Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
09/10/2021 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 | |
| SB53 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB3003 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
THIRD SPECIAL SESSION
September 10, 2021
9:08 a.m.
9:08:18 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson (via teleconference)
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brian Fechter, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue;
Bill Milks, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
SB 53 PERM FUND; ADVISORY VOTE
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CSHB 3003(FIN) am (brf sup maj fld)
APPROP: OPERATING; PERM FUND; EDUCATION
CSHB 3003(FIN) am (brf sup maj fld) was SCHEDULED
but not HEARD.
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to use of income of the Alaska
permanent fund; relating to the amount of the
permanent fund dividend; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of revenue; relating to an advisory vote
on the permanent fund; providing for an effective date
by repealing the effective date of sec. 8, ch. 16, SLA
2018; and providing for an effective date."
9:10:23 AM
BRIAN FECHTER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(via teleconference), discussed the presentation,
"Permanent Fund Statutory Changes CS SB53 (JUD); Department
of Revenue; Brian Fechter, Deputy Commissioner; Senate
Finance Committee; September 10, 2021" (copy on file). He
addressed slide 2, "Agenda":
1. Basic Elements of the Bill
2. Senate Judiciary Intent Language
3. SB 53 Mechanics
4. Sectional Analysis
Mr. Fechter looked at slide 3, "Basic Elements of the
Bill":
? Provides an equitable PFD distribution for Alaskans:
50 percent of the POMV Draw
? Provides for a structured approach to drawing from
the Permanent Fund in the constitution Transition
period with one-time fiscal measure (2-year structured
draw)
? Makes the PFD change conditioned on constitutional
protection of the Permanent Fund.
Mr. Fechter thought the core of the bill asked one major
policy question: whether permanent protection of the
Permanent Fund was worth the price of entry of a one-time
additional draw from the Permanent Fund. He offered context
that the fund had earned a 9.1 percent average annual
return since inception, while at the same time from 1982 to
2018 (when the percent of market value (POMV) draw began),
the state had only taken draws for dividends. The draws had
averaged 2.8 percent. He liked to consider the proposal a
one-time additional draw that had been followed by 40 years
of much more conservative draws.
Mr. Fechter pointed to slide 4, "Legislative Intent Added
By Senate Judiciary":
(1) implement the recommendations of the 2021
Comprehensive Fiscal Plan Working Group;
(2) Address the conflict between POMV and Statutory
PFD calculations
(3) One-time fiscal measure, leveraging unprecedented
earnings currently available in the ERA
(4) Revert back to current law in the event of a
failure of a Comprehensive Fiscal Plan.
Mr. Fechter noted that the POMV had produced $3.06 billion
in the current year, while the statutory Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) would be $2.5 billion. He thought there was
an inherent conflict in which there was not enough funds
between the PFD and government services. He cited that the
Permanent Fund had added $18.6 billion in value in the last
fiscal year, and the proposed one-time measure would amount
to about 10 percent of the gains seen in the past fiscal
year.
9:13:52 AM
Mr. Fechter addressed slide 5, "Mechanics of CSSB 53(JUD)":
? Each year the legislature may appropriate at least
50 percent of the 5 percent POMV for PFDs
? Each year the legislature may appropriate up to 50
percent of the 5 percent POMV for Government
? The above transfers shall not exceed the 5 percent
POMV amount
?Except For FY2022 and FY2023 the POMV will be
6.5 percent
Mr. Fechter specified that the committee put in the words
"up to" 50 percent of the POMV (as shown on the second
bullet), in order to plan for any sort of financial
windfall, such as the $1 billion Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) settlement the state had received years
previously, or the contingency that the price of oil return
to $100 per barrel or more. He pointed out the table on the
middle of the slide, which showed the impact of the
additional 1.5 percent draw for FY 22 and FY 23 before
returning to the 5 percent. He thought many people
misunderstood the 5 POMV percent draw, which was 5 percent
of a lagged 5-year average. He shared that the true
effective draw rate of the 5-year POMV was 3.8 percent. He
asserted that if the rate was moved to a 6.5 percent POMV,
it would be closer to a true 5 percent draw.
Mr. Fechter continued that the bill would add an additional
$920 million to state revenues in FY 22, and an additional
$1 billion in FY 23. He liked to think that the state had a
cash flow problem, because the Permanent Fund had grown
significantly and consequently the POMV had grown. He
thought many policymakers considered the low balance of the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) and the ongoing
deficits and future revenues. He thought a "patchwork of
solutions" was needed to get for the state to get to a
point where only modest revenues and reductions would be
required to pay a 50/50 PFD, and that the solution proposed
in the bill was the additional 1.5 percent draw for the
following two years.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Mr. Fechter had calculated the
lost opportunity cost of the proposed additional 1.5
percent draw for over a 20-year period.
Mr. Fechter agreed to provide specific numbers at a later
time but suggested that in general a $1.9 billion excess
draw would be something close to $80 million to $90 million
in recurring revenue.
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that the committee had heard a
recent presentation that indicated a $2.7 billion deposit
had made over $21 billion over the 30-plus year history of
the fund. He reiterated the request for numbers related to
the lost opportunity cost.
Mr. Fechter agreed to provide that information.
9:17:34 AM
Co-Chair Stedman was confused about the mix of arithmetic
and geometric returns as shown on the slide. He thought the
slide was a little misleading when looking at the effective
rate for the draw and taking a five-year average. He
thought the argument was misleading. He asked about
concerns expressed by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
(APFC) in doing an ad hoc draw and if it affected the
fund's management style.
Mr. Fechter replied that in any endowment there was a "tug
of war" between the conservatives of the endowment and the
beneficiaries of the endowment. He cited that people were
behind on expenses because of the pandemic and asserted
there was a natural conflict between wanting more spending
and conserving for the future. He thought the state needed
to find a balance between the two.
Co-Chair Stedman felt that Mr. Fechter's response was not
adequate. He restated the question regarding the management
impact of an ad hoc draw on the Permanent Fund, and to what
magnitude did the proposed ad hoc draws affect the
Permanent Fund. He wanted to know the managerial
expectations without a political twist.
Mr. Fechter replied that there was always an opportunity
cost of a dollar spent today that would not gain future
interest and asserted that the same was true for the
current 5 percent POMV. He opined that the bottom line of
the legislation was that the one additional draw was meant
to buy constitutional protection forever for future
generations of Alaskans. He thought a number of people were
concerned about what might happen if the CBR was depleted
and the state was forced to take ad hoc draws on the
Earnings Reserve Account (ERA), which he thought be a much
worse situation than taking a one-time planned overdraw in
a year of record earnings.
Co-Chair Stedman thought there would be a more informative
answer from APFC about the impact the proposed draw would
have.
9:21:38 AM
AT EASE
9:22:08 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman requested that there be representation
from the APFC to speak to the impact of any actions taken
at the table.
Co-Chair Bishop made note of Co-Chair Stedman's request and
stated that it would be forthcoming.
Mr. Fechter looked at slide 6, "Mechanics of CS SB53(JUD)":
?With a 2-year measure the budget comes close to
being balanced.
?Withdrawn amendment would have reduced the POMV for a
period of 5 years to "pay-back" the fund
Mr. Fechter addressed the table on slide 6, which showed
the state's fiscal picture with a 50/50 PFD. He directed
attention to the bottom line that showed a $1 billion
deficit with a 50/50 PFD and the enacted budget. If the
additional revenues from SB 53 were added in, the state was
within $70 million of being balanced. He cited that he had
added in an oil price update that included an approximate
$300 million surplus under the scenario.
He referenced a discussion in the Senate Judiciary
Committee regarding an amendment (which was ultimately
withdrawn) that proposed to reduce the POMV draw to 4.5
percent for the next five years, to effectively pay back
the proposed one-time draw. He thought the amendment
proposed a clever solution to hold the Permanent Fund
harmless throughout the state's cash flow issues, and he
thought the committee might want to consider the idea.
9:24:02 AM
Co-Chair Stedman reminded that the committee had
discussions on the 5 percent draw rate with projects in the
financial markets, and it had appeared that the 5 percent
was too high. He relayed that the discussion revolved
around whether to consider lowering the rate because of the
forecast returns in the financial market in the next decade
and taking into account inflationary impacts.
Co-Chair Bishop thought the committee had considered the
ten-year forecast when Callan was testifying in committee
the previous February and suggested checking with APFC to
see if the forecast was still accurate.
Senator Wilson noted that the slide only considered up to
FY 22 and not beyond. He asked about the building funding
gap.
Mr. Fechter replied that because the POMV was based upon a
five-year lagging average, the state only received 20
percent of the benefit of the earnings of the current year
in each year. For FY 23, there was about $300 million in
additional POMV revenue coming to the state, and the POMV
average would continue to build and add revenue to the
state. He noted that there were other impacts to the
budget, including a number of budget items that would
cease. He explained that if the state continued to make oil
and gas tax credit payments, the balance would be paid off
by FY 27. There were a number of school debt issuances that
were scheduled to be paid off in the following two years.
He thought retirement payments were expected to be reduced.
He summarized that the deficit was expected to close in the
out years.
Co-Chair Bishop wanted to point out that there were members
that had zeroed out the school construction list one year,
and next year it had come back. He noted there were ongoing
school and construction costs.
Mr. Fechter addressed slide 7, "Mechanics of CS for SB
53(JUD) - Conditional Effects":
? The bill is designed to run in tandem with a
constitutionally protecting the Permanent Fund and the
PFD
? This 50/50 PFD change only effective if the voters
approve a Constitutional fix at the ballot box AND at
least $160 million in revenue measures is enacted into
law by the 32nd legislature.
? The intent of the conditional effective dates is to
ensure a complete fiscal plan is enacted per the
fiscal working group recommendations
9:28:00 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered about the proposed $160 million
in revenue and had not seen submissions from the
legislature.
Mr. Fechter relayed that the bill put forward from the
Senate Judiciary Committee had been silent upon what the
$160 million measures could be. He referenced a
presentation the department gave with the House Ways and
Means Committee that he could share.
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to see the administration's revenue
or tax bills submitted to the legislature for
consideration. He did not want to hear a concept but wanted
to have something to work on.
Senator Wilson recalled that Mr. Fechter had asserted that
doing a 6.5 percent draw would bring forth new revenue. He
asked if the administration would consider the
aforementioned $160 million in revenue to be part of the
1.5 percent increase on the POMV draw.
Mr. Fechter asked for a restatement of the question.
Senator Wilson referenced the second bullet on slide 7,
which mentioned $160 million in new revenue measures
enacted by law. He thought slide 5 indicated that the
administration considered the proposed 6.5 percent draw to
be new additional revenue. He asked if the new revenue
would be considered a part of the $160 million in revenue
mentioned on slide 7.
Mr. Fechter replied that he could only speculate the intent
of the amendment, but assumed that the intent was to have
additional revenues above and beyond the two years of
higher POMV draw.
Senator Wilson asked if the department would consider the
$160 million above and beyond the additional 1.5 percent
draw.
Mr. Fechter could not speak specifically to the
interpretation. He thought someone from the Department of
Law could address the question.
9:32:20 AM
BILL MILKS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), stated he would be providing a
Sectional Analysis shortly.
Senator Wilson agreed to hold his question until the
relevant bill section was addressed by Mr. Milks.
Mr. Fechter discussed slide 8, "Mechanics of CS for
SB53(JUD) - 1.5 percent Additional Temporary Draw":
? A one time draw from the Permanent fund to ensure
the Fund is permanently protected in the Constitution.
? Permanent Fund Earnings ~$18.6 billion
? Buys valuable time for measures to be implemented
? Dr. Malan Rietveld, Sovereign Wealth Fund Expert:
Author of Trustee Paper 9
? Ensuring the long-term sustainability of an
endowment is far more important than an over-draw
in any one particular year
? Other endowments are considering one-time increases
in draws to capitalize on exceptional market
performance:
? Harvard's $42 billion endowment increased from 5
percent to 7.5 percent on one-time basis
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out that the committee had
discussions about the difference between Harvard's
endowment fund and the Permanent Fund and thought the
comparison should be taken with a grain of salt. He was
concerned about the lack of "a full package" and the small
amount proposed for additional revenue without a guarantee.
Mr. Fechter addressed slide 9, "Dr. Malan Rietveld":
?Big reforms have been made: income-and stabilization
functions established
?Time to invest in infrastructure, mechanisms and
institutions that ensure this transition which is
permanent enjoys Constitutional certainty
?The ERA created unnecessary political and financial
risks under POMV
?No compelling reasons to have the ERA, if one move
away from earnings-based spending rule
?Ensure unanticipated future revenue windfalls aren't
immediately spent, but rather grow the PF or replenish
other fiscal buffers
?For example, spending caps, oil-price trigger,
supplementary windfall savings rule
?A bridge period is needed as Alaska transitions to a
system with Constitutionally protected savings and
spending
?The bridge should be comprehensive, with all
available options on the table
?One-time higher draws do happen, Key is having a
credible commitment mechanism to sustainability and
rule-based constraint
9:37:20 AM
Mr. Fechter looked at slide 10, "Permanent Fund Dividend:
Certainty":
?Alaskans and Businesses deserve certainty concerning
annual PFD payment.
?State needs PFD consistency to attain budget
stability and sustainability.
?Absent certainty, determining future achievable
revenues/reductions are difficult and may result in
over/under collecting/taxing.
?50 percent POMV dividend is an equitable distribution
of Alaska's wealth between its citizens and
government.
?Resolving the PFD allows a discussion of required
revenues/reductions to close the remaining budget gap.
?Redirects the legislative conversation to growing
Alaska vs. debating PFD.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the administration recognized and
supported new taxes.
Mr. Fechter stated that as "part of a grand bargain," the
administration would be agnostic to additional taxes should
it be part of a plan that would include no less than a 50
percent PFD, no income tax, and a mechanism to restrain
future spending growth.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what considerations were given when
the administration proposed a PFD calculation at 50 percent
of the POMV draw. He referenced a recent presentation in
committee that showed if the legislature had followed the
statute since the creation of the Permanent Fund, the fund
would be about $30 billion and the dividend would be about
$1,100. He asked if the administration had considered
looking at the dividend spin-off following the constitution
and statutes.
Mr. Fechter shared that 50 percent had "felt fair," as a
split between people and government services. He thought
the public would support a 50 percent split.
Co-Chair Stedman reiterated that his question was about
what consideration the administration had given to the
state investing it's part of the POMV draw over 40 years.
9:41:53 AM
Senator Hoffman noted that he supported a 50/50 split but
had concerns about the proposed bridge funding. He
commented on the diminished balance of the CBR and noted
the high standard of the three-quarters vote. He was
concerned about establishing an overdraw. He supported
stair-stepping as an alternative, starting with an $1,100
dividend. He noted that an $1,100 PFD was in the
appropriation bill passed over by the House. He mentioned
the question of putting the POMV and Permanent Fund into
the constitution were distinct and separate questions. He
thought the rewrite of the formula had raised many concerns
because it was a law the legislature could ignore. He
pointed out that current statute had been followed by over
40 years. He thought the legislature wanted to address
statutory changes to the PFD formula, and believed a star-
stepped approach was a better solution. He thought
addressing putting the fund into the constitution was a
resolution both bodies could address.
9:45:51 AM
Mr. Milks discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
This bill would establish a new statutory framework
for spending of permanent fund income. Additionally,
this bill includes a conditional effect provision
(sec. 19) which would effectively limit a number of
its provisions if by November 30, 2022 the voters have
not approved a constitutional amendment regarding the
permanent fund according to certain terms and the
legislature has not enacted certain new revenue laws.
Section 1: This section sets out the legislative
intent of the bill which is described as accomplishing
four objectives:
(1)to implement the recommendations of the 2021
Comprehensive Fiscal Plan Working Group;
(2)harmonize the calculation of net income
available for distribution under AS37.13.140(a)
and net income available for appropriation under
AS 37.13.140(b);
(3)temporarily change the mechanism to draw money
from the earnings reserve account to take
advantage of earnings available while permitting
the consideration and implementation of revenue
measures and cost reductions for the long-term
stability of the state; and
(4)reverse the changes made in this bill if the
Comprehensive Fiscal Plan Working Group
recommendations are not adopted.
Section 2: This section would delete language from the
current AS 37.13.140(a) that describes a formula to
determine the amount of income of the fund that is
available for distribution. Section 2 would also
provide that the amount available for appropriation
from the earnings reserve account is 5 percent of the
average market value of the fund for the first five of
the preceding six fiscal years including the fiscal
year just ended. Finally, Section 2 would amend AS
37.13.140(b) to clarify that the amount available for
appropriation from the earnings reserve account may
not exceed the balance in the earnings reserve
account.
Section 3. This section would amend sec.2 and return
to the existing statutory language for AS 37.13.140(a)
and (b). This is the first of several provisions in
the bill that would reverse changes made in the bill
if conditions specified in sec. 19 take effect.
Section 3 would become effective under sec. 19 if by
November 30, 2022 the voters did not approve a
constitutional amendment that specifies a percent of
market value draw from the permanent fund in which
half of the draw would be used for permanent fund
dividends and require a deposit of the earnings
reserve account into the permanent fund principal or
revenue laws that anticipate at least $160,000,000
of new revenues each year have not been passed by the
Thirty-Second Legislature and enacted into law.
Section 4: This section would amend AS 37.13.145(b) to
provide that of the amount appropriated each year from
the earnings reserve account under AS 37.13.140(b):
? 50 percent may be appropriated to the dividend
fund for dividends and
? 50 percent may be appropriated to the general
fund.
Section 5: This section would amend sec. 4 and
return to the existing statutory language. for AS
37.13.145(b).
Section 5 would become effective if the conditions
described above and set out in sec. 19 take effect.
Section 6: This section amends AS 37.13.145(c) to
authorize an appropriation, after the appropriation to
the dividend fund and the general fund, to the
principal of the permanent fund for inflation
proofing.
Section 7: This section amends sec. 6 regarding
inflation proofing to largely return to the existing
statutory language for AS 37.13.145(c).
Section 7 would become effective if the conditions
described above and set out in sec. 19 take effect.
Section 8: This section regarding permanent fund
income earned as a result of the State v. Amerada Hess
case clarifies that such money is not available for
appropriation to the dividend fund or the principal
and that it shall be deposited into the capital income
fund.
Section 9: This section amends sec. 8 regarding the
State v. Amerada Hess case to largely return to the
existing statutory language in AS 37.13.145(d).
Section 9 would become effective if the conditions
described above and set out in sec. 19 take effect.
9:51:15 AM
Mr. Milks continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 10: This section amends AS 37.13.145 to add
subsection (g) providing that the legislature may not
appropriate from the earnings reserve account to the
general fund an amount that exceeds the amount
available for appropriation under AS 37.13.140(b) in a
fiscal year, and to add subsection (h) to provide that
the total transfer under (b) and an appropriation
under (g) of this section may not exceed the amount
available for appropriation under AS 37.13.140(b).
Section 10 would become effective if the conditions
described above and set out in sec. 19 take effect.
Section 11: This section clarifies that net income of
the mental health trust fund is not included in the
computation of the amount available for appropriation
from the permanent fund earnings reserve account under
AS 37.13.140(b) as described in section 2 of the bill.
Section 12: This section amends sec. 11 of the bill to
return to the existing statutory language in AS
37.13.300(c).
Section 12 would become effective if the conditions
described above and set out in sec. 19 take effect.
Section 13: This section amending AS 37.14.031(c)
clarifies that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
shall calculate annually the net income of the fund
according to generally accepted accounting principles
and excluding any unrealized gains or losses.
Section 14: This section amends sec. 13 of the bill to
return to the existing statutory language in AS
37.14.031(c).
Section 14 would become effective if the conditions
described above and set out in sec. 19 take effect.
9:56:33 AM
Mr. Milks continued with the Sectional Analysis:
Section 15: This section amends AS 43.23.025(a) to
state that the legislature places money in the
dividend fund by appropriation.
Section 16: This section amends sec. 15 to return to
the existing statutory language in AS 43.23.025(a).
Section 16 would become effective if the conditions
described above and set out in sec. 19 take effect.
Section 17: This section repeals AS 37.13.145(e) and
37.13.145(f) which relate to total appropriations from
the earnings reserve.
Section 18: This section is an uncodified law
provision that provides for the fiscal years 2022 and
2023 the legislature may, in addition to the amount
calculated under AS 37.13.140(b), appropriate an
additional 1.5 percent of the average market value of
the permanent fund.
Section 19: This section is the conditional effect
provision described above.
Section 20: This section provides that if the
conditional effect provision under sec. 19 takes
effect, secs. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16 of the
bill take effect July 1, 2023.
Section 21: This section provides that except for
section 20, this bill would take effect immediately
under AS 01.10.070(c).
Mr. Milks summarized that the bill was longer than when it
was originally drafted. He discussed the major provisions
of the bill and noted that the prior committee had added
the proposed conditional effect provision.
Senator Wilson thought Mr. Fechter had stated that Section
18 of the bill would make it a revenue-generating bill. He
asked if passage of SB 53 as it stood would count in part
to satisfy Section 19 (part 2) of the bill.
10:00:06 AM
Mr. Milks replied that SB 53 set out a framework to
determine how to spend Permanent Fund income, which was
subject to constitutional limits when the Alaska Supreme
Court provided that the spending of Permanent Fund income
was subject to appropriation. The bill had a conditional
effect provision, and he did not know the intent of the
drafters behind the changes proposed to the bill in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He thought that it was standard
practice to take a "reasonable interpretation" of the
language in bills and statutes. He thought that the two
conditions of the bill seemed as though they would be two
separate pieces of legislation.
Senator Wilson thought Mr. Fechter had indicated that the
provisions in Section 18 would count as generation of new
revenue. He asked if Mr. Milks had an interpretation of the
bill that passage of SB 53 would be new revenue for the
state that would meet the requirement in Section 19.
Mr. Milks did not hear precisely what Mr. Fechter had
stated. He explained that there was revenue loss separate
from SB 53. He contended that SB 53 was setting out a
framework for spending the Permanent Fund but was not a
bill setting a tax.
Senator Hoffman had questions about Section 4, where the
formula was changed to a 50/50 split. He asked when the
split would take place. He referenced Senator Wilson's
question about Section 18, which would require an
additional draw of 1.5 percent of the value of the fund. He
asked in which piece of appropriation legislation would the
draw occur and how would it affect when the 50/50 split was
enacted.
Mr. Milks interpreted that the bill, which had changed
dramatically with the Senate Judiciary version, proposed to
be effective immediately. He noted that the provision in
Section 4 referenced a 50/50 split each fiscal year. He
thought it was reasonable to conclude that the provision
would apply in the year in which the bill was passed. He
noted that legally the provisions were frameworks, and
unless the constitutional amendment was passed, the funds
were all subject to appropriation.
10:05:28 AM
Senator Hoffman thought there was a problem with the
contingency provisions in that there would not be a rewrite
of the bill. He thought people could not assume they would
get a 50/50 dividend because constitutional votes were
required and would not take place until farther in the
future. He expressed that the provisions gave him pause in
supporting the bill. He mentioned HB 3003, which was an
appropriation bill also before the committee. He thought
Section 18 and the additional 1.5 percent draw was a
"substantial crack of the egg."
Senator Wilson thought Mr. Fechter and Mr. Milks had both
expressed that the bill was substantially different than
the bill originally drafted. He asked if the testifiers
supported the current bill or if they would support
amendments submitted to the committee.
Mr. Milks deferred the question to the Department of
Revenue. He asserted that he had tried to describe to the
committee that the amended bill became a fair amount more
complicated.
Mr. Fechter wondered if the question was whether he would
be supportive of additional changes to the bill.
Senator Wilson explained that the bill had become more
complicated with the changes that occurred in the Senate
Judiciary Committee. He recalled that Mr. Fechter had
commented on the significant changes to the bill. He asked
if the administration still supported the current bill, or
if it would submit additional changes to the committee to
amend the bill.
Mr. Fechter replied that he felt that the current bill met
the governor's intent to provide Alaskans with a 50/50 PFD,
and the bill contained a similar mechanism to the
governor's proposed bridge funding. He stated that the
administration supported the bill in its current form.
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:09:45 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 53 01.1921 Permanent Fund; Income; Dividend TL - Senate.pdf |
SFIN 9/10/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 SectionalVers I- 9-9-21_.pdf |
SFIN 9/10/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 DOR Senate Finance 9.10.2021.pdf |
SFIN 9/10/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |