02/03/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB32 | |
| HB251 | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2022
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 32(FIN)
"An Act establishing the Alaska middle college program for
public school students; relating to the powers of the University
of Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 32(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 251
"An Act relating to the Board of Trustees of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund dividends
to the general fund."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 32
SHORT TITLE: COLLEGE CREDIT FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
01/25/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) EDC, FIN
03/08/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/17/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/21 (S) Moved SB 32 Out of Committee
03/17/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/19/21 (S) EDC RPT 5DP
03/19/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, HUGHES, STEVENS, MICCICHE,
BEGICH
03/22/21 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/22/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/21 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/21 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
03/29/21 (S) DP: STEDMAN, BISHOP, WILSON,
WIELECHOWSKI
03/29/21 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/21 (S) Moved CSSB 32(FIN) Out of Committee
03/29/21 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/07/21 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/07/21 (S) VERSION: CSSB 32(FIN)
04/09/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/09/21 (H) EDC, STA
04/19/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/19/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/05/21 (H) EDC RPT 2DP 4NR
05/05/21 (H) DP: DRUMMOND, STORY
05/05/21 (H) NR: CRONK, GILLHAM, ZULKOSKY, PRAX
05/05/21 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
05/05/21 (H) Moved CSSB 32(FIN) Out of Committee
05/05/21 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
05/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/15/21 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/15/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/27/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/27/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 251
SHORT TITLE: BD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AK PERM. FUND CORP.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA, FIN
02/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 158
SHORT TITLE: PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL FUND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PRAX
03/31/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (H) STA, FIN
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/18/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/18/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered closing comments on CSSB 32(FIN),
as the prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 251, as the prime sponsor.
MAX KOHN, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
251, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.
MICHAEL TOBIN, PhD, Board Member
350 Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered invited testimony in favor of HB
251.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reintroduced HB 158, as the prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:35 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Kaufman, Vance, Claman, Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representative
Eastman arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 32-COLLEGE CREDIT FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
3:04:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 32(FIN), "An Act establishing
the Alaska middle college program for public school students;
relating to the powers of the University of Alaska; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited closing comments from committee
members.
3:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY believed that the bill would be a "win win"
for students, as it would help them in their postsecondary
opportunities. She thanked the sponsor for bringing it forward.
3:05:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noted that his wife, a retired high
school teacher, thought the legislation was a good idea;
therefore, he expressed his support for the bill.
3:06:13 PM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of
CSSB 32(FIN), thanked the committee for hearing the bill, as
well as the University of Alaska for working so closely with his
office. He said the intent of the legislation is to increase
the availability of college courses for students.
3:06:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSSB 32(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 32(FIN) was moved
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 251-BD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AK PERM. FUND CORP.
3:07:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 251, "An Act relating to the Board of
Trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation; and providing
for an effective date."
3:08:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 251. He paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 251 adds a layer of protection from political
influence between the Permanent Fund Corporation and
elected officials. The Permanent Fund is vital to
Alaskans, our economy, and our state government, and
protecting it from short-term politics is paramount.
Oversight of the Permanent Fund should rest in the
hands of the public to a greater degree than it does
today, and that is exactly what HB 251 seeks to
accomplish. Under current law, the Board of Trustees
of the Permanent Fund Corporation have full oversight
over the 80-billion-dollar fund entrusted to the
current and future generations of Alaskans. AS
37.13.050(a) establishes the sole power to appoint and
remove the members of the board in the governor. No
legal mechanisms currently exist to insulate the
selection of board members from the political pressure
that comes with managing our largest state fund.
This bill shifts the direct selection of board members
away from all politicians. Instead of its current
structure, the governor, along with the speaker of the
house of representatives, the senate president, and
members of the minority in each body would select the
nine members of an appointment committee. The nine-
member appointment committee is entrusted with the
power to select the Board of Trustees. The board
increases under this bill from six to seven members,
and the public members of the board increases from
four to six. Just as under current law, one seat on
the board remains reserved for the Commissioner of
Revenue and all public members must have backgrounds
and competence in the financial or business management
sectors. HB 251 adds a mandate that one seat be
reserved for a member with experience in socially
responsible investing.
The creation of an appointment committee does not
simply shuffle oversight around from one politician to
another. It insulates the fund by an extra degree from
politicians all together. The Permanent Fund embodies
Alaskans' ownership of their resources. Ownership by
the people must be protected at all costs and the
structure of the board should be improved for that
purpose. I urge your support for HB 251 and a step
toward protecting the current and future generations
of Alaskans.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from the committee.
3:15:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that socially responsible
investing is not defined in the bill. He asked who decides
what constitutes as socially responsible investing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said it's a term of art; therefore, the
definition could be found and identified. He reiterated that
only one seat, or one-seventh of the Board of Trustees (the
board), would wear a hat of responsible investing and
communicate those concerns accordingly. He suggested that the
committee consider the term environmental social governance
(ESG).
3:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN characterized the reference to the term
ESG as "even more concerning. He shared his understanding that
those who fall under that definition believe that its not
socially responsible to invest in petroleum production. He
surmised that many of his constituents would not support that
addition to the board. He asked, Is that what were
considering or is there a definition that would preclude that
from happening.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied, Theres no definition that
you would favor.
3:17:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether it would be considered
socially responsible to decline investments in one of Alaskas
primary industries.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he did not sit on the committee;
however, he appreciated the concern. He believed that the
argument made by Representative Kaufman may work in the short-
term but not in the long-term. He added that he enjoys seeing
throughput and high prices; however, no one will be here
forever, and the board should have that debate. He reiterated
his support for reserving a seat for a member with socially
responsible investing experience.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether the selection
[appointment] board could nominate from within.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON confirmed that they could not select
one of their own members.
3:19:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, referencing Section 6, asked why the
sponsor elected to have the appointment committee fill a vacancy
rather than the appointing authority.
3:20:06 PM
MAX KOHN, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, said Section 6 provides that vacancies on the Board
of Trustees are filled by the appointment committee; another
section, specifies that a vacancy on the appointment committee
would be filled by the office that was charged with the
appointment of the appointment committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned why there wasnt more guidance
in the bill for selecting people to the board.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON was unsure whether there isnt rule
making from [APFC] that provides more detail; however, the
current law doesnt require that. He added that the governor
merely considers whether the person is knowledgeable in
investing and finance or if he/she is in the governors cabinet.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that if the goal is to create a
clear, transparent process, applicants should be required to
submit a resume and answer questions for the appointment
committee to consider. He expressed concern about the omittance
of such a requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he would consider that a friendly
amendment. He summarized two additional features of the bill as
follows: the staggering was changed so that a sitting governor
could not remove members as swiftly as under current law;
secondly, the director of the Board of Trustees should only be
removed at will if 5 of 7 members support the removal to
depoliticize and keep continuity of APFC operation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, referencing the appointment committee,
inquired about the additional level of bureaucracy that this
bill would implement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said the goal is to have once-removed
authority over the appointment and to insulate the board.
3:25:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated her concern that the bill would
politicize the board more than the current system.
Additionally, she expressed confusion about the differing term
limits in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON contended that the current system is
more politicized, as it allows the governor to select four
appointees that select a chair who can rewrite resolutions and
redirect the investment strategy of the fund.
MR. KOHN added that the appointment committee members are
appointed to indefinite terms, serving essentially at the
discretion of the office charged with appointing them;
alternatively, the board members serve six-year terms. He noted
that if the board had a vacancy that was filled by the
appointment committee, he/she would fill the remainder of the
six-year term.
3:29:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said shes trying to decide what the
legislatures role is in regard to this bill, as the LB&A
committee took its own action is it relates to the Alaska
Permanent Fund. She addressed the removal of Angela Rodell, the
former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of APFC, adding that the
vote by the board was nearly unanimous. She opined that if her
removal was as questionable as some are suggesting, the vote
wouldnt have been as close. Additionally, she shared her
understanding that there is a lack of information to
substantiate the claims that her removal was political; on the
contrary, there are existing performance reviews that show
issues going back to 2018. She further indicated that if Ms.
Rodells removal was the catalyst for the bill, she is looking
for the information that would substantiate that the removal was
political in nature. She concluded by pointing out that the
legislature already had the opportunity to confirm the
commissioner of the Department of Revenue (DOR).
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he wished he agreed more. He
added that hes not allowed to discuss the happenings of LB&A;
nonetheless, he indicated that as a matter of public record,
motions were made, without objection, to investigate and spend a
lot of money. He noted that to read the stack of documents on
the removal of Ms. Rodell is a 20-hour exercise. He conveyed
that contrary to statements made by the governor about his
involvement, there is growing evidence that there was a series
of meetings that has given legislators real concern about the
issue. He emphasized that some of the public believes that the
decision was highly politicized. He believed that the bill
would spread the authority and give it to appointees. He
reminded the committee that 9 people would be selecting 6
people; therefore, more hands would be involved in the process.
He pointed out that because Alaska law requires a three-quarter
vote to override a veto by the governor, the state has the
strongest governor model in the country. He opined that HB 251
is the best concept that he could conceive of, after consulting
people that he considers intelligent, to diffuse and spread that
power around every political entity and implement an
environmental consideration. He concluded by noting that the
only question is whether it breaches the Bradner v. Hammond
test.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed invited testimony.
3:34:26 PM
MICHAEL TOBIN, PhD, Board Member, 350 Juneau, read the following
prepared statement:
Good afternoon, Chairman Kreiss-Tompkins and members
of the House State Affairs Committee. My name is Mike
Tobin. I live in Juneau. I am a retired emergency
doctor. As an emergency doctor one is constantly in
the position of making complex decisions with limited
information. Knowledge is golden. It is in that spirit
that I testify in favor of HB 251.
I will focus my remarks on adding a trustee to the
board of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation who has
"wide experience in socially responsible investing ".
A trustee has a fiduciary duty, defined under the
Alaska statutes, to invest so as to obtain the largest
return possible while maintaining the safety of the
principal.
Socially responsible investing is sometimes called
sustainable investing and sometimes also called
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing.
The Permanent Fund is a sovereign wealth fund, an
investment fund owned by a political entity and as
such has been a leader in its field.
The Permanent Fund is one of the forty members of the
International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF).
Some other members include Australia, China, Turkey,
Russia, the United Arab Emirates,Ireland, Palestine,
and Nigeria, France, and Italy. At the organization's
virtual London meeting in November 2021, Angela Rodell
of the Alaska Permanent Fund, was elected chairperson
of the organization. She said, "As we turn the page
from the global pandemic and look forward, the
membership of IFSWF is uniquely positioned to provide
leadership on the global issues of the day, whether
they are climate change impacts, inequality divides,
or governance challenges." A press release from that
meeting noted that "Front and center of all the
discussions was the integration of climate change and
wider environmental, social, and governance issues
into their investment strategies."
Not only sovereign wealth funds like the Permanent
Fund but also banks and asset managers like Vanguard
and BlackRock are developing policies and metrics
regarding socially responsible investing. The largest
asset manager in the world is BlackRock, with $9.5
Trillion under management. That is the equivalent of
115 Permanent Funds. CEO Larry Fink in his yearly
letter to CEOs of companies in which BlackRock
invests, had this to say about sustainable investing,
"We focus on sustainability not because we are
environmentalists but because we are capitalists and
fiduciaries to our clients. Every company and every
industry will be transformed by the transition to a
net zero world. The question is will you lead, or will
you be led?"
In the same vein, two years ago Mark Carney, Governor
of the Bank of England, noted that "changes in climate
policies, new technologies, and growing physical risks
will prompt reassessments of the values of virtually
every financial asset."
So, what is fiduciary responsibility in this world
with a growing impetus toward decarbonization, with a
changing regulatory environment and increasing legal
challenges?
Leaders of the financial industry have concluded that
the old concept that quantitative assessments of past
performance, with various extrapolations into the
future, is not sufficient to evaluate potential risks
and benefits of particular companies, industries, or
portfolios going forward. Investors are increasingly
articulating an investment time horizon and defining
which risks warrant consideration beyond standard
measures such as market volatility. The time horizon
for young Alaskans is decades. The fiduciary duty of
trustees of the Fund to these younger beneficiaries
should include risk assessment of social and
environmental processes that will be evident in 2050
and beyond.
That is why HB 251 is timely and appropriate to the
financial world in which the Permanent Fund must
operate. Adding one member to the Permanent Fund Board
of Trustees who is experienced in the increasingly
complex world of socially responsible investing with
its evolving concepts and metrics will add to the
fiduciary capability of our fund's managers. Thank
you.
3:38:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 251 would be set aside.
HB 158-PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL FUND
3:38:49 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act relating to contributions
from permanent fund dividends to the general fund."
3:39:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
reintroduced HB 158. He presented the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 158 sets up a mechanism to give Alaskans
the choice of donating all or a portion of their
Permanent Fund dividends (PFDs) directly to the
state's general fund. Participants can donate from a
minimum of $25 to the full amount of their PFD in
increments of $25.
A donation to the State General fund, in some case,
can be counted as a charitable donation for federal
tax purposes. It is advised, however, that Alaskans
consult with a tax professional to verify how this may
apply to them individually.
Donations through HB 158 are subject to a seven
percent administrative fee paid to the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division. HB 158 also clarifies that
donations through Pick.Click.Give., take priority over
donations to the general fund if there is a shortfall.
3:43:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from the committee.
3:43:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she had heard from constituents that
when they chose not to receive a PFD, they thought they were
saving the state money; however, she learned in clarification
that in actuality, their dividend would be redistributed to
recipients instead of going to the state. She asked whether
that explanation is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX confirmed that currently, the dividend
amount is determined by an appropriation process wherein the
total amount is divided by the number of PFD applications. He
stated if an individual chooses not to apply, the money that
he/she is otherwise entitled to, would be redistributed to those
who did apply. He explained that presently, the only way to
return a dividend to the general fund is to first accept the
dividend check and either write a second check to the state or
return it to DOR. Therefore, HB 158 would make it easier to
exercise the option of returning all or a portion of the
dividend back to the general fund.
3:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that [everyone] looks at ways
to reduce their tax burden on an individual level; consequently,
he asked Representative Prax whether he thinks the PFD is
treated as ordinary income, as opposed to wages, in that the
average person pays about 20 percent tax on the dividend
regardless of how much money they make.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said, thats close enough [to his
understanding].
3:48:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked:
Its this kind of interesting dynamic that if I apply
for my dividend and get approved and I get a 1,000-
dollar dividend and I immediately give that money back
to the state, I will pay the government 20 percent
200 dollars - for the privilege of having received
1,000 dollars [and] give it back to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his concern because the receipt
of that dividend, even for a split second before immediately
returning it, stands to be taxed. He added that the
deductability reduces some of the tax burden, but the tax
incurred as a taxpayer would still be greater than what he/she
would receive from the deduction.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX argued that the point made by Representative
Claman is a separate consideration. He remarked, If there is
money appropriated and someone wants to give that money back,
this makes it easier for them to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed on some level; however, he recalled
that according to his tax accountant, a tax deduction generally
results in savings of 20-35 percent of the deduction.
Therefore, if an individual gives an organization $100, the
reduction in the tax owed is $20 to $35, as opposed to $100.
Consequently, the process of giving to the government would be
made easier, but those selecting that option would be paying the
federal government more than $100 dollars depending on the
dividend amount.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX acknowledged that it would be an itemized
deduction, not a tax credit.
3:50:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that folks in
less advantageous economic positions would be unlikely to see
any benefit from the deduction, as the size of the standard
deduction is so large for lower income families. He explained
that lower income families are unlikely to donate the amount of
money that would ever make the deductability of their dividend
worthwhile.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX replied, Yes, I get it, that is the
arithmetic of it. He believed that the real debate from the
legislatures standpoint is whether everyone considers state
services equally valuable. He posited that the proposed
legislation would give those who value state services a choice
to return their PFD to the general fund. He remarked, Rather
than the legislature deciding for someone to from somebody who
thinks the service is less valuable to them theyre being
forced to pay for the service.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the point
made by Representative Claman is that rather than someone
receive the PFD, give it back to the state, and have the federal
government tie the money, there may be some logic in reducing
the PFD amount, thereby having the same effect of the state
keeping a portion of the PFD without the federal government
taking a chunk out. He asked Representative Claman whether that
was an accurate summary.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered, partly. He explained that
fundamentally, the fact that people pay 20 percent of their
dividend to the federal government is routinely forgotten in the
PFD discussion. He argued that the debate cant be had without
acknowledging that this is not a straight cash transaction. He
opined that everyone is losing in the proposed equation.
3:55:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referencing the document titled, PFD
Deductions Priority Order [included in the committee packet],
asked whether any other mechanisms were pursued to address the
challenges that have been discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said if HB 158 is adopted, it would be the
next bullet point at the bottom of the list. Therefore, the
return to the state would be the lowest priority if an
individual tried to donate more than he/she received.
3:56:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the language on page 1,
line 14, which provides that seven percent of the money
contributed to the state general fund will be used for
administrative costs, is not necessary, as the money is not
actually leaving the state coffers.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX confirmed that the money is going from one
pocket to another pocket; however, he explained that the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division goes through extra work to
administer this, which is where the 7 percent comes in.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 158 would be held over.
3:58:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:58
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 251 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 version A.PDF |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Bill Hearing Request.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Fiscal Note DOR-APFC-01-31-22.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Presentation HSTA 02.03.22.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 158 Additional Info - Legal Memo re Federal Income Tax_PFD 02.01.22.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HB 251 Supporting Document - Dr. Michael Tobin Testimony 02.03.22.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |