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.
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.
6:08:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE alluded to a discrepancy between the
sponsor statement and the proposed 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
would be 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 have taken 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 would be no projected costs because of 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 had written a check to
the state in 2020 and suggested advertising the program if it
proves viable.
6:12:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether there would be a mechanism to
avoid the 7 percent fee.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX directed the question to the Department of
Revenue (DOR).
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY considered the scenario of donating an
entire dividend. He asked whether there is an easier way to
accomplish this without first receiving the dividend, counting
it towards income, paying taxes on it, [and then donating it]
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX concluded that there is not a workaround.
He noted, however, that if a person decided not to apply for the
PFD, this 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.
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" [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, University of Alaska
Anchorage, which stated, "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 comparing 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
slide 5 to slide 8 rely heavily on federal dollars.
MR. ROBINSON said there was not much additional information on
GDP, which had been 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, are 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" would be ideological.
6:27:03 PM
MR. ROBINSON resumed the presentation on slide 9, which
illustrated the change in the percentage of the real GDP for the
U.S. and Alaska from 2001 to 2021. He explained that in Alaska,
oil has been 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 has underperformed the U.S.
economy.
6:30:07 PM
MR. ROBINSON continued on slide 10, which charted Alaska's
personal income by each 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 permanent fund
dividend (PFD) would be included in transfer receipts, as it is
not considered a dividend by the BEA. He explained that because
Alaska is a young state, the country as a whole has received
more in transfer receipts from Social Security, Medicaid, and
Medicare programs; however, the inclusion of the PFD has kept
the percentage of Alaska's transfer receipts comparable.
CHAIR CARPENTER asked whether this would be a common occurrence
when comparing other states.
MR. ROBINSON speculated that it would be, noting that the bulk
of the transfer receipts is 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's economy 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 had
been completed in the 1970s, attributable to many laborers
moving back to their home states. In the late 1980s, a state-
specific recession resulted in 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
population of the working age groups of 18-year-olds to 64-year-
olds from 2013 to 2021. He reported that Alaska and Wyoming
were in the negative 5 to negative 7.4 range, 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 statement.
MR. ROBINSON defined "we" as the world. He noted that in the
U.S., Utah and rural Alaska are two locations with higher-than-
average birth rates.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE relayed that Australia is encouraging
immigration, as the country's birth rate had been below two
[children] for a long time. Additionally, he shared his
understanding that China is struggling with the aging population
in its workforce, and this indicates that [population] is not
only a problem in Alaska.
MR. ROBINSON agreed. He speculated that nations will be
competing for increases in immigration in the future. Further,
he reasoned that the negative net migration is 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] is 34. She asked whether the tax base will be
impacted [by population changes].
MR. ROBINSON pointed out that Alaska's tax base is unique, as it
is primarily based on the price of oil and the investment
market.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD observed that sustainability in Alaska is
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 lengthens.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that, because the workforce
continues to age, an income tax would be less impactful to
resolve a debt or budget crisis.
MR. ROBINSON expressed uncertainty concerning this statement,
adding that it would depend on the amount and structure of the
income tax.
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed an interest in requesting fiscal
models from the Legislative Finance Division showing proposed
tax options versus population assumptions.
6:44:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD pointed out that many military members
have 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 expressed the opinion that Alaska is the most "tax
friendly" state. He speculated that some of the migration would
be impacted by the tax favorable environment.
6:46:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referenced slide 5 through slide 8 and
inferred that, because Alaska's healthcare costs were double
than the average costs in the U.S., in relation to the education
sector, the state's GDP was less than the country's GDP, and he
pointed out that it was less than that of Wyoming and North
Dakota.
MR. ROBINSON acknowledged that Alaska's healthcare is especially
expensive; however, he expressed uncertainty how this would
factor into the analysis of GDP.
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 is not relevant to the measure
of change over time.
6:49:21 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER asked how Alaska compares to other states in
terms of the cost of living.
MR. ROBINSON reported that Alaska has "come back to the pack"
over time. He added that because housing is much more expensive
in Seattle, New York, and Honolulu, Alaska's cost of living is
not so obvious.
6:50:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH questioned the variation in wages for
providing medical services in Alaska.
MR. ROBINSON responded in the affirmative. He reported that the
highest earners are proprietors.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH sought to confirm that Alaska is the only
state without a broad-based tax; furthermore, he questioned
whether two-thirds of all 50 states have both a statewide sales
tax and an income tax.
MR. ROBINSON confirmed that both statements are true.
6:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her understanding that many states
with an income tax 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 expressed the understanding that each year Anchorage had the
lowest tax burden of any city. He questioned the validity of
this statement.
MR. ROBINSON expressed uncertainty concerning 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 is the expert on taxes.
6:56:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned how the PFD has been
characterized in terms of income and taxes.
MR. ROBINSON said the work conducted by DLWD did not require a
characterization of the PFD. He reminded the committee that the
BEA characterizes the PFD as a transfer payment. He added that
the consideration of the PFD as a tax is a philosophical debate.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pondered whether the PFD would be
considered a classic dividend, an endowment fund, a retirement
fund, or a sovereign wealth fund. He commented on the
challenges of defining the PFD.
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed the belief that the struggle revolves
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 is challenging.
7:01:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY opined that the PFD debate is not
complicated. He reasoned that the PFD should be categorized as
income because it is taxed by the federal government as income.
He identified Alaska as a resource development state, as it
relies on natural resources to pay taxes. The dividend, he
said, connects 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 hold different
"simple" conceptualizations [of the PFD]. He touched on the
cost of inaction and the state's 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" would mean 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 is 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" is a basic
sector concept. Conversely, the largest revenue categories are
the percent of market value (POMV), oil [revenues], and oil-
related taxes.
CHAIR CARPENTER pointed out that the three sectors are all
relatively unstable. He argued that the ability to create
wealth in the state could drive economic growth and asked how
Alaska compares to other states in this regard.
MR. ROBINSON acknowledged that wealth generation, which is often
facilitated by the government, produces income.
CHAIR CARPENTER requested a slide which compares wealth
generation in Alaska to 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. He stated that it
addressed the difficult choices which lie ahead for the state.
7:16:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about the concept of the "Alaska
disconnect."
MR. ROBINSON said it refers to the concept that economic growth
does not create revenue growth in Alaska, which is challenging
for a growing population with stagnant revenue.
CHAIR CARPENTER sought to confirm that "revenue growth" refers
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, this is not the case in
Alaska.
7:18:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY returned to slide 3 and slide 4 and asked
why Alaska's construction sector was comparable to that of the
U.S in 2021, in terms of the percentage of GDP.
MR. ROBINSON clarified that the construction sector in Alaska
included oil and gas and military.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether future stability would be
dependent on the continuation of federal dollars and the
increase of earnings of the Permanent Fund.
MR. ROBINSON opined that both are important to Alaska's future;
however, it is out of the state's control.
CHAIR CARPENTER restated his question. He asked whether
Alaska's stability is contingent on federal dollars and the
fund's investment earnings and whether this provides "false
hope."
MR. ROBINSON said because of the volatility of the state's
revenue streams, it is hard to [make a fiscal] plan. He pointed
out that the forward funding of education is an effort to
provide stability to an institution; however, [forward funding]
changes when oil prices change, which highlights the difficulty
of planning based on a volatile revenue source.
7:23:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that the crux of the problem is
the lack of control over military spending, oil revenue, and the
Permanent Fund earnings. He questioned what factors the state
could control to offer stability.
MR. ROBINSON answered that the factors are the dividend, revenue
sources, and the level of state government.
7:24:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE deduced that by "revenue sources," Mr.
Robinson referred 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 this would be "a
wash" in terms of revenue.
MR. ROBINSON said the key question is whether the benefit of
[the dividend, revenue sources, or the level of state
government] is hypothetically connected to the military
population in Alaska, or the performance of international
investment markets. He acknowledged that an 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 would be the answer
to increasing the 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, drives migration trends. Additionally, within
the state's control, he said, is the quality of schools, the
quality of institutions, and the quality of life.
7:28:46 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER asked whether wealth creating opportunities has
been included in the definition of "jobs."
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 are 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 willingness 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 |