copy  on file). He  began with a bubble  chart on                                                                    
slide 2 of the presentation.  The Permanent Fund was made up                                                                    
of  principal and  the earnings  reserve account  (ERA). The                                                                    
bill proposed a 4.75 percent  percent of market value (POMV)                                                                    
automatic transfer  to the  General Fund  (GF) -  67 percent                                                                    
would go to  essential public services and  33 percent would                                                                    
go  to the  dividend. He  noted  that the  67 percent  would                                                                    
remain  in  GF for  expenditures  and  appropriation by  the                                                                    
legislature.  The  bill  included   the  current  method  of                                                                    
inflation  proofing of  the Permanent  Fund with  a majority                                                                    
vote.  He noted  the House's  budget contained  $942 million                                                                    
for  inflation proofing  by depositing  the money  back into                                                                    
the fund's principal. He explained  that ad hoc draws (draws                                                                    
in  addition to  the  4.75 POMV  transfer)  would require  a                                                                    
three-quarter  vote  of the  legislature.  The  goal was  to                                                                    
ensure  the ERA  was not  depleted -  the 4.75  percent POMV                                                                    
would   come  from   the  ERA.   The  bill   maintained  the                                                                    
constitutional  provision  that  prevented  the  legislature                                                                    
from appropriating money out of the fund's principal.                                                                           
Co-Chair Seaton  explained that the  bill language  used the                                                                    
word  "may"  because  a   structure  that  changed  multiple                                                                    
articles  of the  constitution would  take a  constitutional                                                                    
convention  -  it  would be  eliminating  the  legislature's                                                                    
power  of appropriation,  the governor's  right  to veto  an                                                                    
appropriation, and setting it up  as a higher designated use                                                                    
than  public  safety, education,  and  the  other things  in                                                                    
Article  I that  were the  legislature's responsibility.  He                                                                    
believed  it would  be  a high  bar to  get  over (once  the                                                                    
voters had voted) for a  certain amount of the transfer that                                                                    
would go to dividends for the legislature to violate that.                                                                      
3:20:31 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Seaton turned to a table  on slide 3 showing a 4.75                                                                    
POMV  from FY  19 through  FY  27. He  explained the  amount                                                                    
reflected the  same figures included in  the current budget.                                                                    
He  noted  the previous  budget  bill  had included  a  POMV                                                                    
transfer  and then  a  draw  that could  be  made by  statue                                                                    
instead of  automatic transfer. The table  included the same                                                                    
67/33  percent split  which would  result in  a dividend  of                                                                    
$1,258 in the current year and  $1,635 in FY 27. The current                                                                    
formula  for   distribution  was   based  on   earnings.  He                                                                    
elaborated that 50  percent of earnings could  be a volatile                                                                    
number on an annual basis;  there had been efforts to smooth                                                                    
the figure out by using five  of the previous six years, but                                                                    
it was  still much  more volatile than  value of  the entire                                                                    
fund. The bill's  objective was a sustainable  draw from the                                                                    
ERA over  time. The 4.5 percent  draw was not to  exceed the                                                                    
balance of the  fund. He explained that if at  some time the                                                                    
fund was  less than  4.75 percent, it  would not  mean there                                                                    
would  be no  draw, but  a  draw would  be taken  up to  the                                                                    
balance  of the  fund. He  detailed  if there  was only  4.5                                                                    
percent available, 4.5 percent would be drawn.                                                                                  
Co-Chair   Seaton  replied   to  an   earlier  question   by                                                                    
Representative Wilson.  The previous bill had  contained a 5                                                                    
percent draw. The  goal was the most  sustainable level over                                                                    
time. He  explained that  because the  language would  be in                                                                    
the constitution it was meant to  endure for a long time. He                                                                    
expounded that a 5 percent  draw had been viewed as somewhat                                                                    
risky over  time. The other  bill had specified the  PFD was                                                                    
mandated to  be paid  and if there  had not  been sufficient                                                                    
funds  in  the  ERA,  the  GF would  have  to  backfill  the                                                                    
deficiency.   Given   the   current   financial   situation,                                                                    
backfilling from the GF would  be nearly impossible or would                                                                    
put public  safety, education, and  funding for  other items                                                                    
at risk.  The bill was  meant to  impinge on the  ability of                                                                    
future  legislatures to  make appropriations  as minimal  as                                                                    
3:24:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster  asked  to   hear  from  Legislative  Legal                                                                    
Services and the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC).                                                                      
Vice-Chair Gara  asked about language  that had been  in the                                                                    
previous bill version  that the amount for a  PFD "shall" be                                                                    
provided. He asked Legislative Legal Services for comment.                                                                      
DOUG   GARDNER,   DIRECTOR,  LEGISLATIVE   LEGAL   SERVICES,                                                                    
referenced the  question pertaining to "may"  versus "shall"                                                                    
language in the bill. He  detailed the concern was using the                                                                    
word "shall" would mean the PFD  would be paid first - ahead                                                                    
of education,  public safety,  and other  important services                                                                    
the  legislature was  constitutionally responsible  to fund.                                                                    
He  cited the  case Bess  v. Ulmer  [1999] to  highlight the                                                                    
concern. He detailed that the  constitution could be amended                                                                    
through the process contemplated by  HJR 23. He referenced a                                                                    
memorandum he had authored and  addressed to Co-Chair Seaton                                                                    
dated  March  11,  2018  regarding  proposed  constitutional                                                                    
amendments to  the Permanent  Fund (copy  on file).  He read                                                                    
four factors identified  by the court: "(1)  the proposal is                                                                    
simple  to express  and understand;  (2) is  complete within                                                                    
itself;   (3)  relates   to  only   one  subject;   and  (4)                                                                    
substantially    affects   only    one   section    of   the                                                                    
constitution." He believed use of  the word "shall" made the                                                                    
fourth factor more complicated.                                                                                                 
Mr. Gardener continued that the  court had also suggested if                                                                    
a  fundamental  power  of  one  of  the  branches  of  state                                                                    
government  was significantly  altered, it  could result  in                                                                    
the type  of sweeping  change that was  not permitted  to be                                                                    
accomplished in  an amendment to the  state constitution. He                                                                    
elaborated  that  the  court  had  determined  that  if  the                                                                    
legislature  reweighed  how   it  prioritized  expenditures,                                                                    
there  needed   to  be   a  constitutional   convention.  He                                                                    
explained that trying to predict what  the court may do in a                                                                    
revision amendment  case (there was  only one case:  Bess v.                                                                    
Ulmer) with a  unique provision like the  Permanent Fund was                                                                    
very difficult.                                                                                                                 
Mr.  Gardner  believed there  was  a  substantial risk  that                                                                    
using the word  "shall" would result in  a possible reversal                                                                    
of  the resolution  or a  ruling  that it  violated Bess  v.                                                                    
Ulmer  before getting  on  the ballot.  In  response to  the                                                                    
concern,  the  current  bill  had been  drafted  to  try  to                                                                    
balance the  throttle on the  most the legislature  could do                                                                    
with  the least  amount  of  risk of  a  bad  result in  the                                                                    
supreme  court. Therefore,  the  decision had  been made  to                                                                    
replace "shall"  with "may" in  the current bill  draft. The                                                                    
likelihood of a reversal of  the bill was much more elevated                                                                    
with the  use of  the word "shall."  The language  meant the                                                                    
legislature  did not  appropriate,  the  governor could  not                                                                    
veto, and the  legislature could not override  the veto. All                                                                    
the mechanisms and plumbing  in the constitution established                                                                    
by its framers  for one of the  most substantial legislative                                                                    
powers and corollary powers of  the governor were eliminated                                                                    
with  use  of the  word  "shall."  The  state had  a  strong                                                                    
executive and  there was a  commitment to  the appropriation                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara  referenced  Mr. Gardner's  statement  that                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara   had  suggested   something  to   him.  He                                                                    
clarified  that he  had not  brought the  bill draft  to Mr.                                                                    
Mr.  Gardner  agreed  and noted  that  Vice-Chair  Gara  had                                                                    
grilled him over the phone earlier in the day.                                                                                  
3:31:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson  spoke   about  ensuring   residents                                                                    
received their PFDs and surmised  the using the word "shall"                                                                    
would override  the legislative  process and  the governor's                                                                    
veto powers.  She thought it  would read that the  PFD shall                                                                    
be paid, not may be paid.                                                                                                       
Mr. Gardner answered  that use of the word  shall could mean                                                                    
a  litigation result  and none  of the  resolution would  go                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  had  received  the  questions  about                                                                    
ensuring  residents would  receive the  dividend. She  asked                                                                    
for verification  that use  of the word  shall was  the only                                                                    
way  to ensure  the  dividend  could not  be  vetoed by  the                                                                    
governor or  the legislature  could choose  not to  fund it.                                                                    
She was asked frequently  whether a constitutional amendment                                                                    
would  ensure  residents  would   receive  a  dividend.  She                                                                    
believed that was the difference  between using shall versus                                                                    
Mr.  Gardner  assumed  she  was   trying  to  respond  to  a                                                                    
constituent  concern  where  they wanted  a  guarantee  they                                                                    
would receive a PFD.                                                                                                            
Representative  Wilson agreed  and  asked  if the  objective                                                                    
could be accomplished by the constitutional amendment.                                                                          
Mr. Gardner  agreed the objective  could be  accomplished by                                                                    
using  the word  shall, but  the legislature  would take  on                                                                    
high  risk  that litigation  would  be  triggered. The  word                                                                    
shall  could be  included and  passed, but  he believed  the                                                                    
likelihood of  litigation was high.  He did not  want anyone                                                                    
to walk  away with the  idea there was  a yes or  no answer.                                                                    
Shall could be used and  the legislature would find out from                                                                    
the court  how Bess v. Ulmer  would play out in  the context                                                                    
of the PFD.                                                                                                                     
Representative  Wilson referenced  the  bill provision  that                                                                    
would require  a three-quarter vote [by  the legislature] to                                                                    
draw over  4.75 percent  POMV [from the  ERA]. She  asked if                                                                    
the  language  had  to be  included  in  the  constitutional                                                                    
amendment.  She wondered  if  excluding  the language  would                                                                    
mean a draw cap of 4.75 percent.                                                                                                
3:34:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Gardner answered  that if  subsection  (e) was  removed                                                                    
from  the  bill,  the  current  laws  would  apply  and  the                                                                    
legislature would  have the ability to  appropriate from the                                                                    
ERA with  a simple majority  vote (21/11). The  legal effect                                                                    
of  the  provision was  more  like  a Constitutional  Budget                                                                    
Reserve (CBR) vote to make  additional expenditures from the                                                                    
ERA. He explained that without  the language the legislature                                                                    
could spend from the ERA with a majority vote.                                                                                  
Representative  Wilson asked  whether the  legislature would                                                                    
have  to change  subsection (e)  to  specify the  cap if  it                                                                    
wanted to  ensure that  no more than  4.75 percent  could be                                                                    
Mr. Gardner answered that by  specifying a 4.75 percent POMV                                                                    
transfer for  the purposes  designated in  the bill,  if the                                                                    
rest  of the  ERA was  not available  for appropriation,  it                                                                    
would  almost  seem  tantamount   to  rolling  it  into  the                                                                    
principal of the fund. He  was not certain he understood the                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  spoke  about a  scenario  where  the                                                                    
resolution went on the ballot.  She asked if the legislature                                                                    
would have to put  something in the constitutional amendment                                                                    
to ensure no  more than the 4.75 percent POMV  draw could be                                                                    
taken  [from the  ERA]. Alternatively,  she  wondered if  it                                                                    
would  only require  a statutory  change. She  observed that                                                                    
subsection (e)  allowed drawing more  than the  4.75 percent                                                                    
Mr. Gardner  answered that a  21 vote [simple  majority vote                                                                    
in the House] was currently  required to access an ERA draw.                                                                    
He  agreed  that  the  majority  vote  issue  needed  to  be                                                                    
addressed in  the bill.  He explained  Representative Wilson                                                                    
would  need to  suggest  amendment  language to  Legislative                                                                    
Legal Services.  He explained  it would  have the  effect of                                                                    
fencing off the remaining amount.                                                                                               
3:38:07 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki spoke  to the  Bess v.  Ulmer issue                                                                    
and the permanency  of the PFD. He understood  that the word                                                                    
"may"  complicated the  issue for  some. He  asked if  there                                                                    
would be  a legal  challenge if the  bill passed  and became                                                                    
constitutional and  a future legislature  did not pay  out a                                                                    
Mr. Gardner suspected so.                                                                                                       
Representative Kawasaki asked  whether including language in                                                                    
the bill communicating the legislature's  intent [to pay out                                                                    
PFDs] was sufficient assurance.                                                                                                 
Mr.  Gardner   imagined  that  including  the   PFD  in  the                                                                    
constitution  would  be  a  fairly   heavy  burden  for  the                                                                    
legislature  to disregard.  He believed  that with  the term                                                                    
"may"  the  court  would uphold  the  legislative  power  of                                                                    
appropriations. For  example, if the Valdez  marine terminal                                                                    
was destroyed  by a  tsunami and  the legislature  was faced                                                                    
with  expenditures  it  had  to balance  with  the  PFD,  he                                                                    
believed  the  legislature  would   have  that  ability.  He                                                                    
believed that was  what the court would say,  but the answer                                                                    
was not  known with 100  percent certainty. He  believed the                                                                    
bill language gave some assurance  to PFD recipients, but it                                                                    
ultimately left the  burden with the legislature  to make an                                                                    
appropriation.  Additionally,  it  left a  burden  with  the                                                                    
governor to  veto or not  veto the  line item. He  could see                                                                    
there was  a desire to  come to  a high level  of certainty.                                                                    
Unless the committee  wanted to put "shall" in  and roll the                                                                    
dice with  the supreme court,  he believed the bill  was the                                                                    
closest they  would get to a  safe path forward. He  did not                                                                    
believe many  guarantees in life  and it would  be difficult                                                                    
to put it in the constitution without a convention.                                                                             
3:40:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg remarked  that the  bill included                                                                    
the word "may"  pertaining to the PFD. He  detailed that the                                                                    
legislature was  constitutionally mandated to  provide funds                                                                    
for  education,  university,  public  safety,  and  economic                                                                    
development. He  asked why the  use of the word  shall would                                                                    
prioritize the  PFD over  the other  items. He  wondered why                                                                    
the  items originally  in the  constitution  would not  have                                                                    
priority over the proposed amendment.                                                                                           
Mr. Gardner answered that the other  model of the use of the                                                                    
word  "shall"   would  require  the  payment.   Meaning  the                                                                    
transfer of funds would occur  based on whatever percentages                                                                    
were decided upon. He assumed  that without an appropriation                                                                    
the funds would  go straight to the dividend fund  to be put                                                                    
into checks.  Under the current  bill the funds would  go to                                                                    
the GF  for appropriation and ultimately  was susceptible to                                                                    
being    balanced   out    with   the    other   fundamental                                                                    
constitutional  responsibilities  of   the  legislature.  He                                                                    
explained the  change [to the  word "may"] was an  effort to                                                                    
save the bill from a constitutional challenge.                                                                                  
Representative  Guttenberg surmised  that  the change  meant                                                                    
the  legislature  was  delineating  the PFD  as  a  specific                                                                    
program that would  be paid out (at 33 percent)  if the bill                                                                    
used  the  word shall.  He  remarked  that the  constitution                                                                    
required  the  legislature  to fund  university  and  public                                                                    
safety. He referenced first in/first  out and asked what the                                                                    
constitution  mandated  the  legislature to  do.  He  listed                                                                    
items  the legislature  was required  to fund  including the                                                                    
general welfare  of the people, university,  K-12 education,                                                                    
public safety, prisons, and  economic development. He stated                                                                    
that Mr.  Gardner was saying if  the word "may" was  used it                                                                    
would be a legislative process.                                                                                                 
Representative  Guttenberg remarked  that for  35 years  the                                                                    
legislature had  done the  right thing.  He observed  it was                                                                    
hitting a  wall at present that  was changing how it  had to                                                                    
act.  He continued  that the  committee  was now  discussing                                                                    
changing the  method to pay out  the PFD. In the  context of                                                                    
the constitution,  if the  bill used  the word  "shall," the                                                                    
constitution would  still specify  that the  legislature was                                                                    
required to  provide funds for  the other items as  well. He                                                                    
remarked on the  last [most recent] thing  being done having                                                                    
the highest priority. He asked if that was the case.                                                                            
3:44:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Gardner  answered that one  thing would not be  like the                                                                    
others. He  explained that  the constitution  required there                                                                    
shall be education  and public safety. He  detailed that the                                                                    
legislature  spent long  nights trying  to determine  how to                                                                    
fund those  items based  on input  from the  public. Whereas                                                                    
the bill would designate 4.75  percent of a known number and                                                                    
33 percent  of a known  number "with  a shall." It  would no                                                                    
longer  be like  the  other items  listed by  Representative                                                                    
Guttenberg;  it  would  be  an   automatic  transfer  as  he                                                                    
understood  it. The  other items  the constitution  required                                                                    
the legislature  to fund  would still  be mandated,  but the                                                                    
constitution did not specify education  would be funded with                                                                    
4.75 percent of the Permanent  Fund multiplied by 33 percent                                                                    
with   the  use   of  the   words   "shall  transfer."   The                                                                    
constitution designated that there  shall be given programs,                                                                    
but not how much money shall be designated.                                                                                     
Representative  Guttenberg stated  it got  to dialogue  down                                                                    
the  road.  He  commented  that  there  had  only  been  one                                                                    
relevant legal case (Bess v.  Ulmer) regarding the issue. He                                                                    
stated he would have to think more about the issue.                                                                             
Vice-Chair Gara  communicated that  he was  not cheerleading                                                                    
for one bill  version or another. He  understood Mr. Gardner                                                                    
believed it  was likely someone  would litigate if  the word                                                                    
"shall"  was used  in the  bill. He  asked if  the bill  was                                                                    
likely to  be upheld  by the  courts if  it passed  with the                                                                    
word  "shall"  included. He  did  not  care whether  someone                                                                    
would sue, but whether it would  be upheld by the courts. He                                                                    
stated there was  some concern that those who  wanted to put                                                                    
the  burden of  a fiscal  plan to  heavily on  the Permanent                                                                    
Fund would  jeopardize the PFD.  He reiterated  his question                                                                    
about using the word shall.                                                                                                     
Mr.  Gardner replied  that  Legislative  Legal Services  may                                                                    
have to defend the legislature  on the issue. He thought the                                                                    
odds of winning a  case were not high. He used  a scale of 1                                                                    
to 10  and rated the use  of the word  "may" as a 2  and the                                                                    
use of the  word "shall" as a  9. He did not know  what a 10                                                                    
would be  in terms of the  likelihood of a problem  with the                                                                    
supreme  court. For  the  reasons he  had  listed, the  word                                                                    
"shall" would alter many of the pieces.                                                                                         
Vice-Chair Gara thanked Mr. Gardner  and stated what a court                                                                    
would do was the key issue for him.                                                                                             
Mr. Gardner relayed he would be available by phone.                                                                             
Co-Chair  Foster  referenced  a letter  provided  by  Angela                                                                    
Rodell, director, APFC dated March 12, 2018 (copy on file).                                                                     
ANGELA  RODELL, EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,  ALASKA PERMANENT  FUND                                                                    
CORPORATION,   relayed  that   she   had  provided   written                                                                    
testimony to the committee, but  did not plan on reading it.                                                                    
She shared  that APFC  board had been  supportive of  a POMV                                                                    
since  it passed  a resolution  in 2000.  The board  did not                                                                    
weigh in on how the draw was  spent or what it was used for,                                                                    
but rather  creating a  rule around  how the  fund mechanics                                                                    
would  work.   The  board  had  identified   five  important                                                                    
criteria for a constitutional limit:                                                                                            
   1. Annual limit on appropriations from the Fund of up to                                                                   
     five percent of the total market value of the fund,                                                                        
     averaged over a period of five years;                                                                                      
   2. Use of a five year period to provide certainty about                                                                    
     the amount available for distribution before the                                                                           
     fiscal year commenced;                                                                                                     
   3. Income of the Fund would become a part of the Fund and                                                                  
     would not be subject to separate appropriation, other                                                                      
     than as a part of the annual distribution;                                                                                 
   4. Current value of the earnings reserve account would be                                                                  
     rolled into the principal of the Fund; and                                                                                 
   5. The distinction between principal and earnings would                                                                    
     be eliminated.                                                                                                             
Ms.  Rodell stated  there had  been  numerous proposals  for                                                                    
statutory changes to rules over  the past few years that for                                                                    
the  board had  different thresholds  than a  constitutional                                                                    
amendment. She noted  that in theory it was  easier to amend                                                                    
statute  than the  constitution. She  relayed that  APFC did                                                                    
not support the current version of HJR 23.                                                                                      
3:50:48 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson thanked Ms.  Rodell for her testimony.                                                                    
She asked  how APFC would  react to subsection (e)  where at                                                                    
any time more  money could be taken out [of  the ERA] with a                                                                    
three-quarter  vote [by  the legislature].  She asked  if it                                                                    
would impact how the fund was invested.                                                                                         
Ms.  Rodell  answered that  it  would  have an  effect.  She                                                                    
explained  APFC was  trying to  avoid  ad hoc  draws of  any                                                                    
amount  in any  year. She  explained that  it would  require                                                                    
adjustment to how  the fund was invested. The  fact that the                                                                    
ERA was  kept separate  from the  fund principal  meant that                                                                    
the amount could be drawn in  it's entirety at any time with                                                                    
a three-quarter vote.  She detailed that APFC  had to assume                                                                    
that the money  would be drawn; therefore, it  would have to                                                                    
be invested  differently. Even though the  language read the                                                                    
fund would be  invested the same, it  would be contradictory                                                                    
for  the board  of trustees  as fiduciaries  to protect  the                                                                    
money on  deposit that was  expected to use.  She elaborated                                                                    
it would provide a level  of instability APFC was looking to                                                                    
avoid.  A  constitutional   amendment  would  introduce  the                                                                    
instability in perpetuity.                                                                                                      
Representative Wilson asked if there  would be a decrease in                                                                    
revenue from the fund.                                                                                                          
Ms. Rodell believed  there would have to be a  decrease - it                                                                    
would have to look similar to the CBR.                                                                                          
Representative Wilson  asked about  coming up with  the 4.75                                                                    
percent POMV. She asked about  the method that would be used                                                                    
to determine  the figure. She  wondered if the  amount would                                                                    
be determined  by looking at  the Permanent Fund  corpus and                                                                    
the ERA  on one day  in time.  She queried who  would select                                                                    
the given day.                                                                                                                  
Ms. Rodell  answered that APFC  would assume there  would be                                                                    
conforming  statutory changes  that  would put  some of  the                                                                    
mechanisms in  place to  enact how  the resolution  would go                                                                    
forward.  Traditionally June  30 of  a fiscal  year was  the                                                                    
"mark" date. She  detailed June 30 was the  date APFC marked                                                                    
its  comprehensive annual  financial report  and it  was the                                                                    
end  of  the  state's  fiscal year.  The  corporation  would                                                                    
expect  June  30  to  be  the valuation  date  of  the  fund                                                                    
(similar to current process) -  on that date they would look                                                                    
at the balances of the fund  in total (principal and ERA) on                                                                    
each of the  June 30th dates for the past  five years, do an                                                                    
average valuation, and draw 4.75 percent.                                                                                       
Representative  Wilson  referenced  read from  a  change  in                                                                    
current  language on  page 1  [lines 10  through 12]  of the                                                                    
     The  earnings  reserve  account  is  established  as  a                                                                    
     separate  account in  the fund.  Income  from the  fund                                                                    
     shall be  deposited into  the earnings  reserve account                                                                    
     as soon as it is received...                                                                                               
Representative Wilson  was uncertain about the  meaning. She                                                                    
asked   whether  APFC   considered   [income]  as   realized                                                                    
earnings. She asked if it was the current methodology.                                                                          
3:54:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Rodell answered that the  corporation had struggled with                                                                    
the sentence  when preparing  for the  meeting. The  way the                                                                    
bill was  drafted would require the  definition of statutory                                                                    
net  income  in statute,  which  was  only realized  income.                                                                    
Under  the bill  it would  be  difficult to  move away  from                                                                    
statutory  net   income  to  transfer  income   to  the  ERA                                                                    
immediately.  She explained  APFC  would have  to work  with                                                                    
counsel regarding  moving unrealized  gains, which  would be                                                                    
in contradiction  to earlier legal opinions  the corporation                                                                    
had received; however, the  constitutional language would be                                                                    
new. She  relayed that it  would require a new  opinion from                                                                    
the attorney general's office.                                                                                                  
Representative  Wilson  asked  how realized  and  unrealized                                                                    
gains would impact the Permanent Fund corpus.                                                                                   
Ms. Rodell answered  that the corpus of the  fund at present                                                                    
would  be reduced  by $8.7  billion immediately  because all                                                                    
the unrealized gain would have  to be immediately moved over                                                                    
to the ERA.                                                                                                                     
Representative Ortiz asked  if hardening the ad  hoc draw to                                                                    
5 or 6 percent would impact the decision of the APFC board.                                                                     
Ms.  Rodell answered  that  predictability  provided by  the                                                                    
legislature made  the job of  the board of trustees  and its                                                                    
investment     decisions    straight     forward,    whereas                                                                    
unpredictability made the board's job difficult.                                                                                
Representative Ortiz  asked whether  the only way  to create                                                                    
true predictability would  be to change the fund  over to an                                                                    
endowment  model and  eliminate the  difference between  the                                                                    
ERA and the fund corpus.                                                                                                        
3:57:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Rodell answered in the affirmative.                                                                                         
Representative  Thompson  asked  what   kind  of  effect  no                                                                    
inflation proofing  in the  last few years  had on  the fund                                                                    
Ms. Rodell  answered that the  amount of  inflation proofing                                                                    
that had not  gone into the fund's principal  was about $1.9                                                                    
billion (not  including the proposal  for FY 19).  The money                                                                    
was still  residing in the  ERA and  should be moved  to the                                                                    
principal of  the fund. She  explained the $40  billion that                                                                    
would  be  left  behind  if  all  the  unrealized  gain  was                                                                    
transferred, would be closer to $42 billion.                                                                                    
Representative   Thompson  pointed   to  slide   2  in   the                                                                    
presentation that showed inflation  proofing with a majority                                                                    
vote.  He  noted  that  HJR 23  did  not  address  inflation                                                                    
proofing. He asked for Ms. Rodell's opinion on the matter.                                                                      
Ms. Rodell answered that one  of the reasons the corporation                                                                    
did  not  support  the  current  bill  was  the  absence  of                                                                    
inflation proofing  and because  it only  contained language                                                                    
allowing  the legislature  to make  an appropriation  to the                                                                    
principal at any time.                                                                                                          
3:59:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara had  no interest  in passing  something for                                                                    
show or that the voters would  reject. One of the things the                                                                    
board was asking for was to  go into the principal, which he                                                                    
believed the public  would reject. He stated  that the board                                                                    
supported creating  one fund of  earnings and  principal and                                                                    
in down years the principal could  go down and a dividend or                                                                    
government  services  could  still  be paid.  He  asked  for                                                                    
verification   that    it   was    one   of    the   board's                                                                    
Ms. Rodell answered  in the affirmative, but  in the context                                                                    
of rolling  the balance of  the ERA into the  principal. She                                                                    
explained  that they  would  start off  with  a $65  billion                                                                    
fund, not  a $40 billion fund.  There would be a  draw limit                                                                    
of 5  percent and whether it  was used for dividends  or any                                                                    
other  allowable  purchase,  was   up  to  statute  and  the                                                                    
appropriation  powers  granted  to the  legislature  by  the                                                                    
constitution.  She   explained  that  the  money   would  be                                                                    
invested and  the legislature  could spend  up to  5 percent                                                                    
per the board of trustees' request.                                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Gara understood  Ms. Rodell's  perspective as  a                                                                    
fund  manager.  He believed  the  public  would be  strongly                                                                    
opposed  to the  idea. He  stated  that one  of the  board's                                                                    
recommendations was to combine the  ERA and the principal of                                                                    
the  fund. He  continued that  in  a bad  stock market  year                                                                    
where  the fund  went from  $65 [billion]  to $55  [billion]                                                                    
there would still  be a payout from  principal. He explained                                                                    
it was his concern politically.                                                                                                 
4:01:59 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Rodell answered that it  was the reason for smoothing of                                                                    
over  five of  the past  six  years because  the lower  year                                                                    
would feed  into whatever  the calculation  was (e.g.  the 5                                                                    
percent,   4.75  percent,   5.25   percent).  Whatever   the                                                                    
percentage  was would  take the  dropped years  into account                                                                    
and the concept  of principal and earnings  went away. There                                                                    
would be  one fund/endowment  that would be  creating wealth                                                                    
and  a  portion  would  be  used.  Presumably  earnings  and                                                                    
expenditures would  average out. She elaborated  there would                                                                    
be years  where they under  drew, as with the  current year.                                                                    
She  explained that  the  value of  the  fund had  increased                                                                    
tremendously over  the past year  and the  calculation would                                                                    
not  include that  value. She  expounded that  the fund  had                                                                    
increased from $59  billion to $64.5 billion,  which was not                                                                    
taken  into account.  She  detailed it  was  the reason  the                                                                    
effective  draw rate  was less  than the  5 percent.  As the                                                                    
fund declined, there may be an  over draw in some years, but                                                                    
it  would  average  out  over the  long-term.  The  idea  of                                                                    
principal would  go away  completely because  everything the                                                                    
fund was earning (royalty or  investment earnings) would all                                                                    
go to the same place. The fund would work as an endowment.                                                                      
Vice-Chair  Gara  understood  Ms. Rodell  was  seeking  wise                                                                    
management of the fund. He was  not happy that a fiscal plan                                                                    
had  not been  established. Currently  the state  was almost                                                                    
out of  savings and  some legislators  believed it  would be                                                                    
necessary  to begin  drawing  money from  the  ERA (with  no                                                                    
designated  draw  formula).  He stated  it  represented  the                                                                    
status  quo. He  remarked  that the  Senate  had been  clear                                                                    
about  that   in  a  press   conference.  He  did   not  see                                                                    
significant savings elsewhere since  the CBR had nearly been                                                                    
depleted. The  proposed constitutional amendment  included a                                                                    
formula and a three-quarter  vote to draw anything exceeding                                                                    
the  formula,   which  he  believed  appeared   to  be  more                                                                    
protective  than current  law. He  asked if  and why  APFC's                                                                    
investment  decisions  would go  the  other  way if  HJR  23                                                                    
4:05:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Rodell believed  the reasoning  was based  on what  had                                                                    
taken place  with the CBR  and the three-quarter  votes. She                                                                    
elaborated  that  HJR  23  appeared  to  be  a  nice  fiscal                                                                    
constraint on the  fund, but it actually would  end up being                                                                    
the opposite because  of the mechanics and  what was needed.                                                                    
She explained  that the three-quarter votes  did happen, and                                                                    
it was not  the limiter that people intended to  be when put                                                                    
in place.                                                                                                                       
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the  three-quarter language was not                                                                    
included in  the bill.  He spoke about  the status  quo that                                                                    
would allow the legislature to take  as much from the ERA as                                                                    
it wanted. He  asked if APFC would  invest differently under                                                                    
the bill's 4.75 percent draw limit versus the status quo.                                                                       
Ms.  Rodell communicated  the  need  for clarification.  She                                                                    
wondered if the  majority vote statute would  still apply if                                                                    
the  ERA was  created as  a separate  account (as  under the                                                                    
first  section of  HJR 23).  Alternatively, she  wondered if                                                                    
the  4.75 percent  would become  the draw  limit. She  would                                                                    
need clarification from Mr.  Gardner because the distinction                                                                    
would  make a  difference. She  continued that  if all  that                                                                    
could come out of the fund  was 4.75 percent, APFC would not                                                                    
have  to   alter  its  investment  strategy.   Whereas,  the                                                                    
possibility of  accessing the  ERA for ad  hoc draws  with a                                                                    
simple  majority or  a three-quarter  [super majority]  vote                                                                    
introduced  uncertainty  and unpredictability,  which  would                                                                    
cause APFC to alter or rethink how the fund was invested.                                                                       
Vice-Chair Gara  spoke to  a scenario  where the  draw limit                                                                    
was  4.75 percent  and a  majority vote  (instead of  status                                                                    
quo) allowed the legislature to  draw anything it wanted. He                                                                    
wondered  how  APFC  would  invest   under  the  status  quo                                                                    
compared to HJR 23 with no three-quarter vote.                                                                                  
Ms.  Rodell  answered  that  if  the  amount  available  for                                                                    
distribution from  the Permanent  Fund equaled  4.75 percent                                                                    
of the average market value  of the Permanent Fund including                                                                    
the ERA  (as in version  T), APFC  would not have  to change                                                                    
how it invested the fund.                                                                                                       
4:09:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Grenn  thanked  Ms.   Rodell  for  her  work                                                                    
protecting the  fund for current and  future generations. He                                                                    
asked if APFC  was amenable to the 4.75 percent  POMV in the                                                                    
legislation. He noted that Ms.  Rodell had communicated that                                                                    
a draw up to 5 percent was acceptable.                                                                                          
Ms. Rodell replied in the affirmative.                                                                                          
Representative Grenn asked for  verification that the bill's                                                                    
use of  five out of  six years  to provide certainty  of the                                                                    
amount available for distribution was acceptable.                                                                               
Ms. Rodell answered in the affirmative.                                                                                         
Representative  Grenn  referenced   the  APFC  board's  five                                                                    
criteria [reviewed earlier by  Ms. Rodell]. He asked whether                                                                    
the  board believed  HJR 23  was  lacking criteria  4 and  5                                                                    
regarding rolling the  [ERA] into the principal  of the fund                                                                    
and eliminating the distinction  [between fund principal and                                                                    
earnings] in terms of becoming a true endowment.                                                                                
Ms. Rodell agreed.                                                                                                              
Representative Grenn  stated that  an ad  hoc draw  could be                                                                    
"nine-tenths, 99  out of 100,  59 out  of 60." He  asked for                                                                    
verification that the  ad hoc draw caused  concern that APFC                                                                    
would have to adjust investment management going forward.                                                                       
Ms.   Rodell  answered   that  the   ad  hoc   draw  reduced                                                                    
predictability  and there  was no  recognition of  inflation                                                                    
proofing,   only  recognition   that  the   legislature  may                                                                    
appropriate money back to the principal.                                                                                        
4:11:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson   asked   for   clarification.   She                                                                    
understood  APFC wanted  to see  the principal  and the  ERA                                                                    
combined. Her  understanding of Ms. Rodell's  response to an                                                                    
earlier question was  that if there was a  4.75 percent POMV                                                                    
and no ad hoc draw  there would be predictability. She asked                                                                    
whether  there was  no predictability  unless the  principal                                                                    
and the ERA were combined.                                                                                                      
Ms. Rodell answered  that limiting the draw  to 4.75 percent                                                                    
created predictability.  She was unsure why  the legislature                                                                    
would not choose to roll  the ERA into the principal instead                                                                    
of limiting  itself to  the ERA alone.  However, as  long as                                                                    
the legislation  limited it to  the ERA,  the predictability                                                                    
increased  because the  legislature would  never be  able to                                                                    
exceed the  amount in the  ERA. She explained that  the APFC                                                                    
board contemplated  and continued to  support the idea  of a                                                                    
true  endowment  - one  fund  with  a  spending limit  of  a                                                                    
percent of  all assets  under management and  no bifurcation                                                                    
of principal and ERA.                                                                                                           
Representative  Wilson understood  and  appreciated it.  She                                                                    
referenced Vice-Chair  Gara's point earlier that  the public                                                                    
wanted to protect the corpus of  the fund. She was trying to                                                                    
ensure  she  understood  Ms. Rodell  correctly.  She  stated                                                                    
there were  two issues. The  first pertained to  whether the                                                                    
POMV was correct and she  understood that the APFC board was                                                                    
comfortable  with  4.75 percent.  The  second,  which was  a                                                                    
policy call,  was how  the 4.75  percent should  be divided.                                                                    
She remarked that  the second issue was  outside the board's                                                                    
purview.  She believed  APFC was  more  concerned about  the                                                                    
possibility of  what could be  drawn from the fund  and that                                                                    
nothing   else    could   happen   to    negatively   impact                                                                    
predictability. She  stated her understanding  that creating                                                                    
an endowment was not as important  to APFC as it was to have                                                                    
a consistent fund draw that could not be exceeded.                                                                              
4:14:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.   Rodell  agreed.   She  referenced   slide  3   of  the                                                                    
presentation and detailed that  APFC wanted certainty on the                                                                    
"total draw"  row [top  row in the  table]. The  other three                                                                    
rows on  the table  were in  the legislature's  purview. She                                                                    
detailed  that knowing  and providing  for the  certainty of                                                                    
the total  draw line  (4.75 percent or  5 percent)  was what                                                                    
APFC was  seeking; the corporation believed  the limit would                                                                    
protect the fund for future  generations. She explained that                                                                    
it  would mean  all  things  being equal,  if  the draw  was                                                                    
calculated  at $2,800  in FY  22, that  amount would  not be                                                                    
exceeded.  She  noted  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  the                                                                    
legislature from  taking less, but  it could not  take more,                                                                    
which protected the long-term viability of the fund.                                                                            
Representative Wilson asked how  much the Permanent Fund was                                                                    
expected to earn to meet the numbers on slide 3.                                                                                
Co-Chair Seaton replied 6.5 percent.                                                                                            
Representative Pruitt observed that  the CS and the proposal                                                                    
by  APFC   required  handling  the  legislative   budget  in                                                                    
different ways. He  detailed that the 4.75  percent POMV set                                                                    
a  limit and  the ad  hoc draw  accessed by  a three-quarter                                                                    
vote could increase the budget.  He remarked that the second                                                                    
item created  the uncertainty APFC  was concerned  about. He                                                                    
thought the  APFC board was  proposing the idea  of becoming                                                                    
trust  fund babies.  He  elaborated that  out  of the  total                                                                    
fund, only a specific amount  could be accessed, which would                                                                    
allow APFC  to maintain stability.  He believed it  would be                                                                    
challenging for  APFC if the  legislation specified  that up                                                                    
to a  certain percentage could  be drawn (e.g. 5  percent or                                                                    
other).  He  asked  if  the  scenario  would  introduce  the                                                                    
uncertainty APFC was concerned with.                                                                                            
Ms. Rodell disagreed.  She explained that "up  to" a certain                                                                    
amount meant  APFC would know  the maximum draw  amount. The                                                                    
current draft of  the resolution did not include  a cap. She                                                                    
detailed  it was  the uncertainty  between the  4.75 percent                                                                    
draw and  everything in the  ERA at the time  [an additional                                                                    
draw] was debated. She elaborated  that if there was only $1                                                                    
billion in  the ERA,  the issue may  look different  than it                                                                    
did at  present with  an ERA balance  of $16.5  billion. The                                                                    
fact  that the  draw could  be anything  [under the  current                                                                    
legislation] was what created the uncertainty.                                                                                  
4:18:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Pruitt  understood the  ad  hoc  draw was  a                                                                    
concern, as  well as a  cap. He  detailed that if  the state                                                                    
needed  additional  revenue,   which  he  acknowledged  they                                                                    
wanted to limit,  it may be prudent not to  set a low number                                                                    
that  would  mean searching  other  places  for revenue.  He                                                                    
provided  a  scenario  where  the  ERA  and  principal  were                                                                    
combined, and the ad hoc  draw was removed. He asked whether                                                                    
increasing  the draw  up to  a  certain amount  such as  5.5                                                                    
percent  would create  inflexibility  for APFC  in terms  of                                                                    
Ms.  Rodell  replied  that knowing  what  was  expected  was                                                                    
needed to provide certainty.                                                                                                    
Representative  Pruitt asked  if  a  statutory mechanism  to                                                                    
handle the issue at hand was sufficient.                                                                                        
Ms. Rodell replied  that the board was  very concerned about                                                                    
the  lack of  statutory or  constitutional rules.  The board                                                                    
preferred  a constitutional  amendment to  provide a  simple                                                                    
mechanism  recognizing  the  changes to  the  definition  of                                                                    
income from  an accounting perspective, that  the investment                                                                    
landscape  had changed  since the  original  passage of  the                                                                    
amendment  in  1976,  and the  predictability  of  a  needed                                                                    
distribution.  The board  would support  statutory rules  if                                                                    
the legislature  could get them  in place. Statute  could be                                                                    
changed each year, which was  a benefit and a challenge. The                                                                    
absence of both had become problematic.                                                                                         
4:22:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Pruitt  addressed a  scenario where  the fund                                                                    
ERA and principal were merged,  and a higher draw percentage                                                                    
was set to  give the legislature the flexibility  to move up                                                                    
and down based  on the needs in a given  year. He referenced                                                                    
legislation from the  previous year (SB 26)  that included a                                                                    
draw  of   5.25  percent  for   two  years  and   5  percent                                                                    
thereafter.  He asked  if the  5.25 percent  variability for                                                                    
two years would create long-term problems or be reasonable.                                                                     
Ms. Rodell answered that the  fund could sustain a statutory                                                                    
5.25 percent for two years.  However, it could not sustain a                                                                    
5.25 percent draw  on an ad hoc calculation  year after year                                                                    
with nothing set in statute  and no certainty on whether the                                                                    
percentage would increase or  decrease. Formally agreeing to                                                                    
something in writing made the concept sustainable.                                                                              
Representative  Ortiz referenced  slide 2  and spoke  to the                                                                    
APFC board's concern with no  certainty in the legislation's                                                                    
inflation proofing  with a majority  vote. He  asked whether                                                                    
the APFC board  would continue to oppose  the legislation if                                                                    
the provision was maintained, but  the ad hoc draw provision                                                                    
was removed.                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Rodell  answered  there would  still  be  concern.  She                                                                    
detailed it had  been a priority of the board  since 1982 to                                                                    
protect the  purchasing power of  the fund's  principal. The                                                                    
resolution continued  the concept  of a principal  versus an                                                                    
ERA.  The only  way the  principal preserved  its purchasing                                                                    
power  in  that  case  was  the  inflation  proofing  method                                                                    
currently  in   statute  and  the  recognition   the  annual                                                                    
appropriations needed to be made.                                                                                               
Representative  Ortiz asked  for clarification  that to  get                                                                    
the support of the APFC  board the resolution should include                                                                    
something providing more certainty on inflation proofing.                                                                       
Ms. Rodell  agreed; the corporation  was happy to  work with                                                                    
committee members on the concept.                                                                                               
4:26:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Gara  made the assumption  that the  public would                                                                    
not support  going into  the corpus  of the  Permanent Fund,                                                                    
which was part  of APFC's recommendation to  combine the ERA                                                                    
and principal. He  referenced that SB 21 [SB 26]  and HJR 23                                                                    
both operated in  a world where APFC was trying  to make the                                                                    
funds in the  ERA last. Both bills operated in  a world with                                                                    
$16 billion in the ERA. He  continued that HJR 23 included a                                                                    
4.75 percent  annual draw for  a larger than before  PFD and                                                                    
funds  for public  services. He  spoke to  a scenario  where                                                                    
traditional  inflation  proofing  was included  (another  $1                                                                    
billion). His  understanding from conversation  the previous                                                                    
year  was that  using  a waterfall  mechanism for  inflation                                                                    
proofing was  safer. He  thought including  annual inflation                                                                    
proofing on top  of a 4.75 percent draw  in the constitution                                                                    
would risk the balance of the ERA.                                                                                              
Ms.  Rodell   replied  that   SB  26   recognized  inflation                                                                    
proofing;  however,   the  calculation  was  based   not  on                                                                    
inflation, but  on an amount  four times the  expected draw.                                                                    
She clarified that  it did not have a  correlation to actual                                                                    
inflation unlike  current statute. She noted  that inflation                                                                    
proofing  was not  money spent,  but money  transferred into                                                                    
the  principal  and  invested   in  kicking  off  additional                                                                    
investment income.  She explained  that the money  came back                                                                    
in  the form  of additional  earnings. The  money was  still                                                                    
generating income - the idea  was to preserve the purchasing                                                                    
power of the  principal and to ensure  the balance continued                                                                    
to grow  with the cost  of services. As the  legislature was                                                                    
passing budgets,  part of the  natural growth in  the budget                                                                    
would be  the cost of  inflation for services. The  idea was                                                                    
that if  the Permanent Fund was  going to be used  as a fund                                                                    
source that  it be allowed  at the  same rate as  the budget                                                                    
because  the baseline  services had  a natural  inflationary                                                                    
component as well.                                                                                                              
Vice-Chair Gara  discussed that under  SB 26 money  would be                                                                    
put into  the Permanent Fund  principal once there  was four                                                                    
times what was needed in the  ERA. He noted there had been a                                                                    
slightly    different   bill    version   in    the   House.                                                                    
Alternatively, if  they were only  operating within  the ERA                                                                    
and had a  4.75 percent draw and inflation of  3 percent, it                                                                    
seemed  to be  a heavy  lift to  preserve the  ERA over  the                                                                    
4:30:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Rodell  believed it was part  of the debate over  how to                                                                    
spend  the  ERA  earnings  -  it  was  a  policy  call.  She                                                                    
elaborated  it was  APFC's long-held  view that  it was  the                                                                    
corporation's  fiduciary responsibility  to ensure  the fund                                                                    
could keep  up and was protected.  When the fund was  put in                                                                    
competition  with   everything  else  it  was   a  difficult                                                                    
conversation, but  the fund  would not be  there to  pay for                                                                    
services in ten years if it was not cared for at present.                                                                       
Vice-Chair  Gara believed  people  were comfortable  putting                                                                    
inflation  proofing  in  the  budget for  FY  19  for  those                                                                    
4:31:34 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Seaton   was   curious  about   the   5   percent                                                                    
recommendation. It  seemed the 5 percent  recommendation was                                                                    
contingent on there being no ad hoc draws.                                                                                      
Ms. Rodell agreed.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair Seaton  stated there had  been eight or  more years                                                                    
of steady increases in the value  of the fund. He provided a                                                                    
reverse scenario  of eight years  of decline where  the fund                                                                    
was  getting smaller  annually, meaning  the 5  percent draw                                                                    
would get increasingly larger depending  on the economics of                                                                    
investments. He asked if the  5 percent draw was the maximum                                                                    
that APFC  would suggest  if there  was no  ad hoc  draw. He                                                                    
asked if it was on the  precipice or hanging in the balance.                                                                    
He  considered that  in an  eight-year decline  scenario the                                                                    
legislature  would have  to work  on a  number of  different                                                                    
things. He  asked if the  4.75 percent draw included  in the                                                                    
bill was less  risky than 5 percent over  time especially if                                                                    
there  were   limited  ad  hoc  draws.   He  understood  the                                                                    
corporation  wanted   an  endowment   model  and   only  one                                                                    
predetermined draw. He thought  4.75 percent made more sense                                                                    
than  5  percent, but  he  was  uncertain whether  APFC  had                                                                    
addressed the issue if there were ad hoc draws.                                                                                 
4:34:37 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Rodell believed that as  a constitutional amendment, the                                                                    
ad hoc draws would be  very problematic regardless of a 4.75                                                                    
or 5 percent  draw. A constitutional amendment  would not be                                                                    
undone  after a  certain time,  unlike SB  26 that  would be                                                                    
statutory,  included a  three-year  lookback,  and could  be                                                                    
amended.  She  highlighted  that  the  topic  had  not  been                                                                    
touched  in  41  years.  She  detailed that  HJR  23  was  a                                                                    
constitutional  amendment   that  would  take   place  after                                                                    
something  had been  in place  for  41 years.  The board  of                                                                    
trustees had  arrived at a 5  percent draw because of  its 5                                                                    
percent real target  return. She explained that  a 5 percent                                                                    
expenditure  and the  5  percent target  had  resulted in  a                                                                    
matching in  trustees' minds about  what was  happening. She                                                                    
spoke to  4.75 percent versus  5 percent, which  meant there                                                                    
would  be more  money  remaining. The  more  money taken  at                                                                    
present meant less later and  vice versa. She added that the                                                                    
5 percent  real target  return had not  been changed  for 40                                                                    
years. The  board had considered  it the preceding  year and                                                                    
was concerned  about the direction  of the  capital markets,                                                                    
but no change had been made.                                                                                                    
4:36:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson  WITHDREW   her  OBJECTION   to  the                                                                    
adoption of the CS. She clarified her dislike for the bill.                                                                     
There  being NO  further OBJECTION,  Work Draft  30-LS0838\T                                                                    
(Martin, 3/11/18) was ADOPTED.                                                                                                  
4:37:35 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:39:18 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster relayed amendments to  the bill would be due                                                                    
by 5:00 p.m. the following  day. He shared information about                                                                    
public testimony times.                                                                                                         
HJR  23  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration [public testimony was  taken beginning at 7:00                                                                    
p.m.  and  is  included  following  HB  97  in  the  current                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 97                                                                                                             
     "An Act repealing the insurance tax credit for gifts                                                                       
     to the Alaska fire standards council; and providing                                                                        
     for an effective date."                                                                                                    
4:40:23 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,  SPONSOR, introduced himself.                                                                    
He thanked the committee for hearing the bill.                                                                                  
MAX   THOMPSON,   SON,    REPRESENTATIVE   STEVE   THOMPSON,                                                                    
introduced himself.                                                                                                             
FORREST   WOLFE,  STAFF,   REPRESENTATIVE  STEVE   THOMPSON,                                                                    
introduced himself.                                                                                                             
Representative   Thompson  explained   that  the   bill  had                                                                    
originated  from  a  search for  indirect  expenditures.  He                                                                    
explained that the  bill pertained to a tax  credit that had                                                                    
been  established in  2000 to  allow insurance  companies to                                                                    
donate to  establishing the  fire standards  council. During                                                                    
the  process of  the bill  passing through  the legislature,                                                                    
other funding had been located  and the tax credit had never                                                                    
been utilized.  He elaborated that  no one had  ever donated                                                                    
or taken a  tax credit in the 18 years  since the passage of                                                                    
the bill. He believed it was  time to remove the credit from                                                                    
statute. He encouraged the committee to pass the bill.                                                                          
Representative Guttenberg asked if  Mr. Max Thompson thought                                                                    
they should pass the bill.                                                                                                      
Mr. Max Thompson replied in the affirmative.                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster  listed  individuals available  online  for                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.                                                                             
4:43:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara  reviewed the  zero  fiscal  note from  the                                                                    
Department of Public Safety.                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT  HB 97(STA) out of committee                                                                    
with individual recommendations  and the accompanying fiscal                                                                    
There being  NO OBJECTION,  HB 97(STA)  was REPORTED  out of                                                                    
committee with a "do pass"  recommendation and with one zero                                                                    
fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety.                                                                               
Representative   Wilson  requested   to   hear  any   public                                                                    
testimony that may have been online for HJR 23.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Foster  agreed; however,  there were  no testifiers                                                                    
remaining online. Public testimony would begin at 7:00 p.m.                                                                     
4:46:14 PM                                                                                                                    
7:03:47 PM                                                                                                                    
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23                                                                                                 
     Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State                                                                      
     of Alaska relating to the Alaska permanent fund.                                                                           
7:03:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Seaton  relayed   that  Representative  Guttenberg                                                                    
would be listening in by telephone.                                                                                             
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY                                                                                                             
7:04:36 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster indicated  a new  committee substitute  had                                                                    
been adopted,  version T. He  relayed that  public testimony                                                                    
would be limited to 2  minutes. He also encouraged people to                                                                    
send in their written testimony.                                                                                                
7:05:57 PM                                                                                                                    
LORETTA JONES, SELF,  WRANGELL (via teleconference), thanked                                                                    
the  committee  and  various  legislators  for  serving  the                                                                    
public.  She shared  that former  Governor  Jay Hammond  had                                                                    
been concerned  about making changes to  the Permanent Fund.                                                                    
She  stated  that  the  PFD was  for  state  residents.  She                                                                    
provided detail. She  opposed using the PFD for  a bail out.                                                                    
She encouraged a  vote of the people. She  stressed that the                                                                    
money belonged to Alaskans.                                                                                                     
Representative Wilson  asked if the testifier  preferred the                                                                    
original version  or the new  version that had  been adopted                                                                    
earlier in the meeting.                                                                                                         
Ms. Jones responded that she just  wanted the issue to go to                                                                    
a  vote of  the people.  She  stated the  public was  losing                                                                    
faith in the legislature.                                                                                                       
7:09:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL  CHAMBERS,  SELF,  ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in favor  of HJR  23. He  had looked  forward to  the                                                                    
original version  of the legislation because  he preferred a                                                                    
50/50 split.  He spoke  directly to the  CS. He  thought the                                                                    
most important point  was the choice of the  word "shall" or                                                                    
"may." He  read from Article  VIII, Section 7 of  the Alaska                                                                    
Constitution   regarding   dedicated   general   funds.   He                                                                    
mentioned hearing Angela Rodell  being concerned about an ad                                                                    
hoc draw. He wondered why  the ERA would be included because                                                                    
there was  already a CBR.  He stated  directing a 4.75  or 5                                                                    
percent draw  or a lump sum  to the CBR. He  quoted from the                                                                    
Alaska Constitution  a second time and  reemphasized a 50/50                                                                    
7:13:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL GARHART,  SELF, WASILLA (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
of  his brother  had followed  the  PFD for  many years.  He                                                                    
provided  detail.  He  believed Alaskans  should  have  been                                                                    
getting more  money than  they had  been from  the Permanent                                                                    
Fund. He opined  that the split should be  50/50 rather than                                                                    
33/67;  he  did not  think  the  latter  split was  fair  to                                                                    
Alaskans. He believed  crime and politics was  going hand in                                                                    
hand unless the legislature  started doing something for the                                                                    
people. He thanked the committee.                                                                                               
7:14:25 PM                                                                                                                    
JOEL SIGMAN,  SELF, WASILLA  (via teleconference),  spoke in                                                                    
favor of the issue going to  a vote of the people. He shared                                                                    
that he  was raising a family  of three on $8,500  per year.                                                                    
He thought  the governor's reduction  to the PFD  equated to                                                                    
stealing  from the  people. He  spoke  to the  high rate  of                                                                    
homelessness  and that  people  were  losing their  property                                                                    
because they could not afford  their taxes. He stressed that                                                                    
the government was ripping them  off. He thought it appeared                                                                    
the politicians  were for the  politicians, not  the people.                                                                    
He did  not feel the  meeting was noticed properly.  He also                                                                    
commented about  moving the capital of  Alaska. He suggested                                                                    
moving the building inside of the old Palmer Fred Meyer.                                                                        
7:17:21 PM                                                                                                                    
MIKE ALEXANDER,  SELF, BIG LAKE (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
in opposition of  a 33/67 split. He opposed HJR  23. He felt                                                                    
the  legislature  had  taken   money  from  the  people.  He                                                                    
advocated  cutting  the  budget   further.  He  opposed  the                                                                    
proposed gasline. He  proposed putting the issues  to a vote                                                                    
of the people.  He thought the legislature  had stolen money                                                                    
from Alaskans. He strongly opposed HJR 23.                                                                                      
7:19:35 PM                                                                                                                    
MURIEL  GILLETTE,  SELF,   BIG  LAKE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
opposed  HJR 23.  She remarked  that two  years earlier  the                                                                    
governor had  cut the PFD  in half.  She opposed the  cut to                                                                    
the  PFD made  by the  legislature the  preceding year.  She                                                                    
disagreed with the proposed split.  She and her husband were                                                                    
retirees and would be greatly affected.                                                                                         
7:21:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CRIS  EICHENLAUB, SELF,  EAGLE  RIVER (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke in  opposition of  HJR 23. He  thought the  word "may"                                                                    
was a non-starter. He spoke  against taking the dividends of                                                                    
the people. He  thought taking people's PFD  put many people                                                                    
on  Medicaid, which  was a  cost to  the state.  He believed                                                                    
cuts to  the PFD stifled  economic growth. He  supported the                                                                    
development  of  the  state's natural  resources  to  obtain                                                                    
sustained income.  He disagreed  with taking money  from the                                                                    
people. He remarked  that one day the PFD would  be gone. He                                                                    
argued that the  state would have made over  $800,000 if the                                                                    
legislature had  inflation-proofed the fund the  past couple                                                                    
of  years.  He did  not  believe  the  sky was  falling.  He                                                                    
thought the  state may need  to figure  out how to  live off                                                                    
lower budgets.  He urged  the legislature  to leave  the PFD                                                                    
RICHARD HELLER,  SELF, CHUGIAK  (via teleconference),  had a                                                                    
case against  the State  of Alaska.  He provided  a personal                                                                    
story. He  was very concerned  about his case. He  served in                                                                    
the military  and had been  denied the PFD while  serving in                                                                    
Iraq. He  opposed touching the  dividend. He thought  it was                                                                    
taboo to be  talking about taking the  people's dividend. He                                                                    
also mentioned  all the money  being spent  on international                                                                    
travel. He encouraged generating new revenues.                                                                                  
7:28:50 PM                                                                                                                    
JAMES  SQUYERS, SELF,  RURAL  DELTANA (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in opposition  of HJR  23. He  stated the  only thing                                                                    
guaranteed in the  resolution was a decrease in  the PFD and                                                                    
the  enshrining of  a three-quarter  vote to  draw from  the                                                                    
ERA. He stated  the idea had proven problematic  and had led                                                                    
to increased  budgets when  applied to the  CBR. He  did not                                                                    
support a  reduction the PFD  and thought the  language "may                                                                    
appropriate"   was  indicative   of  nefarious   intent.  He                                                                    
mentioned  other bills  in  the  legislature and  encouraged                                                                    
members to take  up HJR 34, the companion bill  to SJR 1. He                                                                    
did not support the passage of HJR 23.                                                                                          
7:30:33 PM                                                                                                                    
MIKE COONS,  SELF, PALMER (via teleconference),  opposed HJR
23.  He  spoke about  his  involvement  with a  conservative                                                                    
national  organization.   He  believed   making  HJR   23  a                                                                    
committee  bill was  offensive  to  legislative members  who                                                                    
were not  supportive of the  legislation. He  disagreed with                                                                    
the 33/67  split. He stated that  the current administration                                                                    
and House  Majority had  decreased the  PFD. He  thought the                                                                    
state would  be stealing the  money of the people.  He urged                                                                    
members  to  kill  the  bill. He  reminded  members  of  the                                                                    
upcoming election.                                                                                                              
7:32:35 PM                                                                                                                    
HERMAN  MORGAN, SELF,  ANIAK  (via teleconference),  opposed                                                                    
the  bill due  to the  33/67  split. He  argued against  big                                                                    
government. He  thought the legislature would  end up taking                                                                    
all the  money. He spoke of  the boost in the  economy based                                                                    
on the PFD.  He thought SB 91 was a  terrible experiment. He                                                                    
also thought  Medicaid would bankrupt the  state. He thought                                                                    
the  legislature was  potentially destroying  the state.  He                                                                    
opposed all the give-away programs.  He spoke of Alaska once                                                                    
being  a  great  land.  He   thought  the  state  was  at  a                                                                    
crossroads. He thanked the committee for his time.                                                                              
7:36:22 PM                                                                                                                    
LYNETTE CLARK,  SELF, FOX (via teleconference),  opposed HJR
23. She  thought there should be  an ERA. She read  from the                                                                    
Alaska Constitution. She thought  establishing a new account                                                                    
was  unnecessary. She  talked about  the new  subsections in                                                                    
the  resolution.  She spoke  against  the  33/67 split.  She                                                                    
thought subsections  (d) through (f) were  a continuation of                                                                    
the  theft  of Alaskans'  PFD.  She  thought the  resolution                                                                    
needed much  more work. She continued  to reference portions                                                                    
of  the  Alaska  Constitution.  She  reemphasized  that  she                                                                    
opposed HJR 23. She spoke in favor  of HJR 34 and SJR 1. She                                                                    
was sad that Alaska had turned  in to what it was presently.                                                                    
She thought Alaska should be living within its means.                                                                           
7:41:23 PM                                                                                                                    
KURT  SCHMITT, SELF,  DELTA  JUNCTION (via  teleconference),                                                                    
opposed HJR  23. The PFD  program had been  very successful,                                                                    
and  the  Permanent  Fund  had been  growing  by  leaps  and                                                                    
bounds.  He thought  the three-quarter  vote  would lead  to                                                                    
taking more  money from the  Permanent Fund. He  opposed the                                                                    
33/67  split. He  thought the  words "may"  or "shall"  were                                                                    
both  unacceptable. He  did not  believe  spending had  been                                                                    
reduced enough. He disagreed with  taking the people's money                                                                    
and urged a  50/50 split. He believed the net  effect of the                                                                    
resolution  would  be a  major  reduction  of the  Permanent                                                                    
7:44:50 PM                                                                                                                    
WILLIAM   TOPEL,  SELF,   ANCHORAGE  (via   teleconference),                                                                    
opposed HJR 23.  He shared that he had arrived  in Alaska in                                                                    
1966. He liked  that the resolution would go to  the vote of                                                                    
the  people and  he like  that there  was no  change to  the                                                                    
Permanent Fund. However,  he did not like  the 33//67 split.                                                                    
The preferred a 50/50 split.  He also disagreed with setting                                                                    
the amount  of the PFD. He  could agree to a  5 percent POMV                                                                    
draw  with   a  range  to  accommodate   changes  in  market                                                                    
conditions. He  did not agree with  a three-quarter majority                                                                    
vote. He advocated properly inflation  proofing the fund. He                                                                    
supported the  "shall" language. He  also urged a  change in                                                                    
the governor's ability to appoint  the members of the Alaska                                                                    
Permanent Fund Corporation.  He did not support  the bill as                                                                    
written and asked the legislature to pass SJR 1 or HJR 34.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Foster acknowledged  Representative Justin  Parish                                                                    
in the room.                                                                                                                    
7:49:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MARTIN STEPETIN  SR, SELF,  JUNEAU, opposed  HJR 23  and the                                                                    
33/67  split. He  supported efforts  to balance  the budget,                                                                    
but he did not believe the  people of Alaska would allow the                                                                    
legislature to  use the Permanent  Fund. He advocated  for a                                                                    
balanced budget. He thought a  tax would be necessary in the                                                                    
near future. He  believed continued cuts to  the budget were                                                                    
not  sustainable.  He  reiterated   his  opposition  to  the                                                                    
7:51:29 PM                                                                                                                    
ED MARTIN, SELF, COOPER  LANDING (via teleconference), spoke                                                                    
in opposition of  HJR 23. He relayed that 83  percent of the                                                                    
voters did  not want  the Permanent  Fund used.  He believed                                                                    
there  were  alternatives.  He thought  the  answer  to  the                                                                    
problem  was  looking  at  the  constitution.  He  advocated                                                                    
selling  Alaska's  land  and developing  its  resources.  He                                                                    
thought the legislature was stealing  the people's money. He                                                                    
liked the  notion of putting  the issue  to the vote  of the                                                                    
people.  He  did  not  trust   the  government  because  the                                                                    
legislature  had  broken  trust.  He  strongly  opposed  the                                                                    
resolution.   He  continued   to  advocate   for  additional                                                                    
resource  development. He  did not  believe members  had the                                                                    
spirit of Alaskan pioneers.                                                                                                     
7:55:39 PM                                                                                                                    
RONALD LARKIN,  SELF, FAIRBANKS (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
against  the  legislation.  He provided  a  history  of  the                                                                    
Permanent  Fund  and  how  it worked.  He  did  not  support                                                                    
cutting the  PFD share  from 50 to  33 percent.  He stressed                                                                    
that  the  proposed resolution  would  make  paying the  PFD                                                                    
optional. He  believed the bill demonstrated  a surrender of                                                                    
the  legislature's  responsibility.  He  stressed  that  the                                                                    
legislature  was  already  free to  make  similar  statutory                                                                    
changes. He thanked the committee.                                                                                              
7:58:50 PM                                                                                                                    
RANDY   GRIFFIN,  SELF,   FAIRBANKS  (via   teleconference),                                                                    
opposed HJR 23. He disagreed  with enshrining the PFD in the                                                                    
constitution.  He believed  at the  time the  Permanent Fund                                                                    
was created there had been  no discussion about paying out a                                                                    
dividend  to  residents;  the  funds   had  been  for  state                                                                    
government.  He  indicated that  the  Permanent  Fund was  a                                                                    
state asset. He thought the PFD  should be issued on a merit                                                                    
basis, not as  an income welfare payment. He  stated that if                                                                    
the  PFD was  enshrined in  the state  constitution a  state                                                                    
income tax  would be  passed. He thought  the PFD  should be                                                                    
modeled after  a private  company -  some companies  did not                                                                    
distribute a  dividend to stock  owners, while some  did. He                                                                    
had donated his past dividends  back to the General Fund. He                                                                    
advocated making government more efficient.                                                                                     
Co-Chair Foster  recognized Representative Louise  Stutes in                                                                    
the audience.                                                                                                                   
8:02:31 PM                                                                                                                    
GARVAN BUCARIA, SELF,  WASILLA (via teleconference), opposed                                                                    
HJR 23.  He thought Angela  Rodell stated very  clearly that                                                                    
there should  be no  ad hoc draws  from the  Permanent Fund,                                                                    
the problem with no cap to  withdraws from the ERA, the need                                                                    
to  inflation  proof the  fund,  and  to ensure  the  fund's                                                                    
stability.  He   stressed  that   stability  could   not  be                                                                    
maintained  by threatening  to constantly  change the  rules                                                                    
APFC operated under.  He thought the questions  asked by the                                                                    
members  clearly   confirmed  the  need  for   a  study.  He                                                                    
disagreed with enshrining the dividend  and urged members to                                                                    
oppose the resolution.                                                                                                          
8:04:55 PM                                                                                                                    
WILLIAM DEATON, SELF,  CORDOVA (via teleconference), opposed                                                                    
HJR 23.  He did not  believe the PFD  was needed to  fix the                                                                    
budget. He thought  additional cuts were needed.  He did not                                                                    
support funding  for Planned  Parenthood or  the legislative                                                                    
lounge  food service.  He  supported Senator  Wielechowski's                                                                    
resolution SJR 1, which protected the PFD.                                                                                      
8:06:39 PM                                                                                                                    
WAYNE  OZOSKY, SELF,  WASILLA (via  teleconference), opposed                                                                    
HJR 23.  He agreed  with the way  the constitution  had been                                                                    
drafted and  believed it  should stay  that way.  He thanked                                                                    
the committee.                                                                                                                  
8:07:13 PM                                                                                                                    
BILL  REINER, SELF,  ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference), was  a                                                                    
"no" vote on  HJR 23. He thought APFC was  on track with its                                                                    
investments.  He   thought  it   was  spooky   when  changes                                                                    
occurred.  He believed  spending  the  Permanent Fund  would                                                                    
result in  a depleted fund.  He did not support  bonding for                                                                    
"everything  under  the sun."  He  thanked  members for  the                                                                    
opportunity to speak.                                                                                                           
8:09:53 PM                                                                                                                    
BENJAMIN  WILLIAMS, SELF,  NORTH POLE  (via teleconference),                                                                    
opposed HJR  23. He  thought the  legislature was  not doing                                                                    
its job.  He had recently  retired and was dependent  on the                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  congratulated  Mr. Williams  on  his                                                                    
recent retirement.                                                                                                              
8:11:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MIKKI BARKER, SELF,  FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), opposed                                                                    
HJR 23. She thought it was  a travesty to reduce the PFD. In                                                                    
her line  of work she  had seen  the effect of  the previous                                                                    
reductions.  She stressed  that the  PFD was  significant to                                                                    
low-income individuals.  She provided examples of  goods the                                                                    
money was  spent on. She was  aware that a huge  oil reserve                                                                    
had  recently  been  discovered in  the  Beaufort  Sea.  She                                                                    
elaborated that the  state would receive the  money from the                                                                    
discovery if the bill passed. She thanked the committee.                                                                        
8:13:29 PM                                                                                                                    
DAVID    STRICKLAND,     SELF,    DELTA     JUNCTION    (via                                                                    
teleconference), spoke  against HJR  23. There  were several                                                                    
people in  his small  town dependent on  the PFD.  He shared                                                                    
that he lived off a limited  income and depended on the PFD.                                                                    
He  disagreed with  the  legislature  taking additional  PFD                                                                    
monies. He thought state  spending was deplorable, wasteful,                                                                    
and criminal. He  noted the importance of being  able to pay                                                                    
for  heating oil  and electricity.  He strongly  opposed the                                                                    
resolution and  thought it was  terrible. He thought  it was                                                                    
not right for the government to take more from the people.                                                                      
8:16:06 PM                                                                                                                    
KAREN  PERRY, SELF,  CHUGIAK (via  teleconference), strongly                                                                    
opposed HJR 23. She spoke  against taking the people's money                                                                    
to  grow government.  She thought  it was  the legislature's                                                                    
job to  reduce government  spending. She thought  taking the                                                                    
money from  residents was the  worst thing for  the economy.                                                                    
She  would  only support  the  50/50  split. She  encouraged                                                                    
members  to  oppose  taking  money  from  the  economy.  She                                                                    
thought the legislators  voting to reduce the  PFD needed to                                                                    
be  voted out  of  office.  The voters  of  Alaska would  be                                                                    
cleaning house in  2018. She reminded members  of the eighth                                                                    
8:18:50 PM                                                                                                                    
BONNIE LILLEY, SELF,  ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), agreed                                                                    
with the previous speaker. She  opposed HJR 23. She had been                                                                    
watching  committee  hearings  and   listening.  She  was  a                                                                    
regular  person and  currently looking  for employment.  She                                                                    
opined  the  legislature  was  doing a  poor  job.  She  was                                                                    
shocked by the passage of  a criminal justice reform bill in                                                                    
recent years  (SB 91). She  thought the legislature  was not                                                                    
interested in the  people of Alaska. She  posed the question                                                                    
about when legislators were going  to start representing the                                                                    
people. She  urged members to vote  against the legislation.                                                                    
She thought the PFD was important to the people.                                                                                
8:22:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SALLY  JOHNSON, SELF,  PALMER (via  teleconference), opposed                                                                    
HJR 23. She thought the  legislature was ruining Alaska. She                                                                    
disagreed with the governor's  natural gas pipeline project.                                                                    
She  thought the  state was  stealing from  its people.  She                                                                    
stressed the need  for people to eat and  buy warm clothing.                                                                    
She did not  want a China pipeline. She urged  a no vote for                                                                    
HJR 23.  She would not  be voting  for anyone that  voted in                                                                    
favor of the legislation.                                                                                                       
8:24:07 PM                                                                                                                    
STEVEN  WRIGHT, SELF,  PALMER (via  teleconference), opposed                                                                    
HJR  23. He  reported  that he  was  running for  lieutenant                                                                    
governor.  He  opposed  touching  the PFD  and  stated  that                                                                    
people did not  want the POMV structure. He  thought a money                                                                    
grab was in  progress. He stated that  the legislation would                                                                    
hurt indigenous people who needed  the funds to keep up with                                                                    
inflation.  He was  a definite  "no" on  the resolution.  He                                                                    
indicated  that 83  percent of  the people  in recent  years                                                                    
were  opposed to  the  proposal. He  agreed  with the  50/50                                                                    
split, which  kept government in check.  He underscored that                                                                    
the people of Alaska were not happy.                                                                                            
8:26:44 PM                                                                                                                    
GAIL KOZLOWSKI, SELF,  WASILLA (via teleconference), opposed                                                                    
HJR 23. She thought the  legislature wanted to get its hands                                                                    
on the PFD, which had been  set up for the people of Alaska.                                                                    
She spoke of several people  depending on the PFD. She spoke                                                                    
of a woman  who paid her pharmacy bill in  October after the                                                                    
issuance of the PFD. She  stated that some people were truly                                                                    
dependent on the PFD and some  were not. She did not believe                                                                    
the PFD was there for the  legislature to take. She had seen                                                                    
a  tremendous   amount  of  spending  waste   in  government                                                                    
agencies.  She  urged  further spending  cuts  to  Medicaid,                                                                    
education, and salaries. She was  opposed to a change to the                                                                    
PFD. She  urged members to  consider HJR 34  or SJR 1  as an                                                                    
8:29:22 PM                                                                                                                    
ED  KAISER,   SELF,  WASILLA  (via   teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
strongly against HJR  23. He stated it was a  case where the                                                                    
government could  not live  within its  means, so  it looked                                                                    
for  the easiest  way  to pick  someone  else's pockets.  He                                                                    
thought additional  cuts were possible. He  urged members to                                                                    
stop growing  government and taking  money from  the people.                                                                    
He reiterated his opposition to the bill.                                                                                       
8:30:48 PM                                                                                                                    
BERT  HOUGHTALING,  SELF,  BIG  LAKE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
strongly opposed the  resolution. He read a  quote about the                                                                    
possible  disappearance of  the  PFD.  He thought  Democrats                                                                    
were not  telling the whole  story. He mentioned SJR  1 that                                                                    
would protect  the Permanent  Fund and  the PFD.  He relayed                                                                    
the  dividend amounts  several years  in the  future if  the                                                                    
Permanent  Fund  and  PFDs were  left  alone.  He  advocated                                                                    
hearing SJR 1  and HJR 34. He thought those  bills should be                                                                    
placed on the floor for a vote.                                                                                                 
8:34:24 PM                                                                                                                    
WILLIAM  LAMBERT,  SELF,  NORTH POLE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  against  HJR  23. He  suggested  that  Representative                                                                    
Seaton  did  not  comply  with the  rules.  He  argued  that                                                                    
certain members were  hurting the State of  Alaska. He hoped                                                                    
that many members  would be voted out of  office. He thought                                                                    
it  was  important  to  consider   those  people  that  were                                                                    
struggling to  pay their fuel  bills. He spoke to  the right                                                                    
of the people to express themselves in the voting box.                                                                          
Representative Wilson asked  Mr. Lambert if he  was in favor                                                                    
of a 50/50 plan. [Mr. Lambert had already disconnected.]                                                                        
8:38:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL  BOLL,  SELF,  WASILLA (via  teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
against HJR 23. Based on  the testimony he surmised Alaskans                                                                    
were against  the resolution. He  suggested members  to look                                                                    
at  additional reductions.  He did  not support  cutting the                                                                    
PFD. He  agreed with  other testifiers.  He did  not believe                                                                    
the  legislature's  actions  were   right.  He  thanked  the                                                                    
8:40:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SARAH VANCE,  SELF, HOMER (via teleconference),  opposed HJR
23.  She encouraged  members  to restore  the  trust of  the                                                                    
people.  She   opined  that  most  Alaskans   did  not  have                                                                    
confidence in their  representatives. She encouraged members                                                                    
to consider how  they could restore the  public's trust. She                                                                    
urged members to oppose the bill.                                                                                               
Co-Chair Foster provided the address for written testimony.                                                                     
8:41:56 PM                                                                                                                    
LIBBY  DALTON, SELF,  FAIRBANKS (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
against   HJR  23.   She  agreed   with  all   the  previous                                                                    
testifiers.  Alaska  currently  had the  highest  employment                                                                    
rate in  the country  and the  highest number  of government                                                                    
employees  per capita.  She  thought the  PFD  was the  most                                                                    
equitable  way to  spread  the royalties  to  the people  of                                                                    
Alaska.  She encouraged  additional budget  cuts. She  urged                                                                    
members to avoid additional special sessions.                                                                                   
8:43:37 PM                                                                                                                    
HILDA LESTRON, SELF,  SEWARD (via teleconference), testified                                                                    
in opposition of  HJR 23. She urged members  to vote against                                                                    
the resolution.                                                                                                                 
8:44:27 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT CHRISTIANSON,  SELF, FAIRBANKS  (via teleconference),                                                                    
opposed HJR 23. He moved to  the state 8 years prior. He had                                                                    
not taken his  PFD prior to 2014. He had  started taking the                                                                    
PFD due to  the poor economy. He believed the  money was for                                                                    
the people  and the  government. He thought  the legislation                                                                    
was an  overreach resolution. He  urged members to  do their                                                                    
job. He  spoke of  running out  of fuel  three times  in the                                                                    
current  winter  because  he and  his  wife  invested  their                                                                    
children's PFDs  for college. He  thought members  needed to                                                                    
make additional  reductions to the  budget. He spoke  of the                                                                    
right to exercise his opinion  in the voting box. He opposed                                                                    
the resolution.                                                                                                                 
8:48:10 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL  SHELDON,  SELF,  PETERSBURG  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in  opposition of  HJR  23.  He  shared that  he  was                                                                    
running  for  governor.  He   thought  the  legislature  was                                                                    
breaking the  law by not taking  the issue to a  vote by the                                                                    
people  of   Alaska.  He  thought  the   budget  was  overly                                                                    
inflated. He  wanted to cut  the budget by $1  billion every                                                                    
year. He thought  what was happening was  an abomination. He                                                                    
strongly opposed the resolution.  He would be making changes                                                                    
if he  won the  gubernatorial race in  2018. He  opined that                                                                    
Governor  Walker had  not  done  his job.  The  vote of  the                                                                    
people was necessary to make changes to the PFD.                                                                                
8:52:19 PM                                                                                                                    
JIM  WEIDNER, SELF,  FAIRBANKS  (via teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
against the bill. He shared  was a resident of Fairbanks for                                                                    
45  years.   He  had  worked   with  Governor   Jay  Hammond                                                                    
campaigning for the  Permanent Fund and the  creation of the                                                                    
dividend. The  people voted  to use some  of the  money from                                                                    
the  sale of  oil to  create  a program  that would  benefit                                                                    
everyone   fairly  and   equally.  The   money  was   to  be                                                                    
distributed based on  the number of residents  in the state.                                                                    
At  the time  there had  been  a question  about creating  a                                                                    
Permanent Fund for  the legislature. He relayed  that in the                                                                    
last 40 years  billions of dollars from the sale  of the oil                                                                    
wealth  had   poured  into   the  legislature   with  little                                                                    
accountability. He  urged members to support  the concept of                                                                    
constitutionalizing  the PFD  program, as  it had  been done                                                                    
for years and  years. In the state  constitution it outlines                                                                    
that the  resources of  Alaska were  to benefit  the people.                                                                    
"The people" happened to be  himself, his neighbor, the lady                                                                    
down the street  who was pregnant. He urged  members to look                                                                    
out for  the future of  Alaskans. He was  truly disappointed                                                                    
to  see the  dividends cut.  He wanted  to see  the dividend                                                                    
distributed as  it always had  been; one dividend  check per                                                                    
8:56:41 PM                                                                                                                    
JOE  SCHLANGER, SELF,  WASILLA  (via teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
against HJR 23. He mentioned  Alaska being ranked number one                                                                    
in crime and number one  in unemployment. He did not support                                                                    
the  government taking  Alaskan's PFDs.  He lived  under the                                                                    
poverty level,  but he paid for  his own things. He  did not                                                                    
believe  the  legislature knew  how  to  run government.  He                                                                    
stressed that  the people were  hurting and  legislators did                                                                    
not care.  He urged members  to stay away from  the people's                                                                    
8:59:37 PM                                                                                                                    
LESLIE DODGE,  SELF, HOUSTON (via teleconference),  spoke in                                                                    
opposition of HJR  23. She spoke of  her financial troubles.                                                                    
She's had  to say no  to her children several  times because                                                                    
of being short on money. People  could not afford to live in                                                                    
Alaska and could  not afford to leave.  She strongly opposed                                                                    
HJR 23.  She asked  members to think  about the  children in                                                                    
Alaska  rather than  worrying about  the adults.  She opined                                                                    
that the legislature needed to live within its means.                                                                           
9:03:28 PM                                                                                                                    
TOM  LAKOSH,  SELF,  ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
against  HJR  23.  He appreciated  that  the  committee  was                                                                    
considering  a  bill  that  would  prevent  a  veto  by  the                                                                    
governor; however, he did not  think the bill was enough. He                                                                    
spoke in favor  of additional taxes in order  to balance the                                                                    
budget. He stated that the  money from the PFD circulated in                                                                    
the  economy  numerous  times  before   going  back  to  the                                                                    
government. He  also advocated issuing  the PFD in  the form                                                                    
of a debit card that would  have sales tax paid by Amazon or                                                                    
other internet  retailers. He urged members  to vote against                                                                    
the resolution.                                                                                                                 
9:07:04 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN  VANDIEST,  SELF,  PALMER (via  teleconference),  spoke                                                                    
against  HJR 23.  He advocated  amending  the resolution  to                                                                    
reflect  what   the  PFD   was  previously.   He  encouraged                                                                    
additional  cuts and  implementing  additional taxes  rather                                                                    
than  touching   the  dividend.  He  would   rather  have  a                                                                    
progressive  income  tax than  a  cut  to the  dividend.  He                                                                    
believed  the best  thing the  legislature could  do was  to                                                                    
protect  the  PFD's  original formula  in  a  constitutional                                                                    
9:09:07 PM                                                                                                                    
JANET  MCLAIN, SELF,  PALMER (via  teleconference), strongly                                                                    
opposed HJR  23. As a teacher  at a Title I  school, she saw                                                                    
how  much the  PFD mattered  to  the students  she saw.  She                                                                    
believed consideration  of taking the PFD  was irresponsible                                                                    
government.  She spoke  of  how the  PFD  helped to  provide                                                                    
shoes  and other  essential items  for students.  She shared                                                                    
that she  provided shoes for  some of her students  in need.                                                                    
The PFD helped many  families purchase gym shoes, backpacks,                                                                    
and  food. She  elaborated  that some  of  her students  had                                                                    
never   been  outside   Mat-Su;  her   school  provided   an                                                                    
opportunity  to   travel  to  Whittier  to   get  an  Alaska                                                                    
experience. She  stressed it  was not  possible for  some of                                                                    
the children. She stressed that  the PFD helped hard working                                                                    
families and  stimulated the economy. She  suggested that if                                                                    
a change  had to be  made that current recipients  should be                                                                    
grandfathered  into the  PFD program  and no  new applicants                                                                    
would receive a dividend. She believed  a cut to the PFD was                                                                    
irresponsible.  She  urged  members   to  vote  against  the                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Geran Tarr in the                                                                     
committee room.                                                                                                                 
HJR 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                              
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting for the following day                                                                      
and thanked those who called to testify. He relayed that                                                                        
amendments to the bill were due the following day.                                                                              
9:13:31 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson asked if Department of Fish and Game                                                                      
would be present for the next meeting.                                                                                          
Co-Chair Foster was getting a nod from staff that someone                                                                       
from the department would be in attendance.                                                                                     
9:13:53 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 097 Support Indirect Expenditure Report 2.22.17.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 97
HJR 23 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN vT.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR 23 - Letters of Opposition 3.11.2018.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR23 - APFC-History-and-Projections.2018.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR23 - APFC Monthly-Financial-Statement.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR 23 HFC Presentation 3.12.18.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR 23 vT Legal Opinion.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR23 Sponsor StatementvT.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR 23 2003_05_APFC_Resolution-POMV.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR 23 version T_House Finance Committee_Rodell.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR 23 2004_09_APFC_Resolution-POMV.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HB097 Sponsor Statement ver D 3.12.18.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 97
HB097 Sectional Analysis ver D 3.12.18.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 97
HJR 23 - Letters of Support 3.13.2018.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23
HJR 23 - Letters of Opposition 3.13.2018.pdf HFIN 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJR 23