Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/01/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Indirect Expenditure Reports: Department of Revenue | |
| Indirect Expenditure Reports: Legislative Finance Division | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 1, 2017
1:32 p.m.
1:32:55 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Dan Stickel, Assistant Chief Economist, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue; Ky Clark, Economist, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue; Alexei Painter, Analyst, Legislative
Finance Division; Brandy Johnson, Self, Juneau; Jacob
Wilson, Alaska Correctional Officers Association, Juneau;
Kathie Wasserman, Alaska Municipal League, Juneau; Scott
Carson Public Safety Employees Association, Juneau;
Commissioner Dean Williams; Representative Charisse Millet.
Jerry Burnett, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury Division,
Department of Revenue;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Lonnie Miller, Self, Delta Junction; Carol Dunlap-Austin,
Self, Delta Junction; Bonnie Wolstad, Self, Fairbanks;
Megan Lister, Self, Petersburg; Jason Holmgren, Wasilla
Police Department, Wasilla; David Duncan, Kodiak Police
Department; Lisa Albert-Konecky, Self, Wasilla; Doug
Massie Public Safety Employees Association, Wasilla;
Shaun Kuzakin, Public Safety Employees Association, Juneau;
Steven Czajkowski, ALASKA State Trooper, Anchorage; Jake
Metcalfe, Public Safety Employees Association, Anchorage;
Anne Moen Self, Eagle River; Arn Salao, Anchorage Police
Department, Anchorage; Darcy Perry, Anchorage Airport
Police Department, Anchorage; Dan Grimes, Alaska State Fire
Association, Soldotna;
SUMMARY
HB 23 INS. FOR DEPENDS. OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE
HB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
INDIRECT EXPENDITURE REPORTS: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
INDIRECT EXPENDITURE REPORTS: LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the meeting. He
indicated that the committee would be hearing public
testimony for HB 23 at 2:30 p.m. He invited testifiers from
the Department of Revenue (DOR) to come forward.
^INDIRECT EXPENDITURE REPORTS: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
1:34:27 PM
DAN STICKEL, ASSISTANT CHIEF ECONOMIST, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced himself.
KY CLARK, ECONOMIST, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
relayed that he was the project manager for the Indirect
Expenditure Report (IER) produced by DOR.
Mr. Stickel thanked the committee for the opportunity to
present the department's IER. He introduced the PowerPoint
presentation: "Overview of DOR's Indirect Expenditure
Report, Preliminary Report for FY 2011-FY 2015" (copy on
file). He would be presenting opening comments and would
turn the presentation over to Mr. Clark to discuss the
legislation that established the IER and an overview report
that came out of DOR. At the end of the presentation, he
would make some recommendations and considerations in
looking at indirect expenditures. He thought it would be
helpful to provide the same information that was requested
by the Senate Finance Committee. He mentioned that there
were 2 IERs. The first report was published in July 2016 by
DOR. The report detailed information about every indirect
expenditure (IE) for every agency and department in the
state. The second report was published in December 2016 by
the Legislative Finance Division (LFD) also called the
"Indirect Expenditure." It provided a detailed examination
of only certain departments. He clarified that DOR's report
was talking about the DOR report released in July 2016.
Mr. Stickel reviewed slide 2: "Overview":
· Indirect Expenditure Report Legislation Overview
· Bill provisions, DOR* requirements, Legislative
Finance Division requirements
· DOR Indirect Expenditure Report
· Process and methodology for producing the DOR
Indirect Expenditure Report
· Overview of the DOR Indirect Expenditure Report
· Future Plans
· Recommendations/Considerations
Mr. Stickle turned the presentation over to Mr. Clark.
Mr. Clark began with slide 4: "Indirect Expenditure Report
Overview":
· Passed in 2014 and signed on July 7, 2014 (House Bill
306)
· Requires DOR to submit a report to the Legislature
biennially on July 1 detailing indirect expenditures
of all agencies in the State (AS 43.05.095)
· Requires the Legislative Finance Division to provide a
report to the Legislature on the indirect expenditures
of certain agencies before the start of Legislative
Session following the release of DOR's biennial report
Mr. Clark elaborated that in the LFD's report they recycled
through every IE within a 6-year timeframe.
· The first DOR Indirect Expenditure Report was released
the day after the bill was signed, July 8, 2014
· The second DOR Indirect Expenditure Report was
released July 1, 2016
Mr. Clark continued to slide 5: "Indirect Expenditures
Defined":
Indirect expenditure: Any foregone revenue by the
state designed to encourage an activity to benefit the
public in the form of a credit, exemption, deduction,
deferral, discount, exclusion, or other differential
allowance.
As defined by AS 43.05.095(d):
· An express provision of state law that results in
foregone revenue for the state by providing:
· A tax credit or other credit
· An exemption, but does not include federal
tax exemptions adopted by reference in AS
43.20.021
· A discount
· A deduction, but does not include costs
incurred in the ordinary course of business
that are deducted in the calculation of a
tax under this title or in the calculation
of a royalty or net profit share payment for
a lease issued under AS 38
· A differential allowance
1:39:28 PM
Mr. Clark reviewed slide 6: "DOR Indirect Expenditure
Report":
· Released July 1, 2016 by DOR
· Provides details on 231 indirect expenditures across
11 departments and agencies, including 78 provisions
administered by DOR
· A cooperative effort between 10 departments and other
participating agencies, coordinated by DOR
· Followed process established in 2014, with improved
presentation and some refinements
Mr. Clark relayed that the department improved the
presentation of the physical report. The report began with
an introduction detailing the process and the approach of
DOR. The department also improved the consistency of the
reporting methodology used internally and externally.
Mr. Clark scrolled to slide 8: "Methodology - Internally":
· Surveyed all Tax Division workgroups and all divisions
within DOR to ensure complete list
· Developed tax database reports to generate DOR data
for the Indirect Expenditure Report
· Developed consistent definition for "Fiscal Year"
given that tax types are mostly on a monthly,
quarterly, or calendar year basis
· Necessary because of time lag in receiving
information for certain tax types (corporate,
mining, et cetera)
· Production tax not impacted by this issue, since
we receive detailed monthly data for production
tax.
Mr. Clark conveyed that the department had a dedicated
economist and several other employees that contributed to
the report. He also mentioned that the department developed
a tax database reporting system, which made it easier for
the department to generate the data needed to compile
certain information required in statute. The database also
made it easier to find specific numbers for reporting and
to be more accurate. He noted that one of the issues the
department had during the production of the first IER was
defining the term "Fiscal Year." The first report was
released in 2014 and was produced under some very difficult
time constraints. The department did not clearly define all
of the terms in the report. In FY 14 "Fiscal Year" was
described as returns the state received during the fiscal
year. The definition was redefined in the most recent
report for FY 16.
Mr. Clark moved to slide 9: "Methodology- Internally":
· Internally: Addressing Fiscal Year Issue, cont.
· Determined that the Fiscal Year includes any tax
periods beginning during the fiscal year, using
the "tax period beginning" date
· For example: FY* 2015 corporate tax data
will include any returns for periods
beginning July 2014 - June 2015 (primarily
15 calendar-year returns)
· Similar to how federal tax data is reports
by the Internal Revenue Service
· Because of new parameters, some FY 2015 DOR data
is "unavailable"
· Some fiscal year filer returns are not
received until spring 2017
· For example, a corporate tax return
beginning June 2015, with extension, would
be due in March, 2017
Mr. Clark gave two different reasons the department needed
to define "Fiscal Year" within the report. First, the
department wanted a consistent definition for "Fiscal Year"
across the different tax types within the Tax Division. A
consistent definition was also used because of time lags in
receiving tax returns. Developing a definition for "fiscal
year" was necessary internally to produce a more complete
and consistent report.
Mr. Stickel added that one of the issues the department had
was that in looking at the returns received in a given year
there might be 2 returns from a certain company or no
returns from a certain company. In order to address the
timing issue, the department looked at how the data was
reported and what best practices were used in other states.
For instance, when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
reported federal tax return data they looked at all returns
for a given tax year. The latest data they had out was from
2014 or 2015; the latest full tax year the IRS had received
all tax returns. It was similar to the way the state was
reporting tax credit data. He relayed that FY 14
represented all tax returns for years that began during the
fiscal year. For instance, a corporate tax return for
calendar year 2014 due at the end of 2015 would be the
beginning of FY 16. He remarked that it got a little
complicated. He also highlighted that in looking at the
IER, the FY 15 data was incomplete for several IEs due to
the definition of FY 15, which included the calendar year
2015 tax returns that were not due until the end of 2016 or
potentially the beginning of 2017 with an extension.
1:46:27 PM
Vice-Chair Gara was aware of the amount of work the
department had done to generate the report. He wanted to
see the largest expenditures in the order of amount. He
wondered if DOR's report had a section that showed from
largest to smallest.
Mr. Stickel responded that the department had not included
that information in the report that was published. However,
he had a slide towards the end of the presentation that
listed the top 8 categories of IEs. He was happy to do some
sorting and provide the information.
Vice-Chair Gara indicated he would not request it unless
another member wanted it as well.
Co-Chair Seaton thought the information would be helpful
for the subcommittee.
Mr. Clark moved to slide 10: "Methodology- Externally":
Externally:
· DOR met with other departments and agencies and sent
out a survey for the report
· Each agency examined their operations to identify
indirect expenditures and report the required
information
· A few departments identified provisions that did not
actually meet the definition of an "indirect
expenditure"
· Submissions from other departments and agencies
are not independently verified
Mr. Clark indicated that the following slide provided a few
examples of IE that did not meet the definition.
Mr. Clark turned to slide 11: "Methodology- Externally
cont.":
Examples of provisions not meeting definition of "Indirect
Expenditure":
· Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
· Identified one potential indirect expenditure;
reduced loan rates. But, it was part of their
normal operations and not "required by statute."
Statutorily, AHFC can set the rates.
· Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development (DCCED):
· Has certain licensing fees set by statute to
cover program costs that were reduced for
residents vs. non-residents. It was determined
not be foregone revenue, because the fee
differential does not affect total revenue.
· University of Alaska (UA):
· Addressed tuition waivers to employees and
dependents; they are a part of the employee's
benefit package, so are not considered foregone
revenue.
· Non-resident vs. Resident tuition; UA is not
discounting the resident tuition rate, rather the
out-of-state student is paying a non-resident
surcharge (so no foregone revenue).
Mr. Clark relayed that the University of Alaska (UA) was
not necessarily discounting the resident tuition rate.
Rather, the resident tuition rate was being used as the
base rate. A non-resident surcharge was applied to tuition.
There was no foregone revenue because the resident tuition
rate was considered the base rate.
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether the senior tuition waiver
counted in the report.
Mr. Stickel responded that UA had been broadly granted fee-
setting authority by the legislature. There was no explicit
provision in state law that required a discount. It would
not qualify under the statutory definition of IE.
1:51:32 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if UA had worked on the
IER.
Mr. Stickel responded that UA participated in a discussion
with DOR. It was determined that, since UA had fee setting
authority, any discounts provided within the university did
not meet the statutory definition of IE.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the legislature asked the
university to identify the fees. They might expect
reductions in general fund funding if they had IEs. He
encouraged the testifiers to move to the recommendations
portion of their presentation. Committee members could read
through the methodology slides on their own, as time was
running short.
Mr. Clark skipped to slide 14: "Future Plans":
· Reaching out to the Office of Management and Budget
and the Legislative Finance Division concerning the
next Indirect Expenditure Report
· Compiling feedback and suggestions which may be
incorporated into the next report in Summer 2018
· Discussion with agencies of their ability to provide
more information for certain indirect expenditures
Mr. Clark mentioned DOR being very open to receiving
feedback from the committee in order to create a report
that catered to the needs of all of its users. The
department's goal was to produce the best possible report
within the department. Mr. Stickel would be reviewing the
department's recommendations.
Mr. Stickel detailed slide 16: "Recommendations/
Considerations":
· DOR was asked to provide the committee with
recommendations regarding indirect expenditures
· DOR identified several areas for the committee to
consider:
· House Bill 155 from 2015-2016
· Largest indirect expenditures overall
· Largest indirect expenditures by department
· Review of recommendations produced by the
Legislative Finance Division
· Indirect Expenditures were reviewed in both
January 2015 and January 2017
· Fee Setting Authority
Mr. Stickel reported that in the other body the department
was asked to make some recommendations about what the
legislature should focus on regarding IEs. The Department
of Revenue was not recommending changes or termination of
any of the IEs. He relayed that there were 5 different
areas for the committee to look at. He was aware that the
committee was planning to look at IEs for each department
in the subcommittee process.
1:54:45 PM
Mr. Stickel explained slide 17: "House Bill 155 from 2015-
2016."
Mr. Stickel relayed that the bill from the previous year,
HB 155 [Legislation introduced in 2015 - Short Title:
FEES; WAIVERS; CREDITS; DEDUCTIONS; TAXES], passed the
House but did not pass the Senate. He indicated that the
bill would have repealed 4 tax-related IEs. He reviewed the
four items on the slide:
The following indirect expenditures were addressed in a
proposed bill:
· Tobacco Products Tax
· Gives a four-tenths of one percent deduction to
cover the expense of account and filing the
return for the tobacco tax
· FY 2015 revenue impact of $54,053
· Cigarette Tax
· Gives a discount of up to $50,000 as compensation
for affixing stamps to packs of cigarettes
· FY 2015 revenue impact of $360,326
· Motor Fuel Tax
· Gives a timely filing credits of 1% of the total
monthly tax due to a maximum of $100
· FY 2015 revenue impact of $62,590
· Large Passenger Vessel Gambling Tax Deduction
· Allows a deduction of federal and municipal taxes
paid from gambling gross income
· Revenue impact is unknown
Mr. Stickel added that although the revenue impact of the
large passenger vessel gambling tax deduction was unknown,
he confirmed that it would have a negative revenue impact.
Co-Chair Seaton reported that Representative Thompson
introduced bills addressing IEs, which were read across the
floor earlier in the present day.
Mr. Stickel continued to slide 18: "Largest Indirect
Expenditures":
· Oil & Gas Tax Credits (FY16 = $598 million)
· Mining License Tax - Depletion Deduction (FY14 = $32
million)
· Insurance: all programs - Lower Tax Rate (DCCED*)
(FY15 = $13 million)
· Insurance: all programs - Deduction from premiums
written for claims paid (DCCED*) (FY15 = $13 million)
· Commercial Passenger Vessel Taxes - Tax Reduction for
Local Levies (FY15 = $13 million)
· Multiple Tax Programs - Film Production Credit (FY15 =
$9 million; credit phasing out under current law)
· Motor Fuel Tax - Foreign Flight Exemption (FY15 = $8.6
million)
· Sport Fishing, Hunting & Trapping Senior Discount
(FY15 = $6.8 million)
Mr. Stickel detailed slide 19: "Recommendations from
Legislative Finance":
· There are recommendations made by Legislative Finance
Division in both their 2015 & 2017 Indirect
Expenditure Reports
· 2015 Report
· Recommended 17 indirect expenditures be
terminated
· Recommended 33 indirect expenditures be
reconsidered
· Recommended 24 indirect expenditures be reviewed
· Recommended 37 indirect expenditures be continued
· 2017 Report
· Recommended 2 indirect expenditures be terminated
· Recommended 13 indirect expenditures be
reconsidered
· Recommended 3 indirect expenditures be reviewed
· Recommended 48 indirect expenditures be continued
Mr. Stickel relayed that the Legislative Finance Division
in the 2015 report identified 74 IEs for review,
reconsideration, or termination. In the most recent report,
the division identified an additional 18. Overall LFD had
identified over 90 IEs that they recommended the
legislature look at in some fashion.
1:58:52 PM
Mr. Stickel discussed slide 20: "Fee Setting Authority":
· Legislature has granted fee setting authority to
certain agencies, for example:
· Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities
· Alaska Marine Highway (AMHS): foregone
revenue related to AMHS discounts amounted
to over $4.7 million in FY 2015
· University of Alaska
· Scholarship awarding authority
· Western Undergraduate Exchange
· Senior Citizen Tuition Waiver
· A comprehensive review would likely identify
other examples
· Discounts offered by agencies with fee setting
authority may not qualify as "indirect expenditures"
since they are not an "express provision of state law"
Mr. Stickel reported that fee-setting authority had come up
a few times in producing DOR's IER. There were several
agencies and departments where the legislature had granted
fee-setting authority to the individual departments. Since
the definition of IE followed in statute specified that,
there must be an express provision of state law to grant a
creditor a discount. If the agencies with fee-setting
authority offered a discount, there was not an express
provision of state law, which appeared to meet the
definition of IE. He used the Alaska Marine Highway System
(AMHS) as an example of an agency able to set fees for
passengers and to offer discounts to children and seniors.
The University of Alaska could award scholarships and had a
senior citizen tuition waiver. It was likely that a
comprehensive review into fee-setting authority would
identify other departments that had similar issues going
on. He was happy to answer any questions.
Vice-Chair Gara asked who kept track of the annual number
of cruise ship passengers that visited Alaska.
Mr. Stickel responded that the department the data was
reported on cruise ship tax returns.
Vice-Chair Gara recalled that Mr. Stickle noted there would
be a $13 million savings if the state did not allow
municipal taxes to be deducted from the cruise ship tax. He
asked him to provide the annual number of visitors for the
previous 5 years and the annual total cruise ship revenue
over the same period.
Mr. Stickel was happy to provide the information.
Co-Chair Seaton thanked Mr. Stickle for his presentation.
He invited LFD staff to the table. He also conveyed that
Representative Guttenberg had joined the meeting.
^INDIRECT EXPENDITURE REPORTS: LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION
2:01:49 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
introduced the PowerPoint presentation: "Overview of
Legislative Finance Division Indirect Expenditure Reports"
(copy on file). He mentioned that the division had both the
2015 and 2017 reports in an excel format if committee
members were interested. An electronic version would allow
members to sort them any way they preferred and to hide
data fields they did not want to see. He was happy to
provide them to the committee.
Mr. Painter reviewed slide 2: "Agencies in 2015 Report":
· Commerce, Community and Economic Development
· Fish and Game
· Health and Social Services
· Labor and Workforce Development
· Revenue
Mr. Painter relayed that LFD issued its report following
the publication of DOR's version. The finance division
covered only select agencies each time. In the division's
first report in 2015, the departments that were covered
included the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED), the Department of Fish and Game (DFG),
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL), and
the Department of Revenue.
Mr. Painter continued to slide 3: "Summary of 2015
Recommendations":
· Terminate: 17 provisions
· Total known revenue impact of $5 million (in
FY14)
· Three provisions had unknown revenue impact
· Modify or review: 59 provisions
· Continue: 37 provisions
· No recommendation: 25 provisions
Mr. Painter indicated that the number of provisions the
division recommended modifying or reviewing seemed high
because in the report there were a couple of areas LFD
advocated the restructuring of entire fee schedules. The
Department of Fish and Game's fee structure was decades old
and, LFD recommended a full review. In fact, the
legislature studied the structure and legislation passed in
the prior year. The mining license tax, largely unchanged
since statehood, also needed an appraisal. It was difficult
to select areas of the tax that might need review because
the entire tax structure potentially needed modification.
There were 25 provisions that had a "no recommendation."
Either the Legislative Finance Division could not identify
the provisions as IEs, or they had already terminated by
the time LFD released its report. When LFD was reporting on
past fiscal years, the results were sometimes delayed.
Mr. Painter discussed slide 4: "2015 Report Key Points":
· Did not review oil tax credits, which had been
modified a year before
Mr. Painter explained that the report was prepared in the
fall of 2014. At the time, the oil tax structure was
undergoing a referendum, as it had been modified by the
legislature the prior year. He reported that the division
did not feel it was appropriate to assess the structure
because it was new and without data. He continued to read
the slide.
· 1 "terminate" item (obsolete exploration incentive)
repealed in HB 247
· 4 other "terminate" items were in HB 155, which passed
House in 2016 but not Senate
· 6 "terminate" items are in Corporate Income Tax
· 3 "terminate" items are in Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission
Mr. Painter scrolled to slide 5: "Agencies in 2017 Report."
He relayed that the report in the current year was
delivered on the first day of session. It covered 6
agencies and the education tax credit administered by DOR
and scheduled to sunset in 2018. The Legislative Finance
Division felt that a more in-depth review was warranted.
The division had not made a recommendation in 2014 because
the tax credit had been modified earlier in the year. He
read the list of departments that fell under review:
· Administration
· Education and Early Development (including Alaska
Student Loan Corporation and Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education)
· Environmental Conservation
· Natural Resources
· Transportation
· Judiciary
· Plus review of the Education Tax Credit, which is
scheduled to sunset at the end of 2018.
2:06:12 PM
Mr. Painter reviewed slide 6: "Summary of 2017
Recommendations":
· Terminate: 2 provisions
o Unknown revenue impact
· Modify or review: 13 provisions
· Continue: 56 provisions
· No recommendation: 6 provisions
Mr. Painter explained that the reason for the higher number
of recommended continuations was because many of the
agencies being reviewed had more routine deductions. He
provided an example. The Division of Motor Vehicles had fee
waivers for disabled veterans. Another example was senior
discounts to parks and museums. The division did not feel
they were worthy of termination. The breakdown was somewhat
different. In the division's next report in 2019, the
statute dictated that LFD would review all remaining
agencies. At present, based on where expenditures had been
identified, there were no other agencies to review. He
anticipated the 2019 report would consist of only 1 page.
In 2021, the division would begin again with DOR and the
other departments that were included in the 2015 report.
Mr. Painter advanced to the final slide, slide 7: "2017
Report Key Points":
· Some items do not have revenue generation as a goal
("fix-it" tickets)
· Others have authority to set fee structure (Marine
Highway)
· Remainder are mostly routine (senior discounts, fee
waivers for disabled veterans, etc.)
· Some provisions in DEC and DNR could be reviewed
Mr. Painter elaborated that in the 2017 report there were
several items where revenue was not a goal. The largest
example was fix-it tickets. In the Judiciary when a person
received a fine for having a headlight out, they would
receive a ticket. If the person had their headlight fixed,
they could get the ticket waived. The goal was to get a
person to fix their headlight rather than making money for
the state. While it was technically foregone revenue, the
division did not consider getting rid of fix-it tickets.
There were other examples where the legislature delegated
authority for fee structures including AMHS. There were
some provisions in the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) that needed further review. He made himself available
for questions.
Representative Wilson asked whether the administrative
costs for fix-it tickets were covered.
Mr. Painter did not know the answer but would find out.
Representative Wilson appreciated him getting back to her.
She noted that the state did not want to have to absorb the
administrative costs but wanted a person to fix their
issue.
Representative Guttenberg referred to page 3 of the
presentation regarding the summary of 2015 recommendations.
He pointed to the 3 provisions of which their impact was
unknown. He wondered if the provisions had non-revenue
impacts. He wanted to know if LFD had discussed or looked
at the non-revenue impacts.
Mr. Painter responded that it depended on why there was no
revenue impact. He used the example of Sub Chapter "S"
corporations, partnerships not subject to Alaska's state
income tax but considered corporations. There were no known
revenue impacts for "S" Corporations because they did not
have to file taxes with the state. The Department of
Revenue could only provide estimates rather than
determining actual revenue impacts. Estimates were not
reported in the IER. However, they were used in LFD's
recommendation to terminate the provision. A significant
amount of revenue could be realized. Some of the amounts
could be estimated, however, there were reasons the
division could not get them. The Department of Revenue
sometimes had confidentiality concerns because of too few
taxpayers. The state might not know the amount for all
years. In making recommendations, LFD tried to assess the
revenue impact as best as possible through estimates or
other sources.
2:11:54 PM
Representative Guttenberg spoke of the difficulty of
measuring the effectiveness of policy because accessing
information for a group of three or less taxpayers was
protected by confidentiality provisions.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about DOR having any problems with
someone wanting to claim certain benefits, information of
which would be disclosed.
Mr. Painter responded that DOR would be able to speak to
their confidentiality rules better than he could. He noted
that LFD could not provide a recommendation for some areas
due to a lack of information. There was no known revenue
impact or any other real known information about certain
impacts.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to hear from someone from DOR. He
was trying to ascertain if revenue reasons played a role.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to slide 4. He wondered if there
were too few items in the corporate income tax category to
have data.
Mr. Painter responded that that there were enough taxpayers
to have data. He supposed that was the reason there were
more firm recommendations than in oil and gas policy or
mining tax policy where there were very few. He offered
there were a number of things that were likely obsolete. He
explained that the tax had not been modified since the
repeal of the personal income tax in 1980. The division had
a list of items that could be addressed in corporate income
tax reform if the legislature chose. Some items did not get
reported.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Mr. Painter to provide the
information for the subcommittee process.
Representative Wilson asked about a dollar amount and
timeline for outstanding film tax credits.
Mr. Painter deferred to DOR.
Co-Chair Seaton thanked Mr. Painter and invited DOR to come
to the table for additional questions.
2:16:05 PM
Representative Wilson was aware that the film tax credit
program had ended but wondered about the outstanding
balance and associated timeframe.
Mr. Stickel responded that the time limit for receiving
credits was January 1, 2019. A company could still apply
their credits after that time. The program total was capped
at $300 million. He did not have the potential outstanding
credit balance but would get back to the committee with the
information.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the 6 items recommended for
termination under the corporate income tax. He wondered
about DOR's position with someone wanting to claim an IE.
JERRY BURNETT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TREASURY DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, responded that currently under
Alaska state statute all of the information on a tax return
was confidential by law. The department reported aggregated
information. The commissioner had indicated there were
other states that made information public regarding
taxpayers who applied for specific tax credits. There were
cases the State of Alaska would support implementing a
similar policy. In some instances, transparency would
improve programs. He argued it would make sense for some
IEs. The administration would be happy to discuss the
issue.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the department would provide a
list of items in which a transparency policy could be
applied. He encouraged a focus on the corporate income tax
and any others that would lend transparency and more
effectiveness to the program. It would be helpful
information for the committee to decide whether to extend
or terminate the program.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the second item on
slide 18. He asked about the purpose of the depletion
deduction for the mining license tax.
Mr. Stickel responded that the mining license tax was a net
income-based tax. The depletion deduction was a deduction
from the net income to allow for the costs of developing a
resource. It was either a percentage-based depletion of 10
percent of revenue for a coalmine or 15 percent of revenue
for the more common metal mines. The percentage of revenue
could be deducted when calculating net income on which the
tax was based. There was also an opportunity for a cost
base depletion similar to a depreciation schedule.
2:20:50 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the foreign flight
exemption pertaining to the motor fuel tax. He was under
the impression that there were economic zone issues dealing
with flights going into international airports.
Mr. Burnett explained that the state had a specific
statutory provision exempting tax on flights that
originated in or were traveling to foreign countries. There
were other complications to consider such as removing the
statutory provision, federal rules, economic zones, and the
ability to import bonded fuel. The question was more
complicated than what was considered in the IER.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Mr. Burnett to bring a breakdown of
where the credits were being applied to the subcommittee
meeting.
Mr. Stickel answered that it was defined in statute. The
Department of Revenue reported expenditures every 2 years.
2:24:14 PM
AT EASE
2:29:13 PM
RECONVENED
BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to major medical insurance coverage
under the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska for certain surviving spouses and dependent
children of peace officers and firefighters; and
providing for an effective date."
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
2:29:13 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
2:30:51 PM
BRANDY JOHNSON, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of HB 23.
She read a prepared statement (copy on file):
For the record, my name is Brandy Johnson. I am
testifying in support of HB 23 on behalf of myself, my
three daughters, my deceased husband, Scott Johnson,
surviving families of past and future line of duty
death state troopers as well as law enforcement
officers in the state of Alaska.
On May 1st, 2014, my husband, Scott Johnson and Gabe
Rich were murdered while in the performance of their
job in Tanana, Alaska.
Scott's job was that of a Sgt. with the Alaska State
Troopers. He had worked as a state trooper for over 21
years with a total of over 23 years vested in the
Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). He could
have retired with 20 years of service. However, Scott
and I decided he should work another 5 years to gain
the medical benefits for our family at the 25-year
mark as a Tier II employee. It was while trying to
obtain this promised benefit goal that Scott was
ambushed and killed. Scott would have retired this
past October with major medical benefits for himself
and our family.
I had asked the state troopers assisting me after
Scott was killed if I had health insurance. I
initially was told I was set for life by one
Lieutenant. However, that was not the case. I was
later told that my family's benefits would expire at
the end of the month. I was disappointed and angry. My
choices were to pay $1, 150 per month for the
retirement major medical health care that we would
have received in a year and a half at no cost as a
retirement benefit or $1, 700 for full coverage COBRA.
What is frustrating, is that the person who shot my
husband to death and his father who desecrated my
husband's dead body, while incarcerated, have medical
care available at no cost to them as their families
also has free health care.
I felt Scott's last three years of service were all
for nothing.
Scott always took his responsibilities very seriously
to protect the people of Alaska. I had believed upon
his death, the State would also take responsibility to
now take care of his family. Graciously, the State of
Alaska has these past two and a half years until the
gap in law could be resolved.
Our family has paid the price for this benefit. We
have paid into the PERS retirement system; we have
paid with the endless callouts. Whether it be a K9,
SERT, homicide calls or one of the many other
emergency responses Scott was involved with. This is
called, to give of yourself for the sake of others.
I am here today asking for your support of HB 23. This
bill is more than what I have advocated the
legislature for as a health benefit. This bill
provides full coverage health insurance that takes
care of young surviving families that need well child
checkups. The retirement health care plan was not a
long-term solution. It was a "band-aide" so to say and
a safety net in case of a major medical emergency. It
did not take care of the family.
This legislation will ensure that another surviving
spouse does not have to experience what I have. They
will have the assurance that their children will be
taken care of if there was a health emergency.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this
important legislation.
2:34:43 PM
JACOB WILSON, ALASKA CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU, spoke in favor of HB 23. He read a prepared
statement (copy on file):
My name is Jacob Wilson. I represent the 930
Correctional Officers in the State of Alaska. Last
year we provided a letter of support for what was then
SB 4002. We were encouraged that Officers' families
would no longer be hit twice if their husband or wife
was killed in the line of duty: first by the death,
and second by the loss of health insurance. The fact
is that Correctional Officers put their lives on the
line every day, just like any other Alaska Public
Safety Officer. Their families are just as important.
A few days ago Correctional Officers became aware that
they were no longer included in the new version of
this Legislation. While we are happy to see at least
some of our public safety families covered, it was a
tough blow to see other law enforcement officers in
the State covered because they are the ones who ...
"run to the fire". With all due respect, Correctional
Officers don't run to the fire, they live in it. The
dangers Correctional Officers face are the same that
every other Officer in the State of Alaska faces.
Police Officer and Troopers may arrest the criminals,
but it is Correctional Officers who keep them behind
bars every hour of every day.
This would not substantially increase the cost of this
legislation. While every year Correctional Officers
are assaulted, some permanently disabled, we have been
very fortunate not to have lost any Correctional
Officer in an institution as a result of an assault.
Because of this, I believe that the fiscal impact of
covering our Officers would be minimal, but the impact
on morale for the Officers would be immeasurable. It
would give them peace of mind knowing that should they
fall in the service of their State and give their life
protecting Alaskans, their families would have
insurance coverage.
In closing, I would like to say we support HB 23 and
hope that it passes. That being said, please include
Correctional Officers in this legislation.
We also appreciate Commissioner Dean Williams' support
of including Correctional Officers in this bill.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any
additional information.
Mr. Wilson reported that earlier in the day in Delaware
there was a hostage take over. Four correctional officers
were being held hostage. He encouraged legislators to
contact the association with any questions.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Mr. Wilson to provide a copy of his
written testimony.
2:38:45 PM
Vice-Chair Gara suggested that the bill could cover every
state employee. He asked where the legislature should draw
a legal line.
Mr. Wilson responded that any of the four officers being
held in Delaware could pass. When officers went into a
correctional facility, they were aware of the risks they
were taking. Alaska had been fortunate not to have a death.
However, there were deaths at the national level. Some of
Alaska's officers had been permanently disabled. Any of the
related injuries could have led to death. He reiterated
that when a person signed up to serve in Alaska in a public
safety role, they were cognizant of the risks. He would
leave the decision up to the legislature as to where to
draw the line. He thought correctional officers should be
included in the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara appreciated that correctional officers went
to work every day in dangerous environments.
Co-Chair Foster agreed that correctional officers lived in
danger every day.
2:41:14 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (AML), JUNEAU,
opposed the unfunded mandate accompanying the legislation.
The burden would fall on the shoulders of municipalities
without a way of determining their costs. She asked for
additional detail about administrative costs noted in the
bill. She explained that insurance costs were handled
differently for different law enforcement employees. She
urged members to consider that municipalities were losing
revenue sharing and had already encountered many cost
transfers from the state. She conveyed the difficulty of
the municipalities taking on new expenses. She noted that
prior to the meeting she had spoken with a community that
reported owing about $300,000 to the state. She posed a
question about how municipalities were expected to handle
their debt. She wondered what would happen if, at some
point, the municipalities became unable to provide
insurance costs promised to survivors. She asked if the
state would provide assistance. She restated that the
municipalities could not face an unfunded mandate,
particularly without knowing the exact cost. She needed
additional information before AML could take a firm
position on HB 23.
Representative Kawasaki asked if AML had considered what
would happen if an option-in or option-out clause was
included for municipalities.
Ms. Wasserman thought that most communities had taken
responsibility when similar situations had arisen. She
thought communities would be responsible. She cited
Fairbanks as one of the communities that was already
contributing without a mandate in place. She mentioned that
Hoonah had also stepped up to the plate. She believed most
communities would step up without a mandate in place.
Representative Kawasaki explained that a municipality's
premium would be based on its size. He asked for her
feedback about size.
Ms. Wasserman indicated AML had discussed the issue with
Representative Josephson's office. She explained that the
size breakdown was a vague set of lines used by the league.
She relayed that there seemed to be a dividing line between
large and small communities. The league had moved it
between 7,500 to 10,000 people.
Co-Chair Seaton was trying to determine the parameters of
Ms. Wasserman's statement. He asked if she was interpreting
the bill to say that each municipality would be paying a
premium based on size or only after there was a death.
Ms. Wasserman responded that after talking with
Representative Josephson's office, the fund would be
initiated after a death. She indicated that some of the
league members thought money would be set aside ahead of
time and drawn from when needed.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if AML had a preference about paying
a smaller amount over time or a larger amount after a fatal
incident.
Ms. Wasserman reported that her members discussed the idea
of each municipality contributing to one fund. There were
some concerns about it being equitable. She added that her
response was in light of the shortage of funds at present.
She did not think it would be an issue under different
circumstances.
2:49:24 PM
Representative Guttenberg remarked that the bill pertained
only to police officers and firefighters. He asked if AML
had looked at the benefit of pooling a larger group of
employees.
Ms. Wasserman responded that AML had not specifically
discussed the topic. She believed that Representative
Josephson's bill included employees without Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS). She relayed that
currently the municipalities were having difficulty paying
into the current and previous PERS and TERS system. She
reported that some of the small communities had not been
able to pay their worker's compensation insurance.
Representative Wilson pointed out that some firefighters
were hired as contractors rather than employees of
municipalities and would not be covered under HB 23. She
asked about the number of fire services areas where
firefighters were under contract rather than employees of
municipalities.
Ms. Wasserman thought there were only two boroughs that had
service areas - Fairbanks and Mat-Su. She noted that
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO) either worked for the
state or for tribal organizations rather than for
municipalities.
Representative Wilson clarified that the state had 6 fire
service areas.
2:53:19 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized that Amber Heinbaugh with the
state trooper families at the Glennallen Legislative
Information Office (LIO) was listening in.
SCOTT CARSON PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU,
spoke in support of HB 23. He felt the bill was very
important. He relayed a personal story as a state trooper.
He had been in a situation where he wanted someone to back
him up. He spoke to being in Ketchikan as a trooper and
responding to a call. He did not have the luxury of not
going to a dangerous call when he was required to go. He
wanted assurance for his family that they would be taken
care of. He thanked the committee and asked members for
their support.
2:57:23 PM
AT EASE
2:58:26 PM
RECONVENED
LONNIE MILLER, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
supported HB 23. She thought it was right to take care of
the families of firefighters and peace officers. She
believed that they deserved the assurance that their
families would be cared for if they gave the ultimate
sacrifice in the line of duty. She opined that peace of
mind for a surviving family member would be a small but
necessary part of recovering after a grave and painful
loss. She thanked members for their support of the
legislation.
3:00:33 PM
CAROL DUNLAP-AUSTIN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via
teleconference), was an Alaska State Trooper. She was well
aware of the dangers of the job. She spoke of having lost
many friends in the line of duty. She thought it was
important for the state to make things right. She stated
that all gave some but some gave all.
3:02:24 PM
BONNIE WOLSTAD, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was
the daughter and wife of retired Alaska law enforcement
personnel. She relayed some of the close calls her father-
in-law and husband both faced in the line of duty. She was
extremely fortunate to have never received a call or knock
at the door. She believed the legislation was headed in the
right direction and very needed. However, she believed that
all employees of the State of Alaska should be covered if
killed while on the job. She provided a number of examples
concerning equitability. She spoke of 5 Alaska Fish and
Wildlife enforcement officers and 26 Alaska Department of
Fish and Game employees that have died in the line of duty.
She thought all state employees should be allowed to
participate. She recommended monthly contributions or
Alaska Supplemental Annuity plan (SBS) options. By allowing
more employees to participate under HB 23, the survivor
benefit would have more people paying into a fund and would
be on a stronger financial footing. She urged the committee
to amend the legislation.
3:06:13 PM
MEGAN LISTER, SELF, PETERSBURG (via teleconference), spoke
in support of HB 23. She was the wife of an Alaska State
Trooper with four young children. She thought it was the
right thing to do. She expressed sadness that the bill had
taken so long to get through the legislative process. She
asked members to pass HB 23 once and for all. The bill
provided peace of mind for the families of law enforcement
officers and firefighters.
3:08:42 PM
JASON HOLMGREN, WASILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT, WASILLA (via
teleconference), supported HB 23. He indicated he had been
working in law enforcement in various municipalities for 14
years. He had been involved with some search teams and with
some very dangerous calls. The bill provided peace of mind
to officers with families that their loved ones would be
cared for if they died on the job. He supported HB 23 and
urged others to support the bill as well.
3:09:46 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Commissioner Williams in the
audience and Representative Millet.
DAVID DUNCAN, KODIAK POLICE DEPARTMENT (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 23. He was a police
officer in Kodiak. He agreed with previous testifiers that
the bill was the right thing to do. He and his fellow
officers went to work each day not knowing what to expect,
yet, they did so diligently. The passage of the legislation
would provide a huge relief to officers knowing that their
families would be provided insurance benefits if they fell
in the line of duty.
3:11:15 PM
LISA ALBERT-KONECKY, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
spoke in favor of HB 23. She reported knowing families with
spouses that were injured in the line of duty. She spoke to
the difficulty of getting health insurance. She thought the
legislation was long overdue. Although doing the right
thing would cost money, it was important to provide a peace
of mind within the law enforcement community. She asked
members to support HB 23.
3:13:26 PM
DOUG MASSIE PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, WASILLA
(via teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. He
was a life-long Alaskan and presently an Alaska State
Trooper within the Wildlife Division. He had served the
State of Alaska for over 20 years. He relayed his personal
perspective as a trooper having dealt with several line-of-
duty deaths over the course of his career. He relayed a
particular story about a rescue. He told of several
thoughts that ran through his mind being the first
responder at the scene waiting for others to arrive. He
wondered if his family would be okay if he were the victim
of the situation. He also wondered who would take care of
them. He thought that surely the department and the state
would take care of his family. He continued that HB 23 was
right and just, and was a small way of providing peace of
mind for the families of those that paid the ultimate price
in protecting Alaskans. He asked the committee to support
passing the legislation.
3:16:15 PM
SHAUN KUZAKIN, PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU
(via teleconference), supported HB 23. He read from a
prepared statement:
I would like to thank the committee for taking the
time to listen to me today. My name is Shaun Kuzakin,
I am a resident of Juneau, Vice President of the
Public Safety Employees Association DPS Chapter
(represents Troopers and Court Service Officers), and
a husband and father of 2. I am here today in support
of HB 23.
"Officer shot and killed when she tried to
confront a murder suspect of a local Walmart".
"Officer shot and killed while responding to a
911 call about an armed man outside a home in the
Dallas suburb of Little Elm".
"A Louisiana Officer was shot and killed after he
stopped to check on what he thought was a car
accident".
"A Deputy Sherriff was shot and killed following
a vehicle pursuit of a stolen vehicle".
These are actual headlines of in the line of duty
deaths thus far in 2017. Reading these headlines cut
through me like a dull blade. There is the anxiety of
knowing that this can happen to any officer during the
course of their career and a far deeper anxiety of
knowing that your family must worry for you every day
you put on the uniform and badge.
I have proudly worn the badge of the Alaska State
Troopers on my chest for more than 15 years. Every day
the men and women of Law Enforcement in our great
state must have the courage to face dangerous calls.
Those men and women will run towards the danger when
others do not. They do it every day regardless of the
danger because of a commitment to the service of the
people of Alaska. In our profession we talk about a
warrior mentality, we train continuously, but we also
know when certain calls are very dangerous. Honor,
duty, and the drive to help others are what drive
peace officers into that danger.
When an officer dies in the line of duty, families
must adjust to life without their loved one. Often,
the family is faced with the loss of the primary
breadwinner. While there is no amount of money or
financial support that can compensate for the loss of
a loved one, we can honor their service and ensure
their families are not forgotten by providing survivor
benefits.
Please show your support for the men and women peace
officers of our great state by passing this bill.
3:19:03 PM
STEVEN CZAJKOWSKI, ALASKA STATE TROOPER, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 23. He read a few
headlines from the current day having to do with officers
being killed in the line of duty. He explained that honor,
duty, and the drive to help others were what drove peace
officers into potential danger. He thought HB 23 would
provide a bubble of safety for their peace of mind. He
thanked the committee members for supporting the
legislation.
3:20:57 PM
JAKE METCALFE, PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PSEA),
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), supported HB 23. He thanked
Representative Josephson, Representative Millet, and others
for supporting the legislation. He reported that PSEA had
been advocating for the legislation for years. The
organization thought the bill addressed an issue that
should be a priority for the legislature to pass. Members
of PSEA included the Alaska State Troopers and the police
departments in several Alaskan communities. They went into
danger every day, unlike other employees. The association
believed that when an employer sent an employee into danger
- like police officers and firefighters - it should be a
priority for the state and the respective communities to
take care of them and their families. He asked the
committee, the House, and the Senate to pass HB 23.
3:23:21 PM
DAN GRIMES, ALASKA STATE FIRE ASSOCIATION, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. He had
worked in emergency services since 1981 as a firefighter
and a law enforcement officer. He emphasized how much the
passage of HB 23 would mean to the men and women who
dedicated their lives to serving others. They served with
the knowledge that on any given day they might have to give
their lives to save another. He confirmed that the dangers
of their work were real. He wanted to impress upon members
that the same men and women who were willing to tackle evil
and to sacrifice much for those in need, lived with the
fear of leaving their loved ones without a provider. He saw
HB 23 as an opportunity for the legislature to help make a
difference. He urged members to support HB 23.
3:26:06 PM
ANNE MOEN SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), supported
HB 23. She was the widow of James Moen, a fallen Fish and
Wildlife Protection Officer for the Alaska State Troopers.
She spoke of her experience in seeking help after her
husband's death. Her husband had been a Tier 1 employee and
was able to receive help. She emphasized that she could not
have gone out and immediately found full-time employment
that would have provided adequate medical coverage for
herself and her four children. Nor were her children ready
to have their only surviving parent working full-time. She
was saddened to find out that coverage for a fallen
officer's family was no longer available. She encouraged
members to do the right thing by passing HB 23.
3:28:02 PM
ARN SALAO, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), urged members to support HB 23. He shared
that he had been shot in the line of duty and about his
fears around whether his family would have been taken care
of if he had died. He asked members to support the
legislation.
3:29:12 PM
DARCY PERRY, ANCHORAGE AIRPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in favor of HB 23. She realized
that her husband would not be covered if she were killed on
the job after hearing Brandy Johnson speak about her
troubles 30 days after her husband died in the line of
duty. She relayed that it was comforting to know a
potential coverage would be available for his surviving
family members. She thought that providing medical
insurance was the least the state could provide for
employees that protected the state.
Co-Chair Foster confirmed that there were no other
testifiers online or in the committee room. He encouraged
the public to provide their written testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
HB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster asked members to submit any amendments by
Friday afternoon at 5:00 PM.
ADJOURNMENT
3:32:26 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Finance - DOR IER Presentation - 1.31.17.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
INdirect Expenditure Report DOR |
| 2 1 IE Report Overview HFin.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
Indorect Expenditure Report LFD Corrected |
| HB 23 PSEA Support.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 23 |
| HB23 Supporting Document Law Letter to RepFoster 1.31.17.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 23 |
| HB 23 Letter Opposition.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 23 |
| HB 23 Letters of Support PKT 1.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 23 |
| DOR Response to House Finance Committee - 2.23.17.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
Indirect Expenditure Report |