Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/13/2018 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 | |
| HB267 | |
| HJR23 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 13, 2018
1:34 p.m.
1:34:39 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 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
Tim Clark, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon; Sara
Chambers, Deputy Director, Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Representative Paul Seaton, Sponsor; Arnold Liebelt, Staff,
Representative Paul Seaton; Jasmine Levemia, Self,
Petersburg; Representative Andy Josephson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tom Brookover, Division Director, Department of Fish and
Game; Nathan Hill, Borough Manager, Lake Peninsula Borough,
King Salmon; George Pierce, Self, Kasilof; Tim Federico,
Self, Anchorage; Brenda Rhodes, Self, Anchorage; Ella
Lubin, Self, Sitka; Gary McDonald, Self, Anchorage; Laura
Bonner, Self, Anchorage; Liz Vazquez, Self, Anchorage; Fred
Sturman, Self, Kenai.
SUMMARY
HB 267 RELEASE HUNTING/FISHING RECORDS TO MUNI
CSHB 267 (RES was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
new fiscal impact note by the Department of
Fish and Game and with two previously published
notes, one with a fiscal impact: FN2(CED); and
one zero note: FN1(DFG).
HB 285 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 285 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 286 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 286 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HJR 23 CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV; DIVIDEND;
HJR 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day. He
intended to move HB 267 out of committee. The committee
would continue to take public testimony on HJR 23 and would
take up HB 285 and HB 286, if time allowed.
HOUSE BILL NO. 267
"An Act requiring the release of certain records
relating to big game hunters, guided hunts, and guided
sport fishing activities to municipalities for
verification of taxes payable; and providing for an
effective date."
1:35:58 PM
Co-Chair Foster reported that the last time the committee
heard the bill was on February 27, 2018, at which time
public testimony was heard. He reported that his office had
not received any amendments for the bill. He invited Mr.
Clark, aide to Speaker Edgmon, to the table. He also
reviewed the list of available testifiers.
TIM CLARK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, relayed that
HB 267 gave municipalities that levy taxes on fish and game
guiding activities access to records submitted to state
agencies by hunting and fishing sport guides.
Municipalities would use the records to cross reference
such activities within their jurisdiction to verify payable
taxes.
Representative Wilson asked which specific documents the
bill encompassed. She was aware of the transporter activity
report and some log books. She wondered what reports would
be turned over by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to
the municipalities. Mr. Clark responded that for hunting
activities hunt reports submitted by guides to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board within the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) would
be turned over. He continued that for sport fishing
activities sport fish log books from sport fishing guide
operations would be released.
Representative Wilson clarified that Mr. Clark was not
talking about commercial fisherman, just sport fishermen.
She asked for the name of the hunt report. Mr. Clark
replied that he thought the report was referred to as a
hunt report. He suggested that there might be a more
technical term used within DCCED. There were transporter
reports, but he did not believe they had the same relevance
to the needs of the municipalities.
Representative Wilson asked whether the transporter
activity report would be disclosed. Mr. Clark deferred to
Nathan Hill of the Lake and Peninsula Borough who was
available online. It was his understanding that the hunt
reports provided the needed cross-referencing tool for
municipalities. Representative Wilson thought it was
important to know exactly what reports would be disclosed.
1:39:47 PM
TOM BROOKOVER, DIVISION DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), was available for questions.
Representative Wilson had a copy of the fish guide log book
and vessel registration and the 2018 salt water charter log
book and vessel registration. She asked what information
would be used from these documents. She wondered how much
of the information from the documents would not be
necessary for the purpose of collecting taxes.
Mr. Brookover assumed each municipality would tax
differently. The information requested might vary by
municipality. He suspected that certain base information
would be useful such as number of guides, number of fishing
days, and number of clients by area. He assumed other
information would vary. The Department of Fish and Game
would provide different pieces of information depending on
the detail needed. In some instances, the department might
see very detailed requests. In other instances, the
department might see much less detailed requests. The
department's approach at the onset would be to provide only
the information requested rather than a blanket of all of
the information collected.
Representative Wilson suggested that the department would
not be turning over the log books as it received them.
Instead, the municipalities would have to make a written
request for specific information.
Mr. Brookover suggested that initially the department would
provide only the requested information rather than the log
book pages in their entirety. However, the bill language
would not prevent the department from turning over the
information in its entirety especially for municipalities
requesting a high level of detail. The department would
start out providing only the information needed.
Representative Wilson suggested that it was possible, if
the municipalities did not believe the information was
sufficient, that log book pages in their entirety would be
provided.
Mr. Brookover replied that it was his understanding that
the bill would not prevent the department from supplying
the log book sheets in their entirety. If a municipality
requested all of the information, he believed there would
be some discussion about the level of specificity. However,
in the end, if the municipality requested a high level of
detail, the department would tend to provide it once the
municipality demonstrated the information was needed.
1:43:55 PM
Representative Pruitt thought it sounded as if a
significant amount of information could be transferred to a
municipality. He asked if the information transferred to a
municipality could potentially be shared its assembly. He
wondered if the information would become public record.
Mr. Clark responded that municipalities would be subject to
the same confidentiality provisions as state officials. The
municipalities he spoke with had very strict chain of
custody systems in place in their operations. He also
pointed out that a municipal official would be subject to
criminal prosecution if they were to breach confidentiality
according to existing state law.
Representative Pruitt relayed that initially when there
were conversations about the gasline, legislators had to
sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in order to
participate. If they breached the agreement, they would be
in trouble. He wondered how information would not be leaked
out by municipal officials.
Mr. Clark deferred to Nathan Hill to answer the question.
His understanding was that there would not be a
circumstance where a borough assembly member would need to
be privy to the information. It would be dealt with by the
municipal's financial advisor responsible for collecting
taxes. He was aware of a lock and key system at the Lake
and Peninsula Borough. He encouraged Mr. Hill to elaborate.
1:47:33 PM
NATHAN HILL, BOROUGH MANAGER, LAKE PENINSULA BOROUGH, KING
SALMON (via teleconference), did not have much to add to
Mr. Clark's response. The finance department took care of
the hunt reporting records. He would be subject to
prosecution if he relayed confidential information.
Representative Pruitt asked why additional information
would be needed. He indicated hunt dates and locations were
the main pieces of information needed. Mr. Hill replied
that he was unsure. The information the Lake and Peninsula
Borough was interested in was contained in the hunt guide
reports, specifically the number of days hunted, the dates
hunted, and the locations hunted.
Representative Pruitt asked if basic information could be
provided without releasing other information and suggested
a summary of information. He wondered if there was a
necessity to send all of the information that the bill
allowed. Mr. Hill relayed that the borough needed the
location, the area, the number of guests, the number of
guides, the number of days, and the dates of the hunt.
Representative Wilson asked if there was someone from the
big game commercial board. Mr. Brookover relayed the he was
from the Division of Sport Fish at DGF.
SARA CHAMBERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, introduced
herself.
Representative Wilson asked about camping information on
the state's form. Ms. Chambers responded that the hunt
report did not require the places where hunters made camp.
The location of where the game was taken was required. The
department would be working with municipalities regarding
the needed information.
Representative Wilson asked if the intent of DCCED was not
to send the actual hunt record, but rather just the
requested information. She wondered if municipalities would
be asking for the transporter activity report.
Ms. Chambers responded that her understanding of the way
the bill was written was that hunt records and transporter
activity reports could be made available to municipalities.
However, she thought the municipalities would be requesting
the records verifying taxes payable. The department would
only be obliged to provide information relevant to taxes.
The department's fiscal note and intent was to create a
report that could be generated from its licensing database
to provide municipalities with the information needed. The
information might need to be customized somewhat depending
on a municipalities request for information. The goal of
the department was to provide the municipalities with
everything they needed but only what they needed.
Representative Wilson had heard concerns about people not
completing the sport fishing reports because the
information might be used for something other than DFG. She
wondered if Mr. Brookover shared that concern.
Mr. Brookover responded that the purpose of the log book
was for managing the sport fishery, a very different
purpose than helping municipalities to verify tax records.
The department had questions and possible concerns about
using the information for a different purpose which could
lead to different levels in reporting or changes in
reporting. The data was used by area managers to gage
effort, catch, and harvest of various species from
year-to-year. The department also used the information to
provide comments and analysis to the Board of Fisheries
regarding board proposals affecting sport fishing and
guided sport fishing. The department had concerns about
guides reporting differently or not reporting because of
their data being used differently and potentially impacting
their operations. He opined that the department needed the
guides to support the program by providing good
information. He was uncertain whether the quality of data
would change as a result of the legislation. He relayed the
importance of guide reporting and licensing.
Representative Wilson was concerned and had not put an
amendment forward. She was sympathetic to the needs of
municipalities. However, she was particularly concerned
with interfering with the management of Alaska's fisheries.
Mr. Clark mentioned there were several letters of support
from several fishing guide operations. He also noted that
municipalities were asking for a modest tax of $3 per day
per person. He did not believe guides would jeopardize
their license.
Vice-Chair Gara did not have a concern with the bill.
Mr. Hill agreed with what was being voiced about members'
concerns. The borough was not seeking more information than
needed.
Representative Guttenberg thought the issues of security
and confidentiality were consistent with the departments'
and the municipalities'. He thought that any business that
would change their behavior because of the release of
information would highlight a larger problem.
Co-Chair Foster asked Vice-Chair Gara to review the fiscal
notes.
2:02:08 PM
Vice-Chair Gara reported that HB 267 had 3 fiscal notes.
There was a zero fiscal note from the Department of Fish
and Game with an appropriation of wildlife conservation.
The fiscal note had an allocation of wildlife conservation
and an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) component
number of 473. The second fiscal note was by the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development with an
appropriation and allocation of corporations, businesses,
and professional licensing. The OMB component number was
2360 and had a one-time expenditure of $7,700 in receipt
services for regulations drafting and minor information
technology needs. The third fiscal note by the Department
of Fish and Game had an appropriation and allocation of
sport fisheries with an OMB component number of 464. The
fiscal note reflected a one-time expenditure of $9,100 for
personal services in FY 19. He relayed that $6,100 would
come from the general fund, and $3,000 would come from
program receipts to process and tabulate information for
municipalities.
Representative Kawasaki had a question about the fiscal
note with component number 464. It noted $3,000 would come
from receipts received by 3 municipalities - about $1,00
each. He did not understand the expense to the state of
$6,100.
Mr. Brookover responded that the amount would pay for
initial set-up costs for the log book program and the
associated database. It would provide the ability for the
department to respond to requests from municipalities based
on area. For example, there were certain geographic areas
delineated in the reporting processes in which businesses
and guides reported. A number of them spanned municipal
boundaries. The department would have to do some initial
work to identify municipal boundaries in DFG's database,
then associate reporting areas with different
municipalities. There would likely be other modifications
to the database similar to his example. Also, the
department might have to make changes to the log book. An
example would be adding a check box on pages to identify
the municipality in which a guide operated for a reporting
day. The department estimated that it would take one
employee two weeks to implement changes that would enable
the department to field requests from municipalities.
Representative Wilson asked about game areas. She asked
about a similar cost within the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development. Ms. Chambers responded
that that DCCED's fiscal note reflected about $5,000 for
information technology upgrades and changes. The department
expected to face the same challenges as DFG.
2:06:07 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report Committee Substitute for
HB 267 (RES) out of Committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson elaborated that she thought the state
would be providing unnecessary information to be able to
take care of the concerns of municipalities. She believed
both departments could provide the necessary information
without providing copies of log books. She was more
concerned about other negative impacts of the bill
including a change in reporting or a lack of reporting.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion. He understood that
normally there would be a report. However, if there was a
discrepancy in a guide's report, municipalities might need
to see the actual reports that were submitted. He thought
that both departments had indicated they would be making
changes to their computer systems to generate reports. He
presumed that the only request for individual log book
entries would be if a discrepancy was found.
Representative Wilson asked if an investigation would be
requested by the municipalities, Boroughs, or DFG. She
wondered about a borough's authority if an investigation
was deemed necessary.
Co-Chair Seaton suggested that if a discrepancy was found,
the original report might need to be examined. He thought a
municipality would take up a discrepancy with DCCED or DFG
on a case-by-case basis. He assumed that if guides were
aware that reports were going from DFG or DCCED to a
municipality, they would submit the same numbers to a
municipality. He provided some additional details.
2:11:08 PM
Representative Wilson asked what would happen when the log
books went away. It was her understanding that the log
books would sunset. Mr. Clark responded that she was
correct. If the sports fish program went away, the
information would no longer be available. However, hunting
records would continue to be available.
Representative Tilton asked if the borough would be able to
request a log book page. She asked about a discrepancy
between the agency and the borough. She wondered if an
agency would have to provide the information. Mr. Clark
understood, that when the borough was provided the
information from DFG, it would follow-up with a phone call
to a guiding operation about their hunting activities if
they had not submitted a tax filing. They would be
encouraged to make good on their taxes. He reported that
Lake and Peninsula Borough had about 130 registered guides
that routinely carried on activities within the borough's
jurisdiction. Nearly all of them were non-residents and
nearly a third resided in Alaska. The state and borough
resources had been commodified by the guiding businesses.
The boroughs felt that a modest benefit was only fair. He
continued that because many boroughs constituted many
thousands of square acres and because there was access of
many different means, it was impossible to keep tabs on who
was coming and going. The bill provided a way of accessing
information that documented who was coming and going.
Representative Tilton understood the concept. She wondered
about the difference of opinion between the agency and the
borough and whether the agency would have to supply the
actual log book page. Mr. Clark responded in the
affirmative. He noted that the borough would be required to
keep the information confidential.
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 267 (RES was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Fish and Game and with two previously
published notes, one with a fiscal impact: FN2(CED); and
one zero note: FN1(DFG).
2:15:58 PM
AT EASE
2:17:08 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to the Alaska permanent fund.
2:17:10 PM
Co-chair foster indicated the committee would be hearing
public testimony on HJR 23. He reminded testifiers that
testimony was limited to 2 minutes. He gave the bill
sponsor the opportunity to make comments before opening up
public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, relayed that in the
previous public testimony hearing there was some
misinformation. He noted there was a fact sheet that had
been distributed to all of the Legislative Information
Office. He read the fact sheet:
The Permanent Fund includes two portions the
Principal and the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA). Once
money is deposited into the Principal, it cannot be
appropriated out. The ERA is available for
appropriation by any Legislature for any purpose at
any time by simple majority vote. As of January 31,
2018, the balance of the Principal is $49.2 billion
and $16.8 billion for the ERA for a total "value" of
$66 billion.
As it is now in law (not the constitution), the PFD is
based on the average "earnings" over the past 5 years
of the fund, with 50% of that amount going to the PFD.
The Percent of Market Value (POMV) proposes to base
the PFD on the total "value" of the fund versus the
"earnings" of the fund. CS HJR 23 (otherwise referred
to as the CS) proposes a POMV draw of 4.75 percent.
The total draw would come from the ERA since the
Principal cannot be touched. 33 percent of this draw
($813 million) would be used for PFD and 67 percent
($1.65 billion) for essential public services. This
would result in a PFD this October of approximately
$1,258 per qualified Alaskan.
Facts about the Permanent Fund and the CS:
Alaskans would vote on this resolution in
November if the CS passes both the House and
the Senate.
The PFD is only in law (Alaska Statute) and not
in the Alaska Constitution.
The current formula for calculating the PFD was
passed in 1982.
The Principal of the Permanent Fund cannot be
spent.
The PFD is currently paid from the ERA (and the
same for the CS).
The ERA can be used for any purpose. If the ERA
goes away, so does the PFD.
Alaskans have never voted to constitutionalize
the PFD.
Without protection, future Legislatures can
appropriate the full amount of the ERA,
draining the fund, and thus eliminating the
PFD.
CS HJR 23 would protect the ERA by limiting
appropriations to a sustainable level of 4.75
percent annually.
The Legislature "shall" appropriate the 4.75
percent draw to the general fund.
The Legislature "may" appropriate 33 percent of
the 4.75 percent draw to dividends, leaving 67
percent for public services.
"Shall" implies mandated, and "may" implies
subject to appropriation by the Legislature.
Mandating the amount or percentage to PFD will
likely trigger lawsuits.
The total fund is estimated to earn 6.5 percent
annually, so the amount for the PFD under the
CS would increase over time.
Co-Chair further explained that a House Joint Resolution on
a constitutional amendment had to go before the people at
the first general election following a resolution passing
by a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate. It did
not require any action by the governor. It would appear on
a general election ballot if passed.
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that if the resolution were to
pass by two-thirds of both bodies, it would go to a vote of
the people.
Representative Thompson asked if the committee would only
be hearing people that had not already testified. Co-Chair
Foster responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
2:23:30 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, SELF, KASILOF (via teleconference), opposed
HJR 23. He believed the resolution would change the payout
forever. He thought the resolution was a raid of the
Permanent Fund (PF) and the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).
He rejected the idea of the legislature being able to spend
more that the percentage. He advocated for looking out for
Alaskans. He did not believe the legislature could be
trusted. He urged members to avoid changing the
constitution.
2:25:38 PM
TIM FEDERICO, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition of HJR 23. He thought the bill was out of
sync with the people of Alaska. He wanted to see the budget
cut to the bones. He spoke about the money the legislature
was paid. He mentioned waste within various departments. He
commented that commercial fisheries were actually
subsidized by the state. He suggested saving money in the
school system by having only one administrator. He thought
government was out of control.
2:29:04 PM
BRENDA RHODES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against HJR 23. She thought the state needed to return to
the original dividend formula. She urged members to return
to the task of figuring out a fiscal plan. She thanked the
committee.
2:30:03 PM
ELLA LUBIN, SELF, SITKA (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of HJR 23. She believed that the resource wealth came
from public land which all Alaskans shared and deserved to
reach the benefits. She thought it was in the state's best
interest to maintain the PFD so that it continued to be a
benefit - sustaining Alaska and a benefit for young people.
She spoke about being a lifelong Alaskan and having
benefited from receiving PFD's. She noted that the PFD was
a vital income source for many Alaskans. She provided a
statistic by Institute of Social and Economic Research
(ISER). She mentioned the importance of constitutionalizing
the PFD. She referred to the PF as a "rainy day account"
and that Alaska's rainy day was the present day. She
thanked the committee.
Representative Ortiz asked if Ms. Lubin had participated in
the recent DDF [Drama, Debate, and Forensics] competition.
Ms. Lubin responded in the positive. Representative Ortiz
commented that she was likely as effective as her sisters.
2:32:10 PM
GARY MCDONALD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against HJR 23. He thought the full dividend should be
given to the people of Alaska. He thanked the committee.
2:33:00 PM
LAURA BONNER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported the concept of enshrining the PFD in the Alaska
Constitution. She argued that because paying the PFD was
only in statute, current or future legislatures could opt
not to pay the PFD. However, she preferred the first
proposed version of the bill over the work draft submitted
by the House Finance Committee. She suggested the work
draft could be amended to be more acceptable to Alaskans.
She recommended changing the verbiage in Section 2(c) from
"may" to "shall." She also recommended adding the words,
"at least" or changing to a higher percentage. She hoped
the resolution continued to move through the legislative
process. She thanked the committee for re-opening public
testimony.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed with Ms. Bonner that the word should
be "shall." He thought the sponsor wanted the word "shall
pay." However, the legislature received legal advice that
the word "shall " could not be used in the constitution. He
also appreciated the "at least" language suggestion. Ms.
Bonner had read the legal opinion and understood the
possibility of constitutional issues.
2:36:18 PM
LIZ VAZQUEZ, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), opposed
HJR 1. The resolution did not protect the PFD. It would be
up to the legislature to determine the amount of the
dividend or whether it would be distributed at all. She
provided a brief history about the fund. She relayed that
the makers of the PF set up the PFD in order to ensure the
people had a voice about how the fund was spent. She
thought HJR 23 reflected the opposite of what the makers
intended. She spoke of the current economic recession and
the challenges the state faced. She thought HJR 23 would
inflict greater damage by tampering with the PFD. She
encouraged members to vote against the resolution.
2:40:20 PM
Vice-Chair Gara commented that the previous year's budget
was lower than the last year that she had been in the
legislature. He relayed that the legislature had been told
by the legal department that "shall" could not be used in
the constitution. The word "may" could be used. He wondered
if she had a legal opinion on the issue. Ms. Vasquez was
interested in seeing the legal opinion. Co-Chair Foster
relayed that the opinion could be found online.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified that it was the express testimony
from the lead legislative attorney. He was still looking
into the issue. He thought committees were trying to find
something more enforceable than what was currently in
statute.
Representative Wilson asked in a constitutional amendment
whether Ms. Vasquez would use the formula that had worked,
or whether she would use a Percent of Market Value (POMV)
giving less to Alaskans. Ms. Vasquez would have to look at
some of the opinions of the economists. She thought the
4.75 percent draw was too aggressive. She noted the
variable returns on the fund.
Representative Wilson asked if Ms. Vasquez would enshrine a
percentage as outlined in the resolution of 66/33 or use
the current calculation. Ms. Vasquez would keep the 50/50
split. She added that the POMV might work. However, the
suggested percentage might be too aggressive and could
potentially hurt the fund in the long run. She would have
to study the historical yield.
2:45:16 PM
FRED STURMAN, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), opposed
HJR 23. He wanted to see a 50/50 split. He thought
additional reductions were necessary. He recommended
closing the DMV. He thought several things could be cut. He
opposed taking the PFD. He spoke to having children in
college. He thought additional cuts were necessary and
encouraged legislators to be focusing on the important
stuff.
2:47:36 PM
JASMINE LEVEMIA, SELF, PETERSBURG, spoke in support of
HJR 23. She supported constitutionalizing the PFD. She
wanted to see the PFD continue to support future
generations.
2:49:20 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
HJR 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:50:04 PM
AT EASE
2:51:41 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster called the meeting back to order. He
relayed that the committee would not be hearing HB 285 and
HB 286. Amendments for HJR 23 were due by 5:00 p.m. in the
current afternoon.
Representative Wilson emailed all finance members the
written testimony she had received.
HB 285 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 286 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
2:52:46 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 23 - Letters of Support 3.13.2018 (2).pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR 23 - Letters of Opposition 3.13.2018 (2).pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| CSHJR 23 Fact Sheet.pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR 23 - Letters of Support 3.14.2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR 23 - Letters of Opposition 3.14.2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |