02/08/2023 06:00 PM House WAYS & MEANS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB45 | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska's Economic Overview | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
February 8, 2023
6:00 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ben Carpenter, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cathy Tilton
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Alyse Galvin
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund dividends
to the general and permanent funds."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA'S ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 45
SHORT TITLE: PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL FUND AND PF
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PRAX
01/25/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/23 (H) W&M, FIN
02/08/23 (H) W&M AT 6:00 PM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PRAX
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 45, as the prime sponsor.
RILEY NYE, Staff
Representative Mike Prax
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 45,
on behalf of Representative Prax, prime sponsor.
DAN ROBINSON, Research Chief
Research and Analysis
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"The Foundations of Alaska's Economy and the Role State
Government Plays in it."
ACTION NARRATIVE
6:00:45 PM
CHAIR BEN CARPENTER called the House Special Committee on Ways
and Means meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Representatives Allard,
Groh, McKay, McCabe, Gray and Carpenter were present at the call
to order.
HB 45-PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL FUND AND PF
6:02:23 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 45, "An Act relating to contributions from
permanent fund dividends to the general and permanent funds."
6:03:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PRAX, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, presented HB 45. He proceeded to read the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 45 sets up a mechanism to give Alaskans the
choice of donating all or portion of their Permanent
Fund dividends (PFD) 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 cases,
can be counted as a charitable donation for federal
tax purposes. It is advised, however, that Alaskan
consult with a tax professional to verify how this may
apply to them individually.
Donations through HB 45 are subject to a seven percent
administrative fee paid t the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division. HB 158 also clarifies that donations mad
through Pick.Click.Give. take priority over donations
to the general fund if there I a shortfall.
6:06:47 PM
RILEY NYE, Staff, Representative Mike Prax, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Prax, prime sponsor,
presented the sectional analysis for HB 45 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HB 45 allows Alaskans to electronically donate their
permanent fund dividend (PFD) to the general revenue
fund through the Pick.Click.Give program in $25.00
increments.
The bill amends AS 43.23 regarding the electronic
application:
The addition of section AS 43.23.135 (a) requires the
electronic application to have a button to allow
residents to donate their PFD in $25.00 increments to
the general revenue fund. This enables Alaskans to
donate $25.00, or greater amounts, of their PFD to the
general revenue fund if they so choose.
The next section (b) precludes a state agency "that
can file on the behalf of a person" from donating to
that same agency.
The next section (c ) dictates that buttons that allow
donations to the state be separated from the
charitable group list posted in the Pick.Click.Give
program so the state is not competing with charities.
The passage of this bill will greatly facilitate
Alaskans ability to donate their PFD to the state
general revenue fund. Currently, Alaskans must apply
for the dividend, receive the dividend, and then
return it through the US mail. By putting a button on
the electronic application process, Alaskans can
easily donate $25.00 and additional increments of
their PFD to the general revenue fund.
HB 45 was originally introduced in the 32nd
legislature as HB 158. It was amended in House Finance
in that legislature. It enjoyed 22 co-sponsors and was
in House Rules when the 32nd legislature ended sine
die. It has been reintroduced in the 33rd legislature
in the version that came out of House Finance.
CHAIR CARPENTER invited questions from members of the committee.
6:08:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE alluded to a discrepancy between the
sponsor statement and the bill. The bill, he observed, stated
that Alaskans could donate a portion of their permanent fund
dividend (PFD) to the state's general fund (GF) or the principal
of the Alaska Permanent Fund, whereas the sponsor statement only
made reference to the GF.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX confirmed that both the GF and the principle
were allowable options.
6:09:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about the fiscal note, asking why
it showed zero after the initial year of implementation.
Additionally, he asked how many people took advantage of the
option to donate all or a portion of their PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX pointed out that the fiscal note reflected a
cost of $113,800 for programming fees in FY 24, after which
there were no projected costs due to the 7 percent deduction.
CHAIR CARPENTER restated the second part of the question, asking
how many people would participate in the program.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he did not know how many people may
participate. He reported that 105 people wrote a check to the
state in 2020 and suggested advertising the program if it proved
viable.
6:12:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether there was a mechanism to avoid
the 7 percent fee.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX directed the question to the Department of
Revenue (DOR).
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY considered a scenario in which a person
wanted to donate his/her entire dividend. He asked whether
there was an easier way to accomplish that donation without
first receiving the dividend, counting it towards income, and
paying taxes on it.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX concluded that there was not a workaround.
He noted, however, that if a person decided not to apply for the
PFD, his/her portion of the dividend would be distributed to all
other recipients.
6:14:19 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that HB 45 would be held over.
^PRESENTATION(S): Alaska's Economic Overview
PRESENTATION(S): Alaska's Economic Overview
6:14:43 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the final order of business would
be a presentation on Alaska's economy by Dan Robinson.
6:15:04 PM
DAN ROBINSON, Research Chief, Research and Analysis, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), provided a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "The Foundations of Alaska's Economy and
the Role State Government Plays in it," dated 2/8/23 [hard copy
included in the committee packet].
6:16:33 PM
MR. ROBINSON shared a quote on slide 2 by Scott Goldsmith,
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), stating, "The
foundation for any economy is the money it brings in by
providing something the rest of the world wants to buy." Slide
3 provided a chart of Alaska's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
2021 by sector, highlighting a total GDP of $57.3 billion. The
largest sector was mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction
at 14 percent, followed by transportation and warehousing at
13.6 percent.
6:19:17 PM
MR. ROBINSON continued to slide 4, which pictured a chart of
U.S. GDP in 2021, totaling $23.3 trillion. The largest sector
was finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing at 21
percent, followed by professional and business services at 13
percent. Slide 5 offered a bar graph illustrating a side-by-
side comparison of Alaska GDP and U.S. GDP by sector. He noted
that state and local government as a percentage of GDP was
larger for Alaska than it was for the country as a whole. He
highlighted the small percentage of GDP attributable to
manufacturing in Alaska in comparison to the U.S., citing the
state's geographic location and population as factors.
6:21:37 PM
MR. ROBINSON directed attention to the bar graph on slide 6,
which compared Alaska GDP and Wyoming GDP by sector in 2021.
Similarly, slide 7 offered a bar graph comparison of Alaska GDP
and North Dakota GDP by sector in 2021. He emphasized the
importance of both the military and the federal government to
Alaska's overall economy. Slide 8 illustrated a comparison of
Alaska GDP and Maine GDP by sector in 2021. He noted that Maine
possessed the second most seasonal economy of all 50 states.
6:24:58 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER asked how many of the economic sectors listed on
slides 5-8 were heavily reliant on federal dollars.
MR. ROBINSON said there was not much additional information on
GDP, which was collected by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA). He asked the chair to clarify the question.
CHAIR CARPENTER suspected that transportation and warehousing,
for example, was substantially subsidized by federal dollars in
comparison to the manufacturing sector. He requested a visual
aide that would quantify each sector's dependence on federal
spending.
MR. ROBINSON indicated that it would be difficult to quantify,
as the definition of "subsidy" was ideological.
6:27:03 PM
MR. ROBINSON resumed the presentation on slide 9, which
illustrated the percent change in real GDP for the U.S. and
Alaska from 2001 to 2021. He explained that in Alaska, oil was
a significant factor in the variance of GDP over the years.
CHAIR CARPENTER sought to identify the precise years of the
"great recession."
MR. ROBINSON responded that 2009 was the year that U.S. GDP
fell. The same year, he noted, Alaska's GDP increased by nearly
10 percent, partially attributable to oil prices. He further
noted that since 2013, Alaska GDP had underperformed the U.S.
economy.
6:30:07 PM
MR. ROBINSON continued on slide 10, which charted Alaska's
personal income by major component in 2021. He reminded the
committee not to confuse income with wealth, reporting that
Alaska's personal income totaled $48.2 billion. Wage and salary
jobs accounted for the bulk of personal income at 62 percent,
followed by transfer receipts at 21 percent, and lastly,
dividends, interest, and rent at 17 percent. Comparatively,
slide 11 featured a chart of U.S. personal income by major
component in 2021, totaling $48.2 billion. He defined transfer
receipts as money received by Alaskans from the government for
programs, such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and
unemployment insurance. He noted that the PFD was included in
transfer receipts, as it was not considered a dividend by the
BEA. He explained that because Alaska was a young state, the
country received more in transfer receipts from Social Security,
Medicaid, and Medicare programs; however, the inclusion of the
dividend kept the percentage of Alaska's transfer receipts
comparable.
CHAIR CARPENTER asked whether that was a common occurrence
compared to other states.
MR. ROBINSON speculated the answer was yes, noting that the bulk
of the transfer receipts was federal. He said the age makeup
was important, explaining that Maine, for example - the oldest
median age state - would have higher transfer receipts.
6:32:47 PM
MR. ROBINSON directed attention to slide 12, which pictured a
comparative view of personal income trends in Alaska and the
U.S. from 2001 to 2021. He indicated that the U.S. economy was
hit harder by the great recession, only to grow twice as fast as
Alaska from 2012 to 2021. The data reinforced the suggestion
that Alaska had been underperforming the country and most other
states for roughly a decade.
6:34:16 PM
MR. ROBINSON addressed outmigration on slide 13, which pictured
a bar chart of Alaska's net migration from 2000 to 2022. Slide
14 showed a longer-term perspective dating back to 1947. The
first big dip in net migration occurred after the pipeline was
completed in the 1970s, attributable to many laborers moving
back to their home states. In the late 1980s, a state-specific
recession resulted another large decrease in migration, he
noted.
6:36:08 PM
MR. ROBINSON discussed one consequence of migration trends on
slide 15, which displayed the percentage change in the working
age (18-64) population from 2013-2021. He reported that Alaska
and Wyoming were in the -5 to -7.4, topped only by West Virginia
in terms of a bigger percentage loss of working age people. He
pointed out that Baby Boomers were aging out of the work force,
which, in addition to declining birth rates across the country,
factored into the equation. He remarked, "We're going to be
talking a whole lot about population in the next year. There's
a lot going on."
6:37:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE sought clarification on the meaning of
"we" in regard to Mr. Robinson's previous statement.
MR. ROBINSON defined "we" as the world. He noted that in the
U.S., Utah and rural Alaska were two locations with higher-than-
average birth rates.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE relayed that Australia was encouraging
immigration, as the country's birth rate had been below two
[children] for a long time. Additionally, he shared his
understanding that China was struggling with the aging
population in its workforce, indicating that [population] was
not only a problem in Alaska.
MR. ROBINSON agreed. He speculated that nations would be
competing for increases in immigration in the future. Further,
he reasoned that the negative net migration was especially
concerning in Alaska due to the higher rate of deaths than
births and the aging Baby Boomer population.
6:40:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD inquired about the average age [in
Alaska].
MR. ROBINSON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her understanding that the average
age [of Alaskans] was 34. She asked whether the tax base would
be impacted [by population changes].
MR. ROBINSON pointed out that Alaska's tax base was unique, as
it was primarily based on oil price and the investment market.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD observed that the sustainability in Alaska
was challenging.
MR. ROBINSON answered yes. He cited elderly outmigration as the
primary reason for the young age of Alaskans, which he suspected
to continue. He added that Alaskans' roots would deepen as
years of statehood lengthened.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that an income tax would be less
impactful to resolve a debt or budget crisis, as the workforce
continued to age.
MR. ROBINSON said he was unsure whether that statement was
necessarily true, adding that it would depend on the amount of
the income tax and how it was structured.
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed an interest in requesting fiscal
models from the Legislative Finance Division (LFD) showing tax
options versus population assumptions.
6:44:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD pointed out that many military members
moved to Alaska because their retirement would not be subject to
an income tax. She asked how the implementation of new taxes
might impact the migration of the military population in the
state.
MR. ROBINSON pointed out that Alaska was the most "tax friendly"
state. He shared the speculation that some of the migration was
impacted by the tax favorable environment.
6:46:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referenced slides 5-8, and inferred that,
because Alaska's healthcare costs were double that of the U.S.,
state GDP in relation to the education services sector was less
than the U.S., Wyoming, and North Dakota.
MR. ROBINSON acknowledged that Alaska's healthcare was
especially expensive; however, he was unsure how that would
factor into the analysis of GDP, which measured product.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY turned to slide 12 and suspected that
Alaska's personal income would be much lower when adjusted for
the raw purchasing power of the dollar and the cost of living in
the state.
MR. ROBINSON pointed out that the data was not adjusted for
inflation. He acknowledged that adjusting for Alaska's higher
costs would be important for per capita personal income;
however, the high cost of living wasn't relevant to the measure
of change over time.
6:49:21 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER asked how Alaska compared to other states in
terms of the cost of living.
MR. ROBINSON reported that Alaska had "come back to the pack"
over time. He added that because housing was much more
expensive in Seattle, New York, and Honolulu, Alaska's cost of
living didn't stick out so much.
6:50:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether there was substantial
variation in the wages for providing medical services in Alaska.
MR. ROBINSON said certainly. He reported that the highest
earners were proprietors.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH sought to confirm that Alaska was the only
state without a broad-based tax; further, that two-thirds of all
50 states had both a statewide sales tax and an income tax.
MR. ROBINSON confirmed that both statements were true.
6:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her understanding that many states
with an income and a sales tax had substantially lower property
taxes. She remarked, "I don't want to go up in taxes."
REPRESENTATIVE GROH shared his understanding that an annual
study conducted by the government of the District of Columbia
analyzed the total state, local, and federal tax burden for
three to four income groups in the largest city of every state.
He recalled that each year, Anchorage had the lowest tax burden
of any city and asked whether that was correct.
MR. ROBINSON said the study sounded familiar; however, he was
unfamiliar with the specific study. He shared his interest in
combining state and local [data] when calculating the tax
burden.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH confirmed that the study combined state,
local, and federal [data] for the largest cities in all 50
states plus the District of Columbia. He reiterated that
Anchorage was always the lowest tax burden at every level of
income, including property taxes.
MR. ROBINSON asserted that DOR was the expert on taxes.
6:56:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked how the dividend was characterized
in terms of income and taxes.
MR. ROBINSON said the work conducted by DLWD did not require a
characterization of the dividend. He reminded the committee
that the BEA characterized the PFD as a transfer payment, adding
that the consideration of the dividend as a tax was a
philosophical debate.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pondered whether the PFD was a classic
dividend, an endowment fund, a retirement fund, or a sovereign
wealth fund, and commented on the challenges of defining the
PFD.
CHAIR CARPENTER believed that the struggle expressed by
Representative McCabe revolved around the stabilization of
government funding in Alaska.
MR. ROBINSON defined the PFD as a "category of one," emphasizing
its uniqueness. He agreed that the problem was challenging.
7:01:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY opined that the dividend debate was not
complicated. He reasoned that the PFD should be categorized as
income because it was taxed by the federal government as income.
He identified Alaska as a resource development state, as it
relied on natural resources to pay taxes. The dividend, he
said, connected Alaska residents to the resource economy and the
happenings of state government. He referenced Norway's
sovereign wealth fund in addition to the country's medical care
and tax structure. He opined that resource development should
be the state's focus to reverse the outmigration trends and to
create high paying jobs in the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD remarked, "Just a few words, the Willow
Project."
7:04:21 PM
MR. ROBINSON pointed out that many people held different
"simple" conceptualizations [of the dividend]. He touched on
the cost of inaction and the state government role on slide 16,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Economically, state government can help the broader
economy by:
Providing stability to institutions, businesses, and
citizens
Competently administering core state government
functions (public safety, public education, road
construction and maintenance, public assistance, court
system, etc.)
Investing in the types of things that make people
want to live in a state (this one's partly subjective)
7:07:11 PM
MR. ROBINSON continued to slide 17, which featured an article
from Alaska Economic Trends on the importance of confidence and
stability to an economy.
CHAIR CARPENTER returned to slide 16 and asked whether stability
meant the same thing to institutions, businesses, and citizens.
MR. ROBINSON discussed the importance of stability to
businesses, institutions, and citizens, adding that the revenue
picture of most states was more stable than Alaska.
7:11:05 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER recalled that Mr. Robinson had stated that
Alaska's revenue could be sorted by oil revenue, federal
dollars, and investment earnings, defining the concept as the
"three-legged stool."
MR. ROBINSON clarified that the "three-legged stool" was a basic
sector concept. Conversely, the largest revenue categories were
the percent of market value (POMV, oil [revenues], and oil-
related taxes.
CHAIR CARPENTER pointed out that the three sectors were
relatively unstable. He argued that the ability to create
wealth in the state could drive economic growth and asked how
Alaska compared to other states in that regard.
MR. ROBINSON acknowledged that wealth generation, which was
often facilitated by the government, produced income.
CHAIR CARPENTER requested a slide comparing wealth generation in
Alaska to that in other states.
MR. ROBINSON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
7:15:15 PM
MR. ROBINSON concluded on slide 18, which featured a 2019
article from Alaska Economic Trends on the difficult choices
that lie ahead for the state.
7:16:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about the concept of the "Alaska
disconnect."
MR. ROBINSON said it referred to the concept that economic
growth did not create revenue growth in Alaska, which was
challenging for a growing population with stagnant revenue.
CHAIR CARPENTER sought to confirm that revenue growth referred
to state revenue growth.
MR. ROBINSON answered yes.
CHAIR CARPENTER pointed out that increasing his peony sales, for
example, resulted in higher federal taxes, as opposed to more
state revenue.
MR. ROBINSON said, "That's, I think, part of the point." He
expounded that in other states, revenue would increase by virtue
of the broad-based taxes; however, that was not the case in
Alaska.
7:18:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY returned to slides 3 and 4 and asked why, in
2021, Alaska's construction sector was comparable to that of the
U.S in terms of the percentage of GDP.
MR. ROBINSON clarified that instruction included oil and gas,
and military.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether future stability was
dependent on the continuation of federal dollars and a steady
increase in the Alaska Permanent Fund's earnings.
MR. ROBINSON opined that both were important to Alaska's future;
however, it was out of the state's control, he argued.
CHAIR CARPENTER restated his question. He asked whether
Alaska's stability was contingent on federal dollars and the
fund's investment earnings and whether that was providing "false
hope."
MR. ROBINSON said because of the volatility of the state's
revenue streams, it was hard to plan. He pointed out that the
forward funding of education was an effort to provide stability
to an institution; however, [forward funding] was changed when
oil prices changed, which highlighted the difficulty of planning
based on a volatile revenue source.
7:23:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that the crux of the problem was
the lack of control over military spending, oil revenue, and the
Alaska Permanent Fund earnings. He questioned what factors the
state could control to offer stability.
MR. ROBINSON answered the dividend, revenue sources, and the
level of state government.
7:24:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE deduced that by "revenue sources," Mr.
Robinson was referring to the creation of an income or sales
tax. He pointed out that the outmigration of military members
could be a consequence of new taxes and asked whether it would
be "a wash" in terms of revenue.
MR. ROBINSON said the key question was whether the benefit of
[the dividend, revenue sources, or the level of state
government] was hypothetically connected to the military
population in Alaska or the performance of international
investment markets. He acknowledged that a hugely exorbitant
tax would impact the economy.
7:26:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY characterized the dividend as effectually
paying people to live in Alaska. He directed attention to slide
14 and asked whether increasing the dividend was the answer to
increasing population in Alaska, and if not, he asked how to
stop outmigration.
MR. ROBINSON reiterated that economic health, such as good jobs
and high wages, drove migration trends. Additionally, within
the state's control, he said, was the quality of schools, the
quality of institutions, and the quality of life.
7:28:46 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER asked whether wealth creating opportunities was
included in the definition of "jobs," and if not, why it wasn't
included.
MR. ROBINSON emphasized the importance of job availability. He
added that the entrepreneurial climate would be hard to analyze.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD, in response to Representative Gray,
contended that Alaskans were not paid via the dividend to live
in the state. She emphasized the importance of education,
asserting that the appropriate use of funds could provide an
incentive for people to raise their families in Alaska.
7:31:28 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER thanked Mr. Robinson for the robust conversation
and his willing to dialogue with the committee.
7:32:20 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was adjourned at
7:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 45 Version A.pdf.PDF |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 from HB 158 32nd Additional Info - Leg Legal Memo on Taxes and PFD Donations.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 PFD Deduction Priorities.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Reference Materials Pick.Click.Give chart.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Fiscal Note HB045-DOR-PFD-2-3-23.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Letter of Support.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/13/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| DOLWD_House Ways Means Committee_February 8 2023.pdf |
HW&M 2/8/2023 6:00:00 PM |