Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/14/2017 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 | |
| SB103 | |
| Presentation: Spring Revenue Forecast Update | |
| SB102 | |
| SB103 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 14, 2017
9:04 a.m.
9:04:43 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Brittany Hutchison, Staff, Senator Anna MacKinnon; Randall
Hoffbeck, Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Senator
Cathy Giessel; Senator Bert Stedman; Representative Cathy
Tilton; Representative Tammie Wilson; David Teal, Director,
Legislative Finance Division; Ken Alper, Director, Tax
Division, Department of Revenue; Chantal Walsh, Director,
Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural Resources;
Ed King, Department of Natural Resources.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Heidi Teshner, Director, Administrative Services,
Department of Education and Early Development; Patience
Frederiksen, Director, Libraries Archives and Museums; Paul
Prussing, Acting Director, Division of Student Learning,
Department of Education and Early Development; Stephanie
Butler, Commission on Post-secondary Education; Miles
Baker, Associate Vice President, Government Relations,
University of Alaska.
SUMMARY
SB 102 INTERNET FOR SCHOOLS; FUNDING
SB 102 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Education and
Early Development.
SB 103 ED GRANTS/SCHOLARSHIP;INNOVATIVE ED FUND
CSSB 103(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Education and
Early Development; and three forthcoming fiscal
notes: two fiscal impact notes from Department of
Education and Early Development, and one fiscal
impact note from the University.
SB 104 EDUCATION CURRICULUM
SB 104 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
PRESENTATION: SPRING REVENUE FORECAST UPDATE
SENATE BILL NO. 103
"An Act establishing the Alaska education innovation
grant program; eliminating the Alaska education grant
program and the Alaska performance scholarship
program; redesignating the Alaska higher education
investment fund as the Alaska education innovation
grant fund; and providing for an effective date."
9:05:22 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 103, Work Draft 30-LS0751\U (Glover,
4/13/17).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
BRITTANY HUTCHISON, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON,
discussed the changes to the bill. She reviewed the
Sectional Analysis for Version U (copy on file):
Section 1: AS 14.03
Adds a new section, AS 14.03.128, that establishes the
Alaska Education Innovation Grant Fund. School
Districts may request a grant under this section for
the support of innovative education ideas. The
Commissioner of the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) shall determine annually the amount
requested for grants and submit them in their budget
for legislative approval.
(b): clarifies that the Commissioner of DEED shall
determine the amount required to fund programs,
projects and ideas that meet the standards for the
innovation grants, set by the department of education.
Section 2: AS 14.43.820(a)
Allows all seniors in 2017 to receive levels 1, 2, and
3 of the APS. After this academic year, students in
the graduating class of 2018 or later, must have a GPA
of 3.5 or higher, leaving level 1 of the APS in place,
effective July 1, 2017.
Section 3: AS 14.43.825(a)
Repeals levels 2 and 3 of the APS, effective July 1,
2017
Section 4: AS 14.43.825(b)
Makes the duration of the Alaska Performance
Scholarship available for four years, effective July
1, 2017.
Sections 5-7: AS 14.43.915(a), (b), and (c)
Conforming Language to change the name of the fund
from "Alaska Higher Education Investment" to the
"Alaska Education Innovation Grant".
Section 8: AS 14.43.915(c)
Removes the current structure of award allocations to
qualified applicants for the APS and AEG.
Effective Feb. 1, 2021
Section 9: AS 14.43.915(d)
Conforming language change of the word "accounts" to
the word "account"
Section 10: AS 37.14.750(a)
Conforming Language to change the name of the fund
from "Alaska Higher Education Investment" to the
"Alaska Education Innovation Grant". This section
establishes the purpose of the fund, which is "making
grants to school districts to support the Alaska
Education Innovation Grant Program."
Section 11: AS 37.14.750(a)
Removes the AEG award appropriation, effective Feb. 1,
2021
Section 12: AS 37.14.750(c)
Clarifies that the commissioner of revenue shall
determine the market value of the fund on June 30th
for the immediately preceding fiscal year. The
commissioner shall identify 5% of this amount as
available for appropriation as follows:
- One-third will be for the AEG
- One-third will be for the APS
- One-third will be for the Alaska Education
Innovation Grant
This will be the funding allocation for the next 4
years, as the AEG and levels 2 and 3 of the APS are
phased out.
Effective Immediately
Section 13: AS 37.14.750 (c)
Changes the funding allocation for the Alaska
Education Innovation Grant Fund by:
- One-third will be for the APS
- Two-thirds will be for the Alaska Education
Innovation Grant Fund
Effective Feb. 1, 2021
Sections 14-20:
Conforming Language to change the name of the fund
from "Alaska Higher Education Investment" to the
"Alaska Education Innovation Grant".
Section 21
Repeals the following sections on Feb. 1, 2021.
Article 8: Alaska Education Grant Program
- AS 14.43.400 - Purpose; creation
- AS 14.43.405 - Administration
- AS 14.43.406 - Applicability of other laws
- AS 14.43.415 - Eligibility; priority
- AS 14.43.420 - Limitation on grants
Article 13 General Provisions
- AS 14.43.915(a) - Alaska education grant account
Section 22: Transition: Scholarships for graduating
classes before 2018.
A person who has been awarded an APS and is a member
of the high school graduating class of 2017 or earlier
may continue to receive an annual award.
- Seniors in high school now will get an award for 4
years
- Freshman in college now will get an award for
another 3 years
- Sophomores in college now will get an award for
another 2 years
- Juniors in college now will get an award for another
2 years.
Section 23: Transition
The Departments of: Education and Early Development,
Labor and Workforce Development and the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education may adopt
regulations to implement necessary changes made by
this act. The regulations may only take effect after
the law is implemented.
Section 24: Retroactivity
If Sections 2-4 of this Act take effect after July 1,
2017, then sections 2-4 of this act are retroactive to
July 1, 2017.
Section 25: Effective Dates
Sections 8, 9, 11, and 13 take effect Feb. 1, 2021.
Section 26: Effective Date
Except as provided in section 25 of this Act, this Act
takes effect immediately.
9:09:01 AM
Senator Micciche asked if there was a typographical error
(typo) in the sectional analysis or in the bill that stated
that juniors in college would get an award for another two
years.
Ms. Hutchison confirmed that there was a typo, and juniors
in college would only receive the award funding for one
more year if the bill were to pass.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her objection. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The CS for SB 103 was
ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Following "repealed" 2
Delete "February 1" 3
Insert "May 30" 4
Page 16, line 8 6
Following "July" 7
Delete "1" 8
Insert "30" 9
Page 16, line 9 11
Following "July" 12
Delete "1" 13
Insert "30" 14
Page 16, line10 16
Following "effect" 17
Delete "February 1" 18
Insert "May 30"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Ms. Hutchison stated that the conceptual amendment was
requested by the Alaska Postsecondary Education Commission
to better align the effective dates with its current
processes and deadlines. She detailed that the amendment
changed all February 1, 2021 effective dates to May 30,
2021; and changed all July 1, 2017 effective dates to July
30, 2017.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair MacKinnon set SB 103 aside.
^PRESENTATION: SPRING REVENUE FORECAST UPDATE
9:11:16 AM
RANDALL HOFFBECK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
discussed the presentation "Revenue Sources Book - Spring
2017" (copy on file). He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to update the committee on the spring update to
the Fall Revenue Forecast; with numbers updated by
additional data received since the previous fall. He
referred to speculation by the other body that the
department had withheld information in order to direct the
discussion on the state's fiscal situation; and stated that
it was not true. He emphasized that the department had been
committed to providing the best information possible as
timely as possible.
Commissioner Hoffbeck continued that the department had the
forecast in final draft a month previously. He stated that
there was always some risk in presenting information prior
to receiving tax returns at the end of March, due to lack
of data. The department had recognized that it would have
to issue advisory bulletin 2017-01, that dealt with how
cashable tax credits could be treated. He had directed
staff to return and rework the numbers to show the impacts
of the tax returns and the advisory bulletin; rather than
put out preliminary numbers that would then be
substantially changed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recognized members in attendance.
9:14:01 AM
Commissioner Hoffbeck showed slide 4, "FORECAST CHANGE:
Production Tax Revenue Highlights":
· Oil price forecasts up by 7% for FY17. Post FY 2018
unchanged from fall forecast
o Long-term prices (FY 2025+) expected to settle
around $70-75 real
· Oil production forecasts up by 7% for FY17. FY18
forecast increased by 1%.
o Long-term forecast decreased slightly (~ 2% per
year)
· Unrestricted revenue forecast increased due to
higher oil price and production forecasts
Commissioner Hoffbeck informed that slides 5 and 6 broke
down the forecast numbers by year. He turned to slide 5,
"FORECAST CHANGE: Comparison from Fall 2016 Forecast for FY
2017." He noted that the oil price had gone from $46.81 in
the fall 2016 forecast to $50.05 in the spring 2017
forecast. There had been a 7 percent change. Production
went from 490,000 barrels to 523,000 barrels a day, which
signified a 7 percent increase. Based on new data, the
lease expenditures and transportation costs had been
reduced within the department's calculations. The net
affect was that Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) petroleum
revenue for the current fiscal year would go from $967
million to $1.158 billion, which signified an approximately
20 percent increase in revenues for FY 17.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to the 'ANS Deductible Lease
Expenditures' line, and asked if the information was
related to the department's advisory bulletins. She
wondered if the deductible lease costs were based on price,
or something internal.
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that the line was not impacted
by the recent advisory bulletin, but was actual lease
expenditure information that was provided by industry and
was lower than what was anticipated.
Commissioner Hoffbeck viewed slide 6, "FORECAST CHANGE:
Comparison from Fall 2016 Forecast for FY 2018," which
showed the table from the previous slide, updated with data
for FY 18. He pointed out that the fall 2016 oil price
forecast went from $54, and it was unchanged. The price was
consistent with current prices and with futures one year
out. The price was also consistent with what the department
was seeing from other price forecasting entities.
Commissioner Hoffback noted that the production forecast
went from 455 bbls/day to 459 bbls/day. He noted that staff
from the Department of Natural Resources would be available
to discuss the production forecast in greater detail. He
noted there were slightly higher deductible lease
expenditures and transportation costs in the forecast, and
reported an UGF increase of $179 million in FY 18. He
explained that the difference in UGF was primarily driven
by the advisory bulletin and the way cashable credits were
being treated, since fewer credits would be used against
tax liability. He noted that if the department had issued
the forecast a month previously, the number would have been
closer to $62 million versus the $179 million reflected on
the slide. The difference was indicative of the kind of
change that prompted the department to rework the numbers
before presenting to the legislature. He added that 50,000
bbls/day was worth $100 million in revenue.
Commissioner Hoffbeck read slide 7, "Spring 2017 Total
Revenue Forecast." He stated that the remaining slides
would put background behind the first set of slides.
9:18:38 AM
Commissioner Hoffbeck discussed slide 8, "REVENUE FORECAST:
2016 to 2018 Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) Revenue,"
which depicted a summary of the various non-petroleum
revenues. He noted that the department was now forecasting
$1.646 billion in revenues for FY 17; which was up from
$1.4 billion in the fall 2016 forecast. For FY 18, the
department forecast $1.831 billion in revenues, which was
up from $1.6 billion in the fall 2016 forecast.
9:19:13 AM
AT EASE
9:21:20 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked to go back to slide 6. She thought
she had heard the commissioner state that 50,000 bbls/day
equated to $100,000.
Commissioner Hoffbeck clarified that 50,000 barrels per day
equated to $100 million in new revenue.
Vice-Chair Bishop asked at what price of oil was 50,000
bbls/day equal to $100 million.
Commissioner Hoffbeck confirmed that 50,000 barrels per day
equated to $100 million when oil was priced $54/bbl.
Commissioner Hoffbeck reviewed slide 9, "REVENUE FORECAST:
Revenue Available for Appropriation":
· Useful for outside analysts not familiar with
Alaska's budget conventions
· Better reflects ability of state to meet its
obligations
o Alaska has a budget framework that restricts
certain revenue based on constitution, statute,
or customary practice
o The ability of the state to meet its
obligations is not fully reflected by the UGF
revenue category
· All revenue subject to appropriation for any purpose
can be used by the legislature to fund government
services or obligations, including:
o Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund
o Earnings Reserve of the Permanent Fund
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that slide 9 was an overview
of total revenue available for appropriation, which did not
fit well into discussion on a fiscal plan. He stated that
the department had started to include the slide in all
budget presentations to give a better picture of total
state revenue to pay for government services.
Commissioner Hoffbeck spoke to slide 10, "REVENUE FORECAST:
2016 to 2018 Totals to Appropriate," with a data table that
showed total revenue subject to appropriation for FY 17 was
$5.35 billion, and for FY 18 would be $5.8 billion. He
stated that the biggest difference between the two years
was the realized earnings of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
9:23:04 AM
AT EASE
9:23:38 AM
RECONVENED
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
referred to slide 10. He questioned whether people
unfamiliar with Alaska's reserves would understand the
state's ability to continue to fund its budget. He referred
to available revenue; which counted investment earnings of
the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBR), and the
realized earnings. He wondered why the full reserve balance
was not counted as available to spend.
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that a decision had been made
as to how the information was presented, and the
administration wanted to present the ongoing revenues that
were available. He considered that if the entire balances
of the funds were put in the totals, it would show a huge
amount that could not be duplicated year after year. He
offered to present the information to include the total
balances of the funds.
Mr. Teal stated that when the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD) had presented the its view of state revenue, it had
included realized earnings, but only that portion of
earnings that were scheduled to be paid out to the General
Fund (GF). He thought revenue available to spend should
reflect only the payout rather than the full balance of the
fund.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked the commissioner to comment on any
assumptions in the revenue forecast that were not currently
in statute.
Commissioner Hoffbeck believed that everything that was in
the revenue forecast complied with existing state statute.
He stated that there were assumptions that the revenues
from the Permanent Fund were available for appropriation,
even though they were not currently being used that way. He
stated that he would inform the committee after checking
with his staff if anything varied from what he stated.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked the commissioner to confirm if
there were any other assumptions, as the legislature had
not used the ERA before.
9:27:12 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if there was a change in
presentation that was different than past years.
Commissioner Hoffbeck responded that the department had
started to present in the current manner the previous year,
in response to push back the department had received in New
York, where people had been focused on UGF revenues. He had
to explain every year that there were additional funds for
appropriation. The numbers were included in the Revenue
Sources Book to provide an official document that showed
the complete data for when the department was talking with
bond rating agencies and other entities. He asserted that
he was happy to work with LFD to find a format that
everyone was comfortable with. He emphasized that the slide
format was not an indication of any change in how the state
was doing business, but rather was intended to show how
much money was available for appropriation when talking to
outside entities.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought the matter should be explicated in
a footnote, because the way it was presented on the slide
did not provide the total picture.
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that slide 9 had been an
explanation, and there was an entire section within the
Revenue Sources Book that explained the reasons behind the
format.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee had received
the presentation documents with very little time to review
the information.
Senator von Imhof asked if Commissioner Hoffbeck felt as if
he might change the way he presented the Permanent Fund
earnings in future Revenue Sources Books if the state moved
to a Percent of Market Value (POMV) revenue source.
Commissioner Hoffbeck answered in the affirmative, and
stated that the department would parse out the numbers to
show any statutory provisions.
Commissioner Hoffbeck turned to slide 12, "PRODUCTION
FORECAST: ANS Details," which showed the numerical values
behind the spring 2017 ANS Oil production forecast. He
furthered that the 2017 official production forecast number
was 523,686 bbls/day; while the 2018 forecast number had a
12 percent decline to 459,863 bbls/day. He stated that DNR
would discuss the decline, but had not done a new forecast
for the fall. The department had updated the spring
production numbers based on year-to-date production, but
would not do an entirely new forecast until fall 2017. He
informed that the 2018 forecast number was a "stale"
number, and DOR wanted to make note of the 50,000/bbl
increase equating to $100 million.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the number was stale the
previous year when the spring forecast had been presented.
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that the previous spring the
department had been using a contract forecaster, and was
not sure if the department had been given a full update in
the spring. The data had been updated but a new forecast
had not been completed.
9:31:57 AM
AT EASE
9:32:26 AM
RECONVENED
Senator von Imhof thought the information on slide 12 was
important to present correctly. She referred to the DOR
website, which tracked daily oil production. She noted that
production had been well above 500,000 bbl/day from
September 1, 2016 to the present. She referred to the
commissioner's comments about the stale number, and
observed that there were live numbers tracked daily.
Commissioner Hoffbeck showed slide 13, "PRODUCTION
HISTORY," which had a line graph demonstrating the last
three years of oil production. He thought the graph
demonstrated that biggest driver of the increased
production in the early part of the year was the lack of a
major turnaround in the late summer of 2016. He noted that
FY 17 had started with a head start (as shown on the red
line on the graph) where the other two prior years on the
graph had significantly reduced production during
turnaround maintenance in the summer. He noted that the red
line stayed below the prior year's production until the
month of December. When DNR was doing its forecast, the
production was largely below the line, while the annual
average was higher because of the lack of the significant
maintenance turnaround. He stated that it wasn't until
September that there was new increased production. He
thought that the industry had even outperformed its own
production forecasts. He stated that the red line was
already starting to turn as it headed into the warmer
season on the North Slope; and production normally fell as
it warmed up. He informed that there was a recognition of
substantially more production than was currently being
forecast.
Senator von Imhof wondered about a drop in oil production
in the coming summer. She asked the commissioner if he
communicated with oil companies as part of the forecast
analysis, and if he asked about anticipated maintenance or
foreseeable problems.
Commissioner Hoffbeck answered in the affirmative, and
specified that the forecast was an annual process, and the
department communicated with companies as it prepared the
fall forecast. He continued that the department had not had
significant contact to update the current forecast. He
deferred to DNR, who primarily calculated the production
forecast.
9:36:26 AM
Senator Micciche agreed that it was a particularly
important time not to include a stale number in the spring
forecast. He stated that there had been two years of
increased production for the first time in 14 years. He
thought a 12 percent decline had never occurred other than
an operational decline in 2006. He thought the committee
could speak with DNR to identify an adjustment that be used
by the committee to be more helpful in identifying an
expected gap for FY 18 and beyond. He thought actuals
should be risked-out instead of leaving a stale number in
the assumption. He wanted to identify a better solution for
which numbers could be conservatively used in committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that on slide 12, the
administration had reflected a 2 percent increase of the
official forecast, and the 2017 number showed an increase
in production. When the 2018 official forecast was
examined, there was only a few current months included in
the projection, and it was an un-updated (or "stale")
number. She thought that when there was a spike of 7
percent showing in the current figures, it was distorting
the difference between 2017 and 2018 numbers. She furthered
that even though the figures showed a 12 percent decline,
there was better 2017 performance to consider.
Commissioner Hoffbeck discussed slide 14, "PRODUCTION
FORECAST: ANS," which showed the relative impact of
currently producing fields versus those under development
and evaluation. He stated that the big driver for the data
was fields that were already online and producing. Although
there were new fields being developed, they were largely a
skin on top of production from major fields.
9:40:12 AM
Commissioner Hoffbeck reviewed slide 15, "PRODUCTION
FORECAST: Excluded from Forecast":
Characteristics:
· Unknown first-oil date/estimated greater than 5
years
· Discovery (contingent resource) or just prospects
(prospective resource)
· Uncertain finances (e.g., sourcing for private
equity)
· Facilities incomplete or nonexistent
· Projects in Appraisal
· Technological Uncertainty
· Environmental/Permitting Uncertainty
· Economic Uncertainty
Examples: Pikka, Ugnu, Placer, Tofkat, Pt Thomson
(MGS or full-cycling), Liberty, Fiord West, Smith Bay
Commissioner Hoffbeck thought slide 15 was important; and
that it addressed the issue of projects that had been
announced, yet fell outside the parameters of the forecast.
He thought it was important to consider that some of the
fields listed on the slide could come online somewhere
within the 5 to 7-year horizon.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the types of fields listed on
the slide had been previously included in the forecast.
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that the projects would not
have been included in prior forecasts. He stated that past
forecasts (that were done by another entity) had included
such projects, but that they had been adjusted to
compensate for risk. He thought the practice had created an
over-forecast in the midterm, because most of the fields
were delayed. Rather than use the risking process, DOR made
the decision to remove the prospective fields from the
parameters of the report.
Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated the explanation and the
conservative approach to price and production. She relayed
that the committee had looked at decades worth of
estimations by the department to evaluate forecasts. She
commented on the inaccuracy of forecasts, and was concerned
that the forecast was distorted on the low side. She
referred to an internal discussion the previous fall
relating to price and production, and thought that there
might not be confidence in the forecast numbers.
Commissioner Hoffbeck discussed slide 17, "PRICE FORECAST:
Nominal ANS Price Distribution" which showed a line graph
and a data table depicting the adjustment that was made on
the price forecast. The price matrix had been developed in
DOR's fall price forecasting session; the numbers that were
produced in the fall Revenue Sources Book were represented
by the 50 percent line on the graph. There had been an
almost $5 bump in oil price almost immediately after the
figures were published, which he attributed to Saudi Arabia
reaching agreement to reduce production. The department had
moved the forecast for FY 17 down to the 60 percent line,
but had left the rest of the graphs consistent with the
fall forecast numbers. He thought that the fall forecast
might be overly optimistic, although the numbers were
consistent with what other price forecasters had published.
He thought the $60/bbl price was a difficult price point to
pierce.
9:44:51 AM
Commissioner Hoffbeck moved to slide 18, "PRICE FORECAST:
Impact of other prices in FY 2017," which showed a data
table depicting ANS Price Sensitivity. As of the beginning
of March, the price of oil was $51.81/bbl. If the oil price
averaged $50 per barrel for the rest of the year, the
year's average would be $49.31/bbl. He discussed the
forecast price based on various oil prices averaged into
the total for the year.
Commissioner Hoffbeck showed slide 19, "PRICE FORECAST:
Historical ANS West Coast Price 2015+," which showed a line
graph. He pointed out a flattening (with a little more
certainty) for the previous five months, which was a
significant change from what had been seen in several
years. He thought Oil Producing and Exporting Countries
(OPEC) was having some success in controlling oil price
with its production.
Commissioner Hoffbeck turned to slide 21, "COST FORECAST:
North Slope Capital Lease Expenditures," which showed a
line graph with updated data from producers and developers.
He noted that capital expenditures were a little less in
the near term, but peaking higher in 2019 and 2020 before
dropping back to the forecasted line.
Commissioner Hoffbeck reviewed slide 22, "COST FORECAST:
North Slope Operating Lease Expenditures," which depicted a
line graph. He pointed out operating lease expenditures at
a higher level going in to FY 18.
Commissioner Hoffbeck discussed slide 24, "CREDITS
FORECAST: Compared with Production Tax," which showed a bar
graph showing credits against the production tax. The slide
showed the severance tax component. He commented that the
state was above the line on revenues from severance taxes.
He explained that the data assumed the statutory
appropriation, and the adjusted appropriation with the new
forecast would be $76 million for FY 18. After the
statutory appropriation, the state would be left with
approximately $1.04 billion in unpaid credit certificates
by the end of FY 18.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that the administration had
caused the backlog of tax credits, after the governor had
twice vetoed the legislatures attempt to pay the credits.
Senator Hughes referred to slides 24 and 25, and noted that
the slides combined Cook Inlet with North Slope tax
credits. She understood that the figures were combined to
look at the overall revenue picture, but thought it was
misleading because of different tax regimes. She asked if
the commissioner could discuss the information while
separating out Cook Inlet from the North Slope information.
9:48:23 AM
KEN ALPER, DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
informed that more than 95 percent of the revenue
originated from the North Slope. He continued that a little
more than half of the earned tax credit obligation was for
Cook Inlet, specifically on the cashable credit side. The
credits that were used to offset cash liability were almost
entirely from the North Slope, because there was more
liability on the North Slope. He stated that because slides
24 and 25 dealt primarily with revenue, there would not be
a dramatic change by removing Cook Inlet data; as opposed
to looking at how credits were earned or total credit
obligation analyses.
Co-Chair Hoffman referenced the $1 billion liability at the
end of FY 18, and wondered if it would change if SB 26
[2017 legislation that proposed restructuring the Permanent
Fund and provided for a spending cap] were to pass. He
wondered if the administration would have a different
approach to the tax credits and pay more than the statutory
minimum.
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that the previous year the
governor had proposed a credit payoff of $1 billion as part
of a total fiscal package. He thought the governor had not
wavered from his desire to pay off the credits if he had a
full fiscal package. He thought the governor would be
looking at something more than SB 26 to be able to pay off
the credits. He mentioned components such as tax measures
that the governor would consider as part of a total fiscal
package. He asserted that the governor saw the tax credit
liability as a way to interject money into the economy and
into the oil patch, but felt as though there needed to be a
solid fiscal basis to make payments beyond what was
statutorily required.
9:51:46 AM
Commissioner Hoffbeck turned to slide 25, "CREDITS
FORECAST: Compared with Unrestricted Petroleum Revenue,"
which showed a bar graph that looked at the credits against
unrestricted petroleum revenue including royalties,
property tax, and corporate income tax.
Commissioner Hoffbeck read slide 26, "Spring 2017 Advisory
Bulletin."
Mr. Alper reviewed slide 27, "REVENUE FORECAST: Advisory
Bulletin Impacts":
· DOR Advisory Bulletin (2017-1)
o Clarification of existing regulation regarding
the application of per taxable-barrel credits for
non-GVR oil (024(j))
o If a company applies 024(j) credits, they cannot
use other credits to reduce below minimum tax
o A company can forego their use of the 024(j)
credits and use other credits to reduce below
minimum tax (if allowed)
o Estimated Impacts:
• 2014 to 2016 Tax Years: ~ $50 - $100M tax due
to the State
• 2017 and 2018 small UGF increases
• Credit transfers decrease in FY 2018, thus less
are used against tax liability. This increases
both tax revenue and balance of credits
outstanding.
Mr. Alper spoke to slide 27, and recounted that the
department had learned it had been giving some
contradictory information. There had been lack of clarity
as to the sequencing of use of credits. He informed that
the statutory provision (that applied to the application of
per taxable-barrel credits for non-GVR oil) hardened the
minimum tax floor to the per-taxable-barrel credit that was
passed as part of SB 21. He stated that some taxpayers had
used the credit to get down to the minimum tax level, and
then used other credits to go further and pay as low as
zero. After reading the regulations in deeper detail, the
department had found that it was clearly stated that if one
was using other credits in addition to the per-barrel
credit, it was not possible to go below the hardened floor.
Mr. Alper continued discussing the advisory bulletin and
slide 27. The department had realized that it needed to
publish the advisory bulletin before the 2016 taxes were
due. The provision took effect January 1, 2014; so
businesses might have to correct 2014 and 2015 taxes. He
relayed that there was a 6 to 7 page advisory bulletin,
which was a relatively technical memo that explained how
companies must use credits in combination. It provided an
option (quite relevant given low oil prices in recent
years) so companies could forego per-barrel credits and
reduce taxes to zero. He thought realistically that as the
price of oil approached a few dollars within the break-even
point, the amount of per-barrel credits earned could be
quite minimal or even zero.
Mr. Alper continued discussing slide 27, noting that there
was a few dollars' worth of amended returns, mostly having
to do with small producer credits. In the fall forecast the
department had looked at $100 million worth of older
credits being sold to major companies and used to offset
taxes; the amount had come out of the forecast.
9:56:16 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop commented that he would have taken the
$100 million and paid down the debt.
Commissioner Hoffbeck showed slide 28, "REVENUE FORECAST:
Advisory Bulletin Impacts," which showed a line graph
entitled 'Spring 2017 Forecast UGF Revenue.' He explained
that the graph showed the impact of the spring forecast
with and without the guidance of the advisory bulletin. He
thought it was possible to identify the $100 million
associated with the provision.
Commissioner Hoffbeck reviewed slide 29, "REVENUE FORECAST:
Advisory Bulletin Impacts," which showed a bar graph
entitled 'Spring 2017 Forecast Credits Available for
Purchase.' The slide showed the forecasted credits
available for purchase by year. He noted that 2018
reflected carry-forwards, as well as the net effect of the
difference with and without the guidance of the advisory
bulletin.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee would like to
see slide 29 considering the last 20 years, so as to
observe what the current administration had done with tax
credits.
Commissioner Hoffbeck asked if Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted
the information to reflect the 024(j) guidance provision in
the advisory bulletin.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asserted that the administration had
created a spike, and there had not previously been the same
amount of carry-forward. She thought the people of Alaska
deserved to know where the problem had happened, and who
had contributed to it.
Commissioner Hoffbeck clarified that slide 29 reflected
total credits, rather than just the 024(j) provision.
Co-Chair MacKinnon elucidated that her request was to see
the information that was presented on the slide exactly,
but for the previous 20 years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought that the committee wished to
discuss production numbers. She asked about the variance in
the 12 percent decline rate that was being shown for 2018.
9:58:54 AM
CHANTAL WALSH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, explained that when
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had done the
forecast; it was done for the 2017 and 2018 time-frame. She
reminded that it was the first time that DNR had done the
forecast. When the forecast was updated to reflect the new
numbers in 2017, the forecast was untouched except for
substituting in the values for real production data. She
reminded that the state finished its second year with
incredible flat production on the North Slope. The aging
fields had shown virtually no decline. She applauded the
producers for the phenomenon; and referenced Kuparuk and
Prudhoe Bay, which had seen 4 percent to 6 percent annual
declines. She referred to the previous couple of years of
very good production, and stated that when the department
re-did the forecast, 2017 would play a major part in how
the future was forecast.
ED KING, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, stated that the
department had conducted a forecast in the fall, which had
not been updated. He stated that the department would
conduct a new forecast the subsequent fall for the next
publication. He clarified that the numbers being observed
for FY 18 had not been updated, and department did not
anticipate a 12 percent decline over the next year.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the committee needed the
forecast to plan the budget in the waning days of session.
She expressed concern over the 12 percent variance in the
forecast. She appreciated DOR supplying updated
information. She stated that production would play a huge
role in the economic picture used to move forward with
legislative decisions. She asked if there was any way to
model a forecast reflecting updated production and oil
price numbers for a clearer picture.
10:03:56 AM
Ms. Walsh recognized the need to adjust the 12 percent
decline that was calculated from a stale number. She
cautioned that it would be rather optimistic to hold flat
production for multiple future years, particularly given
the recent low oil price. She acknowledged that there had
been flat production for two years, but recognized that
there had been less spending.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Ms. Walsh if there was new
technology that contributed to a higher recovery rate.
Ms. Walsh stated that although there was new technology
being implemented, she thought the largest contributing
factor in the flat production was major companies using
smart ways of operating the fields.
Senator Micciche understood the approach being presented.
He was concerned with the change in philosophy away from an
independent peer review and without an external evaluation
of the forecast. He did not believe that the numbers were
trying to drive the members towards certain policy
decisions. He thought the department had used the same
logic the previous year, in asserting that reduced spending
was likely to result in lower production. He referenced
page 10 of the Revenue Sources Book from fall 2016. He
thought it was important to take risk into account. He
thought there were many first-time components in the
Revenue Sources Book, including other revenue sources,
consumption taxes and income taxes. He stressed the
importance of having good numbers at the present time.
10:07:38 AM
Mr. King contextualized that the process had always been
the same, in which the spring update was simply an update
to the current fiscal year rather than a new forecast. Past
consultants had engaged in the same process. He stated that
the current year was different in that the industry was in
the position of needing to do more with less, and had done
an amazing job. The department would go through the process
of examining the data and how to improve forecasting. He
was sensitive to the comment by Senator Micciche and
thought it was not unreasonable to run the scenarios at
different price and production levels. He thought industry
examined ranges of numbers and made decisions based on
beliefs. He shared that with reduced budgets, the task of
producing the forecast was arduous, and the department
could not update the forecast monthly as new data came in.
He stated that the department was doing the best it could,
and was happy to accommodate the committee and improve the
process.
Senator Micciche thought there was a significant margin of
error in the data. He thought using forecasts to the penny
was not a fair comparison.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought it would be easier to ask that
the department model a variation of increments in
production. She had the perspective that the forecast was
an undervaluing of production in 2017 and 2018.
Ms. Walsh stated that the department would take on the task
of providing the committee with forecast data in a range.
She wanted to clarify how the department's approach was
impacted. She informed that the major oil companies also
outperformed their forecast, and the previous years were
anomalous.
10:11:55 AM
Senator Micciche remarked that at some point anomaly became
trend. He considered that the statistics were bordering on
trend, and thought there was a balance to consider.
Mr. King agreed with Senator Micciche's comments. He
commented on the forecast that was made the previous fall,
and stated that the department would take new information
into account when it updated the forecast. He suggested
that DNR did not have the resources to do a full-fledged
field-by-field forecast the way it did annually in the
fall. He thought having a range of numbers was an excellent
idea for the legislature and how it approached budgeting.
He reiterated that it was appropriate to look at a range of
prices and production levels rather than very specific
point estimates.
Vice-Chair Bishop associated himself with Senator
Micciche's comments, and stated that there should be a
disclaimer on slide 12 to reflect the information being
discussed about the stale number. He anticipated getting
calls from constituents regarding the inaccurate numbers.
Co-Chair MacKinnon expressed appreciation for the
information and modelling provided by DNR. She thought a
range of numbers provided an opportunity for the committee
to speculate on a variety of price and production numbers.
Senator von Imhof discussed modelling and production
forecasts as represented in the slide. // She looked at the
P10 row on slide 12, and observed that it made sense to do
some double checking of the data after 8 months had passed
since the initial forecast. She looked at slide 6, and
thought running through the numbers with a forecast of
475,000 bbls/day in oil production would be good.
Mr. King thought that Senator von Imhof's estimation of
475,000 to 490,000 was a very likely range in which the
coming year's forecast would fall. He thought the change
would equate to $30 million to $50 million in extra
revenue.
10:17:09 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman commented on slides 5 and 6, and thought
that as a result of the spring forecast for 2016 and 2017,
the state would see increased revenue of $370 million.
Senator Micciche clarified that the committee was
considering a fiscal plan that was outlined in SB 26, and
was concerned that stale numbers would affect the ability
to move forward with solutions. He stated that the
modelling demonstrated that SB 26 worked as a fiscal plan;
but if production was dropped, there would be a gap. He
thought it was clear that no one expected the drop in
production for FY 18 that was reflected on slide 24. He
emphasized the importance of the forecast numbers.
10:19:41 AM
AT EASE
10:20:16 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to a DOR press release, which
showed $200 million in increased revenue expected for FY
17, and $208 million in increased revenue expected for FY
18. She asked the commissioner to describe why the numbers
were different than slides 5 and 6 of the presentation.
Commissioner Hoffbeck stated that the difference was that
slides 5 and 6 reflected only unrestricted petroleum
revenues; while the numbers in the press release reflected
total revenue increases.
10:21:29 AM
AT EASE
10:36:23 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for
school districts; and relating to the Alaska higher
education investment fund."
10:36:33 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed SB 102. She noted that the
public hearing had been opened and closed on the bill on
April 10, 2017. The bill changed the baseline download
speed from 10 megabits per second (Mbps) to 25 Mbps for
schools in Alaska.
HEIDI TESHNER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), discussed a new fiscal note (OMB component
208). She detailed that within the fiscal note there was
$34,000 requested for FY 18. The amount included $30,000
for additional contract houses and technical support for
reviewing applications. In addition, there was $4,000
related to legal services costs related to regulation
changes. It was projected that the increase from 10 Mbps to
25 Mbps would signify an approximately $16 million grant to
the additional qualifying school districts.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked why a contractor with an
additional fee of $30,000 was needed to maintain the
current program when existing schools already had 10 Mbps
of connectivity.
Ms. Teshner understood that currently the contractor was
part-time, and the additional funding would go toward
processing additional applications after more school
districts qualified for funding.
Co-Chair MacKinnon was not sure of the accuracy of the
fiscal note. She wondered about the connection of other
projects. She reminded that the bill addressed existing
schools, and did not include new construction that would
require additional confirmation to qualify for funds.
Ms. Teshner stated that the $30,000 on the fiscal note
would be split; with $15,000 to approve additional
applications, and $15,000 for the expected additional
technical support to districts to help with applications.
10:40:37 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman stated that the Unalaska School District
had informed that it could not go to 25 Mbps because of the
capacity of satellites.
PATIENCE FREDERIKSEN, DIRECTOR, LIBRARIES ARCHIVES AND
MUSEUMS (via teleconference), stated that if Unalaska was
already receiving 25 Mbps, it would not be eligible for the
enhanced grant that was proposed in the bill. Only
districts with under 25 Mbps would be able to apply for the
funding.
Co-Chair Hoffman restated that the district currently had
20 Mbps of download, which it shared between the school and
the library. He continued that because the district was
receiving the services through the satellite system, it
could not expand the connectivity.
Ms. Frederiksen understood that the Alaska Telephone
Association had authored a letter of support for the bill,
and had guaranteed that every school district could receive
up to 25 Mbps with the networking that was in place.
Additionally, schools that were receiving internet through
satellite would be able to take advantage of the 25 Mbps.
She emphasized that she was speaking outside her area of
expertise.
Senator Hughes stated that there was rapidly advancing
technology that might be able to help with internet
connectivity. She understood that a new satellite had been
launched recently over the State of Texas, and was giving
speeds of 75 Mbps in a spot in Southeast Alaska. She
thought the technology was being tested.
10:44:11 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to the new fiscal note, and was
uncertain why $30,000 was needed to process grant
applications. She thought the expenditure should be for
one-time contact rather than recurring contact.
Ms. Frederiksen stated that the e-rate contractor in place
reviewed grant applications closely. She specified that the
application was a spreadsheet, and the law needed to be
followed. She discussed certifying school districts that
were receiving less than 10 Mbps. There had been school
districts that had sent quotes from internet service
providers that showed purchase of 50 Mbps that was split
between schools, and the arrangement had not fit the
criteria for the law. She discussed the complexity of the
extensive e-rate application as it pertained to the
criteria of the program. It had taken the e-rate
coordinator two full weeks of work to review applications
the previous fall. The applications changed each year. She
added that the process was intensive and required numerous
phone calls, ergo the need for additional funding. She
added that the state was going from a $2.7 million program
to a $16 million program, and the stakes were much higher.
10:47:35 AM
Ms. Hutchison clarified that the purpose of SB 102 was for
every individual school to have the ability to apply for
and receive broadband assistance grant funding. Each
eligible school could be brought up to an internet download
speed of 25 Mbps. The amount would not be divided in a
district, but would be for each individual school.
Senator Olson thought there were some schools that did not
have the infrastructure to take advantage of the program.
He asked how many schools would not be able to take part in
the program.
Ms. Hutchison did not have the numbers Senator Olson
requested. She referred to a support letter from the Alaska
Telephone Association (the umbrella group for all internet
service companies), which iterated that current technology
and infrastructure was able to deliver 25 Mbps to all
schools in Alaska.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that infrastructure was not
covered in the bill.
Senator Olson asked if there were schools that could not
take advantage of the grant funds.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there was no funding to
connect schools that were not already connected. She
continued that there was another project that was trying to
provide services to other communities. She did not have a
list of schools that did not qualify, but offered to obtain
the information for Senator Olson.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report SB 102 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 102 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Education and Early Development.
SENATE BILL NO. 103
"An Act establishing the Alaska education innovation
grant program; eliminating the Alaska education grant
program and the Alaska performance scholarship
program; redesignating the Alaska higher education
investment fund as the Alaska education innovation
grant fund; and providing for an effective date."
10:51:00 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon spoke to CSSB 103(FIN).
PAUL PRUSSING, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STUDENT
LEARNING, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and EARLY DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), discussed a new fiscal note (OMB
component 2796). The fiscal note showed funding for staff
to run a grant program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the there would be a cost of
$232,600 in FY 18 from the Higher Education Fund Designated
General Fund receipts; and in FY 19, there would be a cost
of $228,600 through FY 23. Regulations would need to be re-
written.
Co-Chair MacKinnon addressed a new fiscal note (OMB
component 2738).
STEPHANIE BUTLER, COMMISSION ON POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
(via teleconference), discussed the new fiscal note (OMB
2738). She regretted that the fiscal note was based on an
incomplete understanding of the CS, and was in the process
of being re-done. She pointed out that the fiscal note was
expressed as a decrement, which was the difference between
the FY 18 amount requested and the anticipated cost under
the new model in the CS. The anticipated FY 18 decrement
would be for $1.490 million; for FY 19, $2.638 million; for
FY 20, $3.611 million; for FY 21, $4.4423 million; and with
$5.150 million for each subsequent fiscal year.
Co-Chair MacKinnon addressed a new fiscal note (OMB
component 2990).
Ms. Butler informed that the fiscal note would also be
updated. She detailed that it was expected that the
decrement regarding the Alaska Education Grant was the
difference in the $5.750 million reflected in the original
FY 18 budget and the anticipated costs going forward. The
cost going forward for each of the four years of the
program phase-out were $5.130 million in FY 18; and FY 19,
$4.556 million; in FY 20, $4.070; and in FY 21 $3.664,
after which there would be no costs for the grant.
10:55:27 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced a new fiscal note (OMB
component 1296).
MILES BAKER, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (via teleconference),
reviewed the fiscal note, which was not updated to reflect
the recently adopted CS. He furthered that changes to two
scholarship programs would affect the revenue that the
University of Alaska (UA) received from potential student
tuition. He noted that there was not an impact on the UA
operating budget at the present time, but there was a
projected change in revenue for FY 18. He thought the
amendment adopted earlier in the meeting could help the
situation. He stated that currently UA received
approximately $14.8 million total between the two programs,
which would be phased out over the next several years and
reach more of a steady amount from the Tier 1 students as
defined in the bill. He had estimated that students
receiving the Alaska Education Grant would be much less
likely to attend UA were the grant not available, and would
phase the students out over the following years. He was not
sure how the change to the Alaska Performance Scholarship
(APS) would affect UA. He stated that UA received about 98
percent of all the high school students that qualified for
the APS.
10:59:17 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that UA would have to update the
fiscal note if it was to be included in the bill documents
going forward. She asked why the fiscal note showed
negative numbers in FY 18, which was not affected by the
bill.
Mr. Baker considered that based on the timing of the fiscal
year, the timing of the academic aid year, and on the
effective date of the bill; UA anticipated a couple of the
cohorts of individuals that would have otherwise qualified
for the scholarship in FY 18 would not have. He asserted
that the University would need to examine the CS and the
amendment in order to adjust the fiscal note.
Ms. Hutchison commented that after listening to public
testimony it was understood that the scholarship helped to
keep some of the best and brightest students in Alaska. The
proposed CS kept Level I of the program, which included 54
percent of recipients of APS; and phased out Level II and
Level III. She thought the change would help to raise the
academic bar for high school students, which had also been
requested in public testimony.
Senator Hughes thanked the sponsor and staff for working on
the bill.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report CSSB 103(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
forthcoming fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 103(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Education and Early Development; and
three new forthcoming fiscal notes: two fiscal impact notes
from Department of Education and Early Development, and one
fiscal impact note from the University.
11:02:12 AM
AT EASE
11:02:20 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the afternoon schedule.
ADJOURNMENT
11:02:50 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 041417 DOR Spring 2017 Revenue Forecast Presentation - FINAL.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
Spring Revenue Forecast |
| SB 103 Alaska Performance Scholarship Walsh.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 CS FIN Work Draft v.U.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 Testimony Sallee.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 2017 04 13 UA Board of Regents Opposition Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 Sectional Analysis (002).pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 2017 04 13 Ltr UA BOR Regent O'Neill Higher Invest Fund APS AEG.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 Juneau Students Against SB102 and SB103.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 102 SB 103 |
| SB 102 ATA Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 102 |