Legislature(2015 - 2016)
04/18/2016 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB130 | |
| SB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 18, 2016
3:36 p.m.
3:36:02 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Janak Mayer, Chairman and Chief Technologist, enalytica;
Laura Cramer, Staff, Senator Anna Mackinnon; Craig
Richards, Attorney General, Department of Law; Randall
Hoffbeck, Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Angela
Rodell, Executive Director, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Nikos Tsafos, President and Chief Analyst, enalytica.
SUMMARY
SB 128 PERM. FUND:DEPOSITS;DIVIDEND;EARNINGS
SB 128 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 130 TAX;CREDITS;INTEREST;REFUNDS;O & G
SB 130 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to confidential information status
and public record status of information in the
possession of the Department of Revenue; relating to
interest applicable to delinquent tax; relating to
disclosure of oil and gas production tax credit
information; relating to refunds for the gas storage
facility tax credit, the liquefied natural gas storage
facility tax credit, and the qualified in-state oil
refinery infrastructure expenditures tax credit;
relating to the minimum tax for certain oil and gas
production; relating to the minimum tax calculation
for monthly installment payments of estimated tax;
relating to interest on monthly installment payments
of estimated tax; relating to limitations for the
application of tax credits; relating to oil and gas
production tax credits for certain losses and
expenditures; relating to limitations for
nontransferable oil and gas production tax credits
based on oil production and the alternative tax credit
for oil and gas exploration; relating to purchase of
tax credit certificates from the oil and gas tax
credit fund; relating to a minimum for gross value at
the point of production; relating to lease
expenditures and tax credits for municipal entities;
adding a definition for "qualified capital
expenditure"; adding a definition for "outstanding
liability to the state"; repealing oil and gas
exploration incentive credits; repealing the
limitation on the application of credits against tax
liability for lease expenditures incurred before
January 1, 2011; repealing provisions related to the
monthly installment payments for estimated tax for oil
and gas produced before January 1, 2014; repealing the
oil and gas production tax credit for qualified
capital expenditures and certain well expenditures;
repealing the calculation for certain lease
expenditures applicable before January 1, 2011; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
3:38:00 PM
JANAK MAYER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST, ENALYTICA,
introduced himself.
NIKOS TSAFOS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ANALYST, ENALYTICA (via
teleconference), discussed the presentation titled "CS SB
130: Key Issues and Assessment" (copy on file), beginning
with slide 25, "CI Overview and Changes: Activity":
Activity has responded in recent years
Exploration drilling in Cook Inlet has gone through
several cycles since 1950s
Recent exploration activity (post 2010) on par with
previous exploration peaks
Development drilling has been more stable over the
years
Recent growth placing three-year rolling average among
highest in state's history
Mr. Tsafos highlighted slide 26, "Cook Inlet Oil and Gas
Production: Basic facts":
Oil: Peak in 1970 at 226 mb/d; trough in 2009 at 7.5
mb/d; upturn post 2010 (+10.5 mb/d)
Gross Gas: Peak in 1990 at 853 mmcf/d; big drops in
1994-1998 and 2005-2013; stable in 2014-15
Net Gas: Peak in 1996; 1990s plateau from blowdown at
Swanson River; fall post 2005, then stable
3:43:42 PM
Mr. Tsafos discussed slide 27, "CI Overview and Changes:
Scorecard":
the Cook inlet oil and gas market: A scorecard
What has happened to oil and gas production and
activity in the Cook Inlet in recent years?
Oil production has risen from 7.5 mb/d in
2009 to almost 18 mb/d
Gas production has stabilized after years of
steadier decline
How has the gas market adjusted in recent years?
Cook Inlet has undergone major transition in
supply, demand, prices, competition and
expectations
Some of these changes are typical in mature
basins-others are unique to Cook Inlet
What's the outlook and how sensitive is the
outlook to changes in oil/gas fiscal system?
DNR: 1,183 bcf in remaining 2P reserves;
1,600 bcf w/ Cosmopolitan and Kitchen Lights
(ballpark)
Continued drilling at old fields plus
Cosmopolitan and Kitchen Lights: current
market well supplied
At current (gas) price levels, brownfield
investment should be profitable under
stricter fiscal regime
Credits more important for developing new
resources, especially with demand
constraints
Currently much uncertainty over future
regime - setting a stable, sustainable
system is paramount
3:55:10 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche felt it would be nice to determine the
potential demand based on all of the different factors.
Mr. Tsafos responded that there were multiple strategies to
attract investment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that there would be further
meetings related to the oil and gas tax structure.
Mr. Mayer continued to discuss slide 27.
4:04:48 PM
Mr. Mayer looked at slide 28, "Project 1: Market
constrained (assumptions)":
Large upfront investment but constrained gas market
Limited ability to sell gas: can only drill a well
every few years
Mr. Mayer discussed slide 29, "CI Overview and Changes:
Project 1; Project 1, Market Constrained Results." He
stated that the slide represented three separate scenarios:
Status Quo; CS SB 130(RES), CS HB 247(FIN).
4:11:51 PM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if there would be a decline in
demand for credit without any changes. Mr. Mayer replied in
the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy felt that idle rigs would decrease the
credits. Mr. Mayer agreed.
Senator Dunleavy remarked that the environment may not be
attractive for a capital constrained company to move a rig
to the North Slope in a small market. Mr. Mayer agreed.
4:15:14 PM
AT EASE
4:15:37 PM
RECONVENED
4:15:44 PM
Mr. Mayer highlighted slide 30, "CI Overview and Changes:
Project 2":
Project 2: Market un-constrained (assumptions)
Large upfront investment but un-constrained gas market
Continued drilling lead to a plateau of 130 mmcf/d
Scenario would require a step change in existing
supply-demand dynamics in Cook Inlet
Mr. Mayer addressed slide 31, "CI Overview and Changes:
Project 2; Project 2: Un-constrained Results."
Mr. Mayer highlighted slide 32, "CI Overview and Changes:
Project 3":
Project 3: Drilling in existing field (assumptions)
Drilling expenditures at existing production-smaller
upfront investment
No market constrains assumed
This is a point-forward analysis-it ignores sunk,
entry or acquisition costs
4:18:05 PM
Mr. Mayer discussed slide 33, "CI Overview and Changes:
Project 3; Project 3: Drilling Existing Field Results."
Vice-Chair Micciche looked at slide 31, which demonstrated
that the elimination of the production tax had no effect.
The only difference in the reduction of the internal rate
of return and the increase in the revenue to the state was
the level of the reduction of credits between the two
bills. Mr. Mayer replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Micciche shared that he had further questions
that he would address later.
4:22:51 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the purpose of the
presentations were meant to set an examination of how the
credits were utilized in the state.
Mr. Mayer encouraged the committee to see that the credits
in Cook Inlet were about incentivizing activities that were
less affordable than in the past. The North Slope could
remain, but the net operating loss credit was about timing
of tax flows rather than the total amount.
Senator Dunleavy remarked that the Cook Inlet dealt with
mostly gas. He wondered if there could be increased oil
production in Cook Inlet. Mr. Mayer replied that it
depended on the oil price, rather than the credit
environment.
Senator Dunleavy shared that transportation and production
costs were lower in Cook Inlet than the North Slope. He
remarked that he would ask a similar question the following
day. Mr. Mayer agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the credit market would
see Alaska in a more stable environment, should the state
use the savings to have an annuity payment or a fixed draw.
Mr. Mayer replied that it was always good to have assets to
smooth the volatility that comes with depending on
commodity prices.
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt that it would be a positive step to
change the current structure. Mr. Mayer agreed.
SB 130 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:28:21 PM
AT EASE
4:32:30 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to the Alaska permanent fund;
relating to appropriations to the dividend fund;
relating to income of the Alaska permanent fund;
relating to the earnings reserve account; relating to
the Alaska permanent fund dividend; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
4:33:25 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute
for SB 128, Work Draft 29-GS2859\S (Wallace/Martin,
4/17/16). Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
LAURA CRAMER, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, explained the
committee substitute. She discussed the changes from the
original bill, outlined in the Sectional Analysis (copy on
file):
Section 2: Language requiring the Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation to adopt regulations similar to the
State's procurement code
Section 3: Adds the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to the list of those state agencies that
are exempt from the State's procurement code
Section 5: Transfers the management and investment
of the Constitutional Budget Reserve from the
Department of Revenue to the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation
Section 6: Requires the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to prepare an annual report on the balance
and returns of the Constitutional Budget Reserve fund
Section 9: (b) Defines the Percent of Market Value
payout as 5.25 percent of the average year-end market
value of the Permanent Fund and Earnings Reserve
Account for the first five of the most recently
completed six fiscal years. The payout may not exceed
the year-end balance of the earnings reserve account
for the fiscal year just ended
(c) Reserves 20 percent of the POMV payout for
dividends. The remaining 80 percent of the payout is
subject to a dollar for dollar reduction as oil and
gas revenue rises above $1.2 billion (adjusted for
inflation).
Oil and gas Unrestricted General Fund revenue
excluding the amount to be paid as 20 percent
of the prior year royalties to the dividend
$1,200,000 revenue limit adjusted for inflation
Section 10: AS 37.13.145 is the Disposition of
Income of the Permanent Fund statute
(a) Unchanged - Establishes the ERA and
identifies the ERA as holding earnings of the
Permanent Fund and ERA
(b) Repealed in this bill - dividends based on
statutory net income
(c) Repealed in this bill - inflation proofing
(d) Repealed in this bill - segregation of
Amerada Hess
(e) Added in this section - each year the
legislature may appropriate to the General Fund
the amount available for distribution from the
Earnings Reserve Account under the POMV in Sec.
10 (b) and the limit calculation Sec. 10 (c)
(f) Inflation proofing mechanism
Senator Hoffman wondered if Ms. Cramer meant $1.2 billion.
Ms. Cramer replied in the affirmative.
Section 12: Conforming language relating to
procurement
Section 18: Repeals language relating to the
subaccount of the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the
former dividend calculation, inflation proofing
calculation, and Amerada Hess language
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the proposed committee substitute was
adopted.
4:37:58 PM
Mr. Teal looked at the document, "Cash Flow Under SB 128/HB
245" (copy on file):
Sec 7
Reduces royalties dedicated to the permanent fund
from new oil fields (post 1980) from 50 percent
to the constitutional minimum of 25 percent. That
increases general fund revenue by about $50m
annually depending on the price of oil.
Sec 8
Deletes the definition of income available for
distribution. That formula was based on earnings
during the preceding 5 years.
Sec 9
(b) Replaces the earnings-based "available for
distribution" formula in section 8 with a POMV
calculation. The nominal payout to the general
fund is 5.25 percent, but the effective payout
will be about 4.8 percent (in the long-term) if
the permanent fund corporation's projections
regarding real earnings of 5 percent and
inflation of 2.25 percent are realized. The
effective payout is lower than the nominal 5.25
percent payout because the payout is based on the
average balance during the past 6 years.
(c) Ensures that 20 percent of the payout goes to
dividends. Under the Spring forecast, that will
be about $500 to $600 million annually. The
remaining 80 percent of the payout is subject to
a dollar for dollar reduction as oil revenue
rises above $1.2 billion (adjusted for
inflation). The impact of the payout limit is:
1. Zero when oil is below about $75/bbl.
($75 oil generates about $1.2 billion in
production taxes and royalties (after
reserving 20 percent of royalties for
dividends
2. The payout is reduced by a dollar for
every dollar of oil revenue (less the 20
percent portion of royalties that goes to
dividends) between $1.2 billion and about
$3.1 billion. The reduction occurs at oil
prices between about $75/bbl and $100/bbl as
shown in the graph below.
3. When oil prices are above about $100/bbl,
the POMV payout is reduced to zero and
additional oil revenue is spendable. General
fund revenue available to spend will be
lower (relative to revenue without a limit)
by about $2 billion.
4:42:10 PM
Mr. Teal discussed the charts on page 2 of the document.
Senator Dunleavy remarked that the revenue limit focused
only on the Permanent Fund, not taxes. Mr. Teal agreed.
Senator Dunleavy noted that there was nothing in the bill
that would prevent the legislature from increasing taxes.
Mr. Teal agreed.
Vice-Chair looked at the Sectional Analysis, and queried
the changes in Sections 5 and 6.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced Ms. Rodell could address those
sections.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that there was a value in the
difference in the earnings. Mr. Teal deferred to Ms.
Rodell.
4:48:35 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page one of the analysis, and
wondered if the dividend was capped, or was the dividend
guaranteed at $1000 and tie it directly with the volatility
of oil with the opportunity for interest earnings. Mr. Teal
replied that the dividend guaranteed at $1000 and tie it
directly with the volatility of oil with the opportunity
for interest earnings. He stated that the calculations
showed a consistent $1000 dividend. The dividend would be
less volatile than the current dividend calculation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that the modeled projections
represented the spring forecast. Mr. Teal replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the highest price per barrel in
the spring forecast model. Mr. Teal replied that he thought
it was close to $60 per barrel at the end of the forecast
period.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that Alaska currently at $40 per
barrel.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the revenue should be in
statute. Mr. Teal replied that it may seem like revenue was
limited to $200, but the limited revenue at $130 was just
under 7. He stated that beyond $100, there was a $2 billion
revenue limit at every price.
4:52:51 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that it was a dangerous
revenue limit, with no control in the bill. Mr. Teal
understood that the inflation proofing transfer would be
subject to appropriation. He stressed that the entire
earnings reserve was subject to appropriation. He remarked
that regardless of the balance, the legislature could
appropriate the fund for any purpose. He stated that one
could not bind or restrict future legislators their ability
to spend the earnings reserve account.
Senator Dunleavy queried the oil production for the
following year. Mr. Teal replied that he did not know.
Senator Dunleavy queried oil production in one year. Mr.
Teal responded that he did not know.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the committee was
attempting to create a revenue stream that had a different
volatility than oil
Senator Bishop wanted to know what the revenue would look
like in 2030.
Senator Dunleavy wondered how long Mr. Teal had been
working for the Legislative Finance Division. Mr. Teal
replied that he had been there for approximately 20 years.
Senator Dunleavy wondered whether the state could ever
control its spending. Mr. Teal felt that the state had
controlled its spending, because there was savings
available to sustain the budget so far.
4:57:10 PM
CRAIG RICHARDS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated
that the administration was supportive of the current
committee substitute.
RANDALL HOFFBECK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
agreed with General Richards.
Senator Hoffman understood that the administration would
look at the proposal in a favorable manner. He remarked
that some legislators were concerned with the dividend
level. He understood the utilization of the fund, and the
guarantee of $1000 for three years. He expressed concern
with putting that formula in statute. He suggested a
formula of guaranteeing $1000, and then adjusting the
dividend for inflation over the following four to five
years. He stressed that the fund was the peoples' money.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there was a three-year
review period to address some of those specific issues.
Senator Bishop echoed Senator Hoffman's comments.
5:04:02 PM
Senator Dunleavy stressed that there was a concern about
the ceasing the focus on reducing the budget. He shared
that the proposal did not include any taxes. He queried
efforts by the administration to reduce spending. He
wondered if the public should expect any vetoes on
expenditures in order to reduce the budget. Commissioner
Hoffbeck responded that he could not speak to what may or
may not be vetoed by the government. He remarked that a $70
per barrel oil price, there was not a limitation in the
plan. He stressed that there would always be pressure to
fill the budget gap. The governor had a revenue package to
fill some of that gap. He stated that this model did not
reduce the downward pressure to balance the budget.
5:06:21 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at "Document B" (copy on file).
She remarked that there were four "health checks" on the
fiscal model. She noted that the upward left hand portion
outlined spending. She stated that it showed where the
money would be withdrawn, based on the spring forecast. She
noted that the right hand corner showed dividends to
Alaskans. She stated that the model worked under the
current downward price forecast. She noted that Alaskans
had seen very different volatility recently. The right hand
corner showed the health of the Permanent Fund and the
corpus itself. She remarked that under the scenario, there
were 36 years before the budget reserves were extinguished.
She stressed that the corpus of the Permanent Fund should
continue to grow, but noted that a 5.25 percent draw may
fare less well than a 5 percent draw. She remarked that the
scenario showed a target cut for the current year of $250
million. She shared the efforts of the legislature to fix
the crisis. She wondered if the proposal provided revenue
diversity of approximately $2.5 to $2.5 billion. She
stressed that there would still be a budget gap.
Commissioner Hoffbeck replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that her constituents were not
interested in taxes, and other Alaskans were interested in
taxes. She shared that the proposed calculation included
tax credit reform.
5:10:54 PM
Senator Hoffman remarked that the gap was not completely
filled, and the capital budget was fixed at $185 million.
He felt that number over the long-term was unrealistic.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at the "Cash Flow Analysis", and
stated that the UGF pay out limit allowed for additional
dollars that could be diverted to the CBR or a capital
account for deferred maintenance.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that Alaska was a sovereign
with most of its income from the sale of oil in the global
market. He felt that, with normal corpus growth, the state
could be sustainable without taxing Alaskans. He queried
the actions that would result in a fully sustainable
budget. Commissioner Hoffbeck replied that there must be
additional revenue to maintain a sustainable budget. He
stressed that the current climate may be a reflection of a
structural change in oil price, because of the technology
changes that have allowed a tremendous amount of oil be
brought online. He stated that a $60 to $70 per barrel
price point did not allow enough money in oil and gas to
sustain a budget.
Vice-Chair Micciche noted that there would be a 4.62
percent draw from the Permanent Fund. He queried a vision
of what would occur when revenue exceeded responsible
spending. General Richards replied that the fundamental
difference between the revenue limit versus the original
drafting of the Permanent Fund Protection Act, was that the
act would have "sliced off the spikes." The original bill
would have maintained the flat spending level from the
three cash flows across all price ranges.
5:16:23 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche queried a time limit for the meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon responded that there was one more
presenter and three members in line for questions.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried another mechanism that would be
largely statutory, where the legislature did not relent
their control. General Richards remarked that the language
stated that "the Legislature may inflation proof."
Senator Olson remarked that noted that most people were
concerned with the dividend calculation, which was somewhat
different than the Permanent Fund Protection Act. He
queried a plan that would "ride the market." Commissioner
Hoffbeck replied that the governor's plan "rode the
market", and would give more of a dividend reflecting the
income available. He stated that funding would keep the
dividend in the $1000 range.
Senator Olson queried the effect on the bond rating in the
short-term between the governor's proposal versus the
committee substitute. Commissioner Hoffbeck replied that
either plans would be received in a relatively similar
fashion. He remarked that it was important for the bond
rating agencies to see that Permanent Fund was an available
source of revenue to secure the bonds.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked Commissioner Hoffbeck and
General Richards for their collaborative approach to the
formulation of the legislation.
5:21:52 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the legislature could
create a regular draw to help with liquidity. Commissioner
Hoffbeck the bill had a provision to remove Section C for
the five year requirement, which allowed for a prudent
investor for the CBR.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried setting a spending limit.
General Richards replied that he did not have an official
position. He shared that in the initial stages of the
Permanent Fund Protection Fund, there was an examination of
a number of different ways to address the volatility issue,
including a more broadly defined revenue or spending limit.
He stated that it was difficult to create an effective
spending limit.
Senator Bishop commented that the bill seemed to provide a
spending limit.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that Alaskans were interested in
government spending more than any other time, especially
when facing a reduction in their dividend.
Senator Dunleavy wondered whether the administration would
continue to pursue the tax concept, should this proposal
move forward. General Richards replied that he had not
heard anything other than the governor's original plan. He
did not want to speak for the governor outside of the
Permanent Fund.
5:27:16 PM
ANGELA RODELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION, shared that the goal of the committee
substitute was to understand the mechanics of the intent.
She appreciated the flexibility to work with DOR on cash
management, so there would only be a requirement to make a
withdrawal when necessary. She appreciated the addition of
the procurement language, which would help to pursue
investments in a timely manner.
Senator Bishop wondered if there was a discount for the
money managers. Ms. Rodell replied that it depends on the
investment. She stated that the internal managed items,
such as fixed income and real estate were set fees. She
remarked that the fees would be lower for the CBR, because
the size of the asset did not matter. She stated that
externally managed accounts often had attached fee
schedules, so those had thresholds for the management fees.
Ms. Rodell stated that she did not have any closing
comments, but remarked that she was ready to do the work
requested by the committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled a year when the Retirement and
Management Board investment performance was better than the
Permanent Fund performance. Ms. Rodell replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried value in the diversification of
who would invest the money, rather than one group. She
queried anything that the legislature might consider to
avoid duplication of services. She remarked that the
Permanent Fund Corporation was prestigious. Ms. Rodell
responded that the commissioner of DOR was had fiduciary
responsibility for all of the state's financial assets. She
felt that there were benefits of both diversification as
long as there was continuity. She felt that diversification
was most helpful in asset allocation, as opposed to an
individual running a particular portfolio.
5:33:57 PM
Senator Olson wondered if Ms. Rodell had an optimistic
perspective on the bill. Ms. Rodell replied that it was the
intent to examine three years of earnings. She encouraged
the committee to expand that intent to examine more areas
of the reserve.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had observed
presentations by the governor to the Permanent Fund Board
ideas for use of the assets. She had seen the models and
the actuaries that supported the board. She wondered
whether the board would be able to examine the committee
substitute. Ms. Rodell replied that the next board meeting
was scheduled for May 24 and 25. She hoped that the
legislative process would be complete before that time. She
shared that the board felt it was important to respect
their roles as trustees to manage the funds of the corpus.
She stated that the legislature had the authority to
determine how the fund was used.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked the day's presenters.
5:38:38 PM
AT EASE
5:39:00 PM
RECONVENED
5:39:03 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that there would be a meeting
the following day.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that there was room to reduce
the size of government, but stressed that there would be a
point when once could no longer make any more reductions.
SB 128 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
5:42:45 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:42 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|