Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/27/2017 09:00 AM 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 | |
| SB70 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 27, 2017
9:05 a.m.
9:05:39 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Laura Cramer, Staff, Representative Anna MacKinnon; Rob
Carpenter, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance; Randall
Randall Hoffbeck, Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Pat
Pitney, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office
of the Governor; Ken Alper, Director, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue; Jerry Burnett, Deputy Commissioner,
Treasury Division, Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY
SB 70 APPROP. LIMIT/BUDGET PROCESS/PERM FUND
SB 70 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 70
"An Act relating to an appropriation limit; relating
to the budget responsibilities of the governor;
relating to the Alaska permanent fund, the earnings of
the Alaska permanent fund, and the earnings reserve
account; relating to the mental health trust fund;
relating to deposits into the dividend fund; relating
to the calculation and payment of permanent fund
dividends; and providing for an effective date."
9:06:23 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the Senate had introduced SB
70 primarily to address the deficit. He reminded that the
body was constitutionally obligated to pass an operating
budget. He remarked on the state's dwindling savings, and
noted that the legislature had reduced the budget
substantially from an $8 billion budget to just over $4
billion. There was still a deficit of over $3 billion. He
recounted that the legislature had struggled the previous
year in coming up with components to address the deficit.
Co-Chair Hoffman pointed out that the previous year the
Senate had passed SB 128 [legislation pertaining to the
earnings of the Permanent Fund], but was unsuccessful in
getting any major legislation to pass both bodies. He
commented that there were one year's worth of reserves in
the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR), and it was more
critical than ever that the legislature try to address the
fiscal concerns of the state. He shared that the Senate had
come up with additional reductions, including the 5-4-3
plan, to cut $750 million over the course of the next 3
years. He thought that SB 70 was a critical component of
the Senate's plan. He referred to a spending limit within
the bill, as well as structural changes to the Permanent
Fund Dividend (PFD) Program. He thought that the
restructuring would give the people of the Alaska some
assurance that the dividend would be protected in the
future. He referenced comments from the governor that
suggested that without structural changes the dividend
could be in jeopardy. He believed the people of Alaska
deserved a PFD.
Co-Chair Hoffman continued discussing the PFD and thought
it had averaged about $1000 over the course of the last 20
years. He recalled the first dividend was $1000, which he
thought was a fair amount to target. He thought the bill
was a beginning point. He felt that the bill was crucial to
any fiscal plan that came forward from the legislature.
9:10:37 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon expressed that she would like to walk
through the bill.
LAURA CRAMER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANNA MACKINNON,
discussed the Sectional Analysis for SB 70 (copy on file).
She noted that many of the provisions in the bill were
similar to SB 128, which the committee passed during the
previous session. She related that she would highlight
which sections of SB 70 were similar to the previous
legislation.
9:11:30 AM
Ms. Cramer read from the Sectional Analysis:
*Section 1: Legislative intent that the legislature
reevaluate the use of the earnings of the Permanent
Fund in three years
*Section 2: Removes the reference to the current
statutory appropriation limit
*Section 3: Statutory Appropriation limit:
· Unrestricted General Fund appropriations may not
exceed $4.1 billion
· Adjusts for inflation using known inflation data
· Inflation adjustment is based on the Consumer
Price Index for Anchorage prepared by the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics
Appropriation Limit excludes appropriations:
· To the Alaska Permanent Fund;
· For Permanent Fund Dividend payments;
· For payment of Debt obligations of the state
(e.g. - General Obligation Bonds and Certificates
of Participation);
· and for Capital projects
*Section 4: Under the responsibilities of the
governor, adds language requiring the governor to
submit a report with the release of the December 15th
proposed budget, a calculation of the statutory
appropriation limit and how the budget falls within
the limit
Ms. Cramer noted that language in Section 1 was identical
to language from SB 128.
9:13:16 AM
Ms. Cramer continued to address the sectional analysis:
*Section 5: Dedicated deposits of royalties to the
Permanent Fund are reduced from the current 25/50
split on old/new leases to the constitutional minimum
of 25%
*Section 6: Requires the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to determine the net income of the
earnings reserve account excluding the unrealized
gains or losses. Deletes the existing language for
determining income available for distribution from the
fund "…21 percent of the net income…for the last 5
fiscal years…"
*Section 7: (b) Defines the Percent of Market Value
payout as five and one-quarter 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.
Excludes the Amerada Hess funds from this calculation
(c) Reserves 25% of the POMV payout for dividends. The
remaining 75% of the payout is subject to a dollar for
dollar reduction as oil and gas revenue rises above
$1.2 billion. The reduction takes place if (1) exceeds
(2):
(1) Total amount of non-dedicated royalties - oil
and gas production taxes, mineral lease rentals,
royalties, royalty sale proceeds, net profit
shares, and federal mineral revenue sharing
payments and bonuses that are deposited into the
general fund in the current fiscal years
(2) $1,200,000,000 revenue limit
Ms. Cramer continued to discuss the sectional analysis:
*Section 8: Changes the Percent of Market Value payout
from five and one-quarter percent to five percent
(effective date found in section 20, July 1, 2021)
*Section 9: The Amerada Hess funds which are deposited
into the capital income fund are not available for
distribution under the POMV calculation
*Section 10: AS 37.13.145 is the Disposition of Income
of the Permanent Fund statute
Subsection (e) allows for appropriation from the ERA
to the general fund subject to the provisions outlined
in Section 7
Subsection (f) provides an inflation proofing
mechanism whereby any amount in the ERA over 4 times
the POMV payout (less the payout just made) may be
appropriated to the Permanent Fund Principal
*Section 11: Allows for appropriation from the ERA to
the Dividend fund 25% of the amount calculated for the
POMV (Dividends are comprised of 25% of the 5.25%
POMV)
Ms. Cramer pointed out that language from Section 9 had
also been in SB 128.
9:16:29 AM
Ms. Cramer continued to discuss the sectional analysis,
noting that Section 12 was also language from the SB 128:
Section 12: Mental Health Trust Fund may not be
included in the computation of income available for
distribution under the POMV
*Section 13: Clarifies that the amount to the dividend
fund is the amount appropriated (not transferred)
*Section 14: The amount of each Permanent Fund
Dividend for fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020 shall
be $1,000
*Section 15: Conforms to Sec. 11, which moves money to
the Dividend Fund by appropriation
*Section 16: Once the money is in the Dividend Fund,
the Department of Revenue shall annually pay dividends
without further appropriation
*Section 17: Repeals current statutory appropriation
limit language and the current dividend calculation
*Section 18: Repeals Section 14 - $1,000 dividend for
three years on June 30, 2021
*Section 19: Transition language giving the
Commissioner of Revenue and the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation the authority to adopt regulations,
policies, and procedures to implement this Act
*Section 20: Previous section takes effect immediately
*Section 21: Effective date for Section 8 - changes
the Percent of Market Value payout from five and one-
quarter percent to five percent, July 1, 2021
*Section 22: Effective date of July 1, 2017
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the committee had received an
opinion as to whether the bill met the single-subject rule.
Ms. Cramer relayed that typically there was a memo at the
time a bill was drafted, and she had not received one with
SB 70.
9:20:17 AM
ROB CARPENTER, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE,
discussed the document "LFD Fiscal Model," which showed
five graphs and a data table (copy on file). He pointed out
the graph in the upper left quadrant, which depicted
Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) revenue and UGF budget
under the bill scenario. The blue bars denoted existing UGF
revenue, and the green bars denoted the Percent of Market
Value (POMV) payout. The orange bars depicted usage of the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) to balance the budget.
He informed that the bottom axis showed fiscal years from
FY 16 to FY 26. The model showed that by FY 26, the budget
was virtually balanced. The table on the bottom left of the
sheet showed the numbers reflected by the graph. The graph
showed that a $58 million deficit would remain in FY 26. He
noted that the margin of error on the projections was
significant, but thought the graph represented a balanced
budget.
Mr. Carpenter drew attention to the 2nd graph on the left-
hand side, which depicted the health of the budget reserves
under the bill scenario. He pointed out the orange bars,
which represented the CBR, and the green bars that
represented the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account
(ERA). The graph entitled 'Dividend Check' on the upper
right of the model depicted the status quo dividend with a
red line; and the dividend under the model of SB 70 was
represented by a purple line.
Mr. Carpenter directed attention to the middle graph on the
right-hand side of the document, "Permanent Fund," which
showed the health of the fund under the model compared to
the status quo. The fund maintained its real value over the
time span, and ended in FY 26 at 102 percent of real value.
He noted that the PFD payout (represented on the table
below the graph) started at 5.75 percent and dropped to
5.25 percent and then 5 percent. The plan provided an
effective payout of 4.56 percent starting in FY 18 because
of the 5-year average.
Mr. Carpenter spoke to the graph on the lower right,
"Payout for Dividends and General Fund," which was a
depiction of the amount to be paid or transferred into the
General Fund (GF) and the amount transferred into the
dividend fund. Approximately $1.8 billion would be
transferred in FY 18, rising to $2 billion, with almost
$2.3 billion transferred to the GF by FY 26.
9:23:36 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked if the model assumed budget cuts had
taken place.
Mr. Carpenter noted that the model reflected no cuts.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the model showed a $180 million
capital budget.
Mr. Carpenter answered in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy directed attention to the bottom right
graph entitled "Payout for Dividends and General Fund." He
asked if the government take was greater, or if it changed
in relationship to the dividend after FY 23.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the payout amounts were shown on
a table directly below the graph, and observed that the
payouts went from $1.8 billion to $2.1 billion in FY 23. He
stated that theoretically as the market value of the fund
grew, the payout for government and the dividend would grow
with it.
Senator von Imhof reflected that part of SB 70 had a
spending cap starting at $4.1 billion UGF. She asked if the
total budget included designated funds or only UGF.
Mr. Carpenter explained that the model showed the UGF
budget and revenue picture, to which the spending limit
would apply.
Senator von Imhof thought the dotted line on the graph
should start at about $4.1 billion initially.
Mr. Carpenter answered in the affirmative, and noted that
the dotted line on the graph depicted roughly $4.3 billion,
and the appropriation limit excluded appropriations for
state debt (general obligation bonds, etc).
9:26:14 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the appropriation limit also
excluded the capital budget of $180 million.
Mr. Carpenter answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the inflation factor was
calculated as a constant 2.25 percent.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the graphs modelled 2.25 percent
inflation.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Mr. Carpenter could explain the
CBR earnings shown at 2.89 percent.
Mr. Carpenter explained that the Department of Revenue
currently estimated that 2.89 percent was the assumed rate
of return for the CBR.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the rate of return over the
previous ten years.
Mr. Carpenter did not have an exact figure, but suggested
that the rate of return had been considerably low given the
lower balance in the CBR, which had led to conservative
investments.
Senator Micciche noted that the committee tried to apply
pressure (while still managing liquidity) and to more
aggressively invest the CBR earnings so that they were more
similar to the PFD. He was glad the model was relatively
conservative with the CBR earnings, but felt that a
substantial amount of potential earnings had been given up.
He hoped that if the legislation moved forward that the
subject would be more carefully evaluated. He understood
that there would be a greater demand for liquidity, but he
thought any greater earnings to the CBR would make the
model look better. Any increase in the price of oil or any
additional budget cuts would also make the model look
better. He understood that the model was predicated on
assumptions and the understanding of the fall forecast.
Mr. Carpenter agreed.
Senator Olson asked if deferred maintenance was considered
under the modelling or was part of the $180 million capital
budget.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the $180 million was higher than
the current capital budget, and considered the amount
needed to match federal funds. He acknowledged that there
was some amount built in for deferred maintenance in the
out years, but it was not a significant amount given the
considerable backlog. He thought there could be pressure to
have a capital budget larger than $180 million, but LFD had
to assume a number for modelling purposes.
9:30:12 AM
Senator Dunleavy referred to Section 5 of the bill, and
asked how the split of dedicated deposits of royalties was
determined.
Mr. Carpenter noted that Section 5 would change the
dedicated royalty of the Permanent Fund back to the
constitutionally required minimum. Currently, the royalty
to the fund was based on the minimum plus any fields from
1979; and was averaging approximately 30 percent. The bill
would reduce the royalty to 25 percent required by the
constitution, in order to provide more money to the GF.
Senator Dunleavy asked about Section 7, and wondered why
the 5.25 percent POMV was chosen.
Co-Chair MacKinnon communicated that the same POMV amount
had been in SB 128 the previous year.
Ms. Cramer stated that the committee had run variable
numbers through the model that Mr. Carpenter had presented,
and the 5.25 percent was chosen with recognition of the
many years of deficit spending and use of the state's
reserves. More funds were needed to help with the fiscal
challenges of the state at the outset, and the rate was set
at 5.25 for three years. The amount was a policy call made
by the body.
Senator Micciche referenced modelling that was done when
considering SB 128 the previous year; and the 5.25 percent
had not "failed the test" when considered by the committee.
He asked if the amount would drop down to 5 percent after
three years.
Ms. Cramer answered in the affirmative. She reiterated Mr.
Carpenter's assertion that the effective payout was not
5.25 percent, but rather an average of approximately 4.5
percent for the next 9 years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the effective payout was based
on a five-year average.
Ms. Cramer answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Hoffman noted that the two areas of great concern
were debt service, and contributions to the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and the Teachers'
Retirement System (TRS). He asked how the items were
treated in the model, and if there was a forecasted payment
schedule.
Mr. Carpenter answered in the affirmative, and specified
that there was forecasted state assistance, retirement, and
debt service built in to the operating budget as projected
by the actuaries.
9:34:05 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked about Section 11, and wondered why
the appropriation to fund the dividend was chosen to be 25
percent of the POMV, rather than a greater amount.
Ms. Cramer explained that the amount was a policy decision.
She noted that there had been discussion of 33 percent and
50 percent in other bills.
Senator Dunleavy asked for an explanation of an
appropriation versus a transfer as listed in Section 13 of
the bill.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the intent of Section 13 was to
signify that there would be an appropriation to the
Dividend Fund, and there were no further appropriations
required.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled that the governor had vetoed
the previous year's dividend, and asked if the language in
Section 13 would affect his ability to veto future
dividends.
Mr. Carpenter answered in the negative.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the governor could still veto a
dividend.
Mr. Carpenter answered in the affirmative.
Senator Micciche thought it would be interesting to have a
retrospective white paper that explicated the objectives
for choosing the numbers associated with the Permanent
Fund, such as the amount of dedicated deposits of
royalties. He thought he had broad-based knowledge of the
formation of the fund and the ensuing dividend program that
came after, but thought it would be enlightening for the
public and members to have the additional information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon believed that many did not know that the
legislature had contributed billions of dollars in excess
of its constitutional responsibility to make sure that the
fund was healthy.
9:38:01 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked about the spending cap, and wondered
how to prevent the shifting of operating dollars to
capital.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that preventing the shift of
funds was the legislature's responsibility. In the past,
operating funds had been called "one-time items" and moved
to the capital budget. She referred to past actions of
Senator Bert Stedman; who had extensive knowledge of
finance, and had adjusted the books so that the fund
shifting would not occur. She thought it was important for
the legislature told hold itself accountable in making sure
that capital items were in the capital budget, and
operating items (recurring expenses) were in the operating
budget. As chair of the capital budget, she had identified
items in the current capital budget that she believed
belonged in the operating budget. She affirmed that the
committee would realign the proposed capital budget so that
the policies and transactions stayed in the correct place.
Senator Dunleavy requested the LFD Fiscal Model to be
calculated after considering $300 million in cuts.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about the presumption for current
spending used to calculate the model. She thought it had
taken a reduction into account, although not the entire
$300 million referenced by Senator Dunleavy.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the $4.3 billion depicted on the
model was reflective of the current spending level. If the
exclusions under the appropriation limit were assumed
(primarily the amount going to debt service), then the
total would be approximately $4.08 billion.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Carpenter to prepare the
document as requested, accounting for the goal of $300
million in reductions.
Senator von Imhof wanted to discuss the Anchorage Consumer
Price Index (CPI) as the inflation index. She thought using
a 5-year average of the POMV helped to reduce variability
over time. She shared a concern about variability in the
Anchorage CPI. She wondered if LFD had given thought to
doing a five-year retrospective look at the CPI in
Anchorage. She understood that there was a CPI recorded for
Anchorage but not for Alaska as a whole. She thought a
five-year retrospective would provide a smoother number
over time.
Mr. Carpenter did not believe there had been discussion of
averaging of the CPI, but thought it was a reasonable
consideration. He concurred that inflation had some
volatility, although not as extreme as market returns.
9:42:26 AM
Senator Micciche asked if Mr. Carpenter could provide the
committee with a 20-year chart of the Anchorage CPI to
provide more understanding of the possible fluctuation. He
thought using the Anchorage CPI also provided cost control,
more so than an Alaska-wide index.
Mr. Carpenter thought Senator Micciche had made a fair
assessment. He stated that there was a more conservative
growth rate in the appropriation limit by using the
Anchorage CPI rather than an index of all of Alaska.
Ms. Cramer added that as Senator von Imhof had stated, the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics only provided a
CPI calculation for Anchorage rather than statewide. She
addressed Senator Dunleavy's question pertaining to
controlling operating expenses and not shifting them to the
capital budget. She pointed out that on page 2, line 19 of
the bill there was a fairly strict definition of "capital
project." She thought the definition did not preclude the
shifting of appropriations, but the definition was specific
to activities such as construction, repair, structural
improvement, land acquisition; with a $10,000 threshold.
Vice-Chair Bishop referred to the downturn of the price oil
in the 1980's, and recalled that the state had grown at a
rate of 1 percent over about 20 years. He thought the plan
was close to optimal, but might need small changes. He
referred to deferred maintenance, and emphasized that it
was necessary for the legislature work with the
administration to get on a schedule. He feared that if a
schedule was not accomplished, the state would never get
out of a cycle of peaks and valleys with UGF funds.
9:46:05 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked about the timeline of the bill, and
when Co-Chair MacKinnon expected to take action on the
bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon did not have an expectation as to a
timeline for the bill, and stated that the committee was
waiting on the Senate State Affairs Committee to send the
other options.
Senator Micciche referred to Vice-Chair Bishop's comments,
and thought everyone could agree that the state was in
emergency management mode the past several years; and there
had been no opportunity to spend funds on deferred
maintenance. He agreed that deferred maintenance was a debt
burden that would continue to grow until there was a plan
in place. He thought that the bill dealt with the majority
of the fiscal gap and balanced the budget over time. He
thought increased revenue would allow for comprehensive
planning. He thought that if the price of oil went even
lower it would necessitate further cuts and possibly broad-
based taxes. He hoped that the plan would stabilize the
economy and bring the state out of a recession. He spoke to
the investment environment in the state and the importance
of a plan.
9:49:12 AM
Senator von Imhof recounted that the Anchorage School had
done an analysis and evaluated each of its buildings to
prioritize and create a scheduled maintenance and
replacement plan. She thought a statewide comprehensive
evaluation would be challenging but positive. She pondered
a reasonable prioritization and evaluation system that made
sense to plan over time.
Senator Olson asked how the implementation of the state
income tax would affect the model, at the rate being
discussed in the other body.
Mr. Carpenter stated that implementation of an income tax
would be reflected in a surplus in the upper left quadrant
on the model, and would be observable in about FY 23.
Senator Dunleavy thought the state needed a maintenance
schedule as discussed by Senator von Imhof, to include
reevaluation of assets and priority setting. He thought a
selling or abandoning of assets was also important to
consider.
Senator Dunleavy referred to Senator Olson's question about
income tax, and asked if anything in the bill would prevent
the spending of the proceeds from such a tax.
Mr. Carpenter relayed that an income tax would be
considered UGF, and the appropriation limit could be
exceeded with a simple majority vote.
9:53:30 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked if the price of oil would reduce the
draw on the permanent fund and factor into the use of an
income tax.
Ms. Cramer answered in the affirmative. The revenue limit
applied to the POMV draw, and oil and gas revenue above the
amount.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed a possible amendment to lower
the revenue limit.
Senator Dunleavy considered that any tax revenue could be
included in the scenario.
Senator Micciche thought that the primary focus should be
on the health of the corpus of the Permanent Fund. He
agreed with Senator Dunleavy in that if there was a
dramatic improvement in the price of oil, increased
spending could occur. He thought it was necessary to be
absolutely mindful of future additional revenues. He
reminded that the bill was merely adjusting an existing
statutory spending limit, and the plan was for a
constitutional limit in the future once right growth was
engaged. He thought there were assets in the state that
were kept on the books. He reiterated that the legislature
would have to exercise discipline to ensure that the state
did not return to a model of excess spending.
9:57:15 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that departments had lists of
its facilities as well as the schedule in place for
maintenance.
Ms. Cramer relayed that she had communicated with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) two weeks previously,
and found that it had a running list of deferred
maintenance with prioritization criteria. She furthered
that OMB had a presentation ready and available to show the
committee. She affirmed that there were deferred
maintenance plans within individual departments directed by
the governor's office.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recognized departmental staff in
attendance.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought all the elements of the bill
were extremely important to Alaskans. She stated that the
committee had tried to expeditiously produce the bill. She
commented that each section was an opportunity to "turn a
knob" in public policy, such as the setting of the POMV
draw. She referred to a recent constituent meeting at which
someone asked about the POMV draw, which was a flat
percentage rate of the total value of the Permanent Fund.
The rate could be used in a calculation that would provide
dividends and a revenue stream for state government.
10:00:18 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that each section of the bill was
an opportunity to do things differently. She remarked that
the bill was in draft form, and was subject to change. She
hoped to move a piece of legislation out of the committee
as quickly as possible. She asserted the national credit
rating agencies were watching the state. She noted that the
state's unfunded pension liability exceeded $6 billion. She
pointed out that nationally pension programs and private
programs were reducing assumptions on returns. She thought
the state was structurally imbalanced. She agreed with
other proposals that included reductions. She emphasized
the collaborative process of working within the legislature
to solve fiscal problems. She expressed optimism that the
committee members would bring diverse people's views to the
table. She noted that the state had the highest
unemployment rate, by over 2 percent, and was now in
recession.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
10:04:31 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB70 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 LFD 5.25%-5% POMV_75-25 Div.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 70 |
| SB 170 LFD Fiscal Model with $300m cut.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 170 |