Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
03/11/2023 09:00 AM House WAYS & MEANS
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 | |
| HJR9 | |
| HJR9|| HJR8|| HJR7|| HB90|| HB72 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HJR 9-CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV;EARNINGS
HJR 8-CONST AM: GUARANTEE PERM FUND DIVIDEND
HJR 7-CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND
HB 90-PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND; $1000 DIVIDEND
HB 72-PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND; 75/25 POMV SPLIT
9:22:23 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing amendments to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the Alaska
permanent fund and to appropriations from the Alaska permanent
fund and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8, Proposing amendments to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the Alaska
permanent fund and appropriations from the Alaska permanent fund
and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska requiring payment of a
dividend to eligible state residents and HOUSE BILL NO. 90, "An
Act relating to income of the Alaska permanent fund and the
amount available for appropriation; relating to appropriations
from the earnings reserve account; relating to the amount of the
permanent fund dividend; and providing for an effective date"
and HOUSE BILL NO. 72, "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; and providing for an effective date."
9:22:41 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE opened public testimony on HJR 9, HJR 8, HJR
7, HB 90, and HB 72.
9:24:01 AM
JOHN MILLER, representing self, expressed the support of
returning to the original PFD formula, and he expressed the
opinion that it has been successful for the last 35 years. He
said the process had been destroyed in 2016, and there has been
a major contention since. He offered his understanding that the
people feel betrayed because the legislature no longer has the
people's best interests in mind, as the Permanent Fund has been
used to pay back special interest groups and unions who fund
elections. He urged members to follow the law and the original
PFD formula. He warned that until the Permanent Fund is
returned to the original formula, there will be contention.
9:25:55 AM
ED MARTIN, representing self, shared that he has been a resident
of the state for over 50 years. He shared that a family member,
Ed Martin, Sr., was a lawmaker in 1999 and part of the "save the
dividend" campaign. He reminded the committee of the advisory
vote, in which the legislature was recommended to never touch
the PFD process established in 1982, which entails a full
statutory PFD. He suggested that some members of the committee
have voted for budgets which defy statute; furthermore, the
Alaska Supreme Court's actions have not mandated the legislature
can defy statute. He referred to the sponsor statement for HJR
7 [included in the committee packet], which states that draws
are sustainable. He opined that this statement was a lie. He
said, "No one in that room has a crystal ball." He expressed
the opinion that the $1,000 PFD proposed in HB 90 would be a
"slap in the face" to the people who own the resources, as well
as the investments and the return on the investments. He
expressed support for a Permanent Fund constitutional amendment.
9:28:27 AM
MISTY COLE, representing self, expressed support for HJR 7 and
HJR 8; however, she testified in opposition to HB 72, HB 90, and
HJR 9.
9:29:41 AM
DONALD MITCHEL, representing self, shared that he has lived in
Alaska for 51 years. He expressed the opinion there are many
benefits to living in Alaska, of which is having competent and
consistent government services without having to pay a state
tax; however, he expressed the opinion that things have changed,
as now funding for state services is inadequate or inconsistent.
He pointed out that the roads in his area are "horrible," the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) is unreliable, and funding
for state employees is difficult. He expressed the belief that
the structure of the PFD hurts the elections process because the
amount of the PFD is being used as a tool to pay for votes. He
argued that HB 72 would provide reliability and consistency to
state services and the PFD. He urged support for HB 72.
9:30:49 AM
SARAH CAMPBELL, representing self, shared that she is a public-
school teacher and has lived in Alaska for 48 years. She
expressed support of increasing the base student allocation
(BSA) and would like to see the state return to a defined
benefit retirement package for state employees; however, she
expressed the understanding that this would cost money. She
expressed support for fully funding state services and expressed
the opinion that HB 72 "seems fair," because Alaskans would get
a PFD, and there would be money for state services.
9:32:48 AM
MICHAEL GARHART, representing self, commented that, out of the
bills up for testimony, he only supports HJR 7. He expressed
the understanding that too much PFD money has been taken from
the public. He stated, since the 1990s, it was tracked that
$27.3 billion had been "stolen." He said that the legislature
has been questioned for 10 years, but answers were never given.
He argued that the state needs to follow the law.
9:33:48 AM
ANTONIA LENARD, representing self, pointed out the legalese in
the materials provided in the meeting. She suggested that the
Permanent Fund was originally intended to give the residents a
stake in Alaska's resources, and residents were supposed to be
paid out of the fund, and not have people profiting from the
fund. She suggested that the 75/25 percent of market value
(POMV) split should instead be 25/75. She expressed the idea
that state funding should go away because residents would have
enough money individually to carry out state services, like
building a school. She opined that anytime the legislature
seeks to draw from the fund, the draw should be put to a vote.
9:36:03 AM
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self, stated that out of the
bills put forward at the meeting, only HJR 8 should be allowed
to move forward. He referred to the other bills and resolutions
as "putting lipstick on a pig" and giving the legislature more
control on the Permanent Fund. He explained that HJR 8 would
put the corpus into legislative control; however, combining the
corpus and the Permanent Fund would allow the legislators to
also have the corpus. He expressed support for HJR 7 because it
would formalize what has been in Alaska statute for the last
four decades. He pointed out that the Legislative Legal
Service's definition of "shall" and "may" might be the clinical
definition in a dictionary; however, it does not compare to the
definition provided in Wielechowski v. State. He expressed the
idea that the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that "shall" and "may"
have the exact same meaning.
9:39:01 AM
SARANA SCHELL, representing self, expressed support for the
sustainability of the Permanent Fund. She said that, while
large dividends are great, she supports a cap on the PFD because
this would help with the sustainability of the fund.
9:40:07 AM
JAMELIA SAIED, representing self, shared that she has been a
resident for 61 years. She said that the PFD has served a
valuable purpose; however, she expressed the opinion that it is
time for it to end and an income tax be reestablished. She
remarked that this does not seem to be politically possible, so
she offered her support to whichever bill proposes a smaller
PFD, such as [HJR 9]. She expressed the opinion that the state
should stay conservative, otherwise a full PFD would mean no
state services.
9:42:23 AM
ROYAL KIEHL, representing self, said he and his family have
lived in Alaska since 1974, when the state had levied an income
tax. He expressed the opinion that, without the intention to,
the state has turned into a welfare state, with every citizen
believing they cannot live without a PFD. He argued that the
state cannot afford to live up to the responsibility because of
the annual payouts, and he compared the PFD to an addiction.
For example, he stated that large PFDs have interfered with
quality education and adequate ferry service. He stated that
while it may be painful to give up the annual "money bombs," the
situation has gotten out of hand because people believe it is
their right to have unearned money. He suggested that the PFD
amount be reduced to $1000, with annual inflation increases. He
continued that the rest of the earnings should fund state
services. He suggested that, if HB 90 passes, so residents can
process the change, they should be given a year before it is
implemented.
9:44:46 AM
RACHEL LORD, representing self, testified in support of an
increased reliance on the Permanent Fund earnings to fund state
services, and she expressed support for HB 72. Regarding
raising broad-based revenues in the state, she echoed comments
that this would be the right way forward. She suggested that a
combination of income tax with a reduced PFD would also achieve
the effect. She said that in the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
citizens pay for the services via property and sales taxes, and
this funding goes toward schools, roads, and state troopers.
She spoke on economic development and said that businesses can
only thrive when there is stability in the public sector. She
expressed the opinion that things will not get better without
financial investment. She concluded by pointing out that
everyone benefits from state services.
9:46:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:46 a.m. to 9:49 a.m.
9:49:00 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE passed the gavel to Chair Carpenter.
9:49:31 AM
DIANNE HOLMES, representing self, echoed previous testimony
regarding the benefits everyone receives in untaxed services,
but she recognized that oil revenues are volatile. She
expressed the opinion that state services should always come
first. She pointed out that during the past few years the state
has had to face the COVID-19 pandemic, and now it must face
educational needs. She offered that, of the PFD plans before
the committee, a percentage split would impact services. She
stated that Alaska does not need larger PFDs if losing services
would be a result. She urged members to listen to the
economists and their advice that a 25/75 split would take away
from state services.
9:51:26 AM
JAN CONITZ, representing self, expressed concern about the
recent PFD debate, and the amount of time the legislature has
spent on the discussion. She said the PFD is symbolically a
"good thing;" however, she pointed out the decline of state
services, such as AMHS and public schools. She reiterated the
concern about the amount of time the legislature has taken
discussing the PFD; furthermore, she expressed the fear that the
state would go bankrupt trying to pay out high PFD payments.
She acknowledged that the Permanent Fund is symbolically good,
as it allows a sense of ownership to the residents, but it
should only be symbolic. She said the annual PFD debate crowds
out the discussion on other policies, such as education. She
further suggested better support for transportation, the
university system, economic development, care for seniors, and
care for people with disabilities. She expressed support for an
income tax.
9:54:50 AM
RANDY GRIFFIN, representing self, referenced HJR 7 and HJR 8, in
that the Permanent Fund has no place in the Constitution of the
State of Alaska. He acknowledged the thousands of dollars in
PFD payments that he has received; however, in 2014 he began
returning the check back to the state. He said he is against
enshrining the PFD into the state constitution, rather he
supports a dividend funded by surplus profits. He argued that,
if it is not funded by surplus profits, it is public assistance.
He reiterated that "hand-out" money should not be written into
the constitution. He expressed appreciation for the "free
money;" however, he stated that he will only collect a PFD if it
is based on a surplus.
9:57:23 AM
NICOLAS ABRAMCZYK, representing self, expressed the opinion that
the state had done a good thing when it initially established
the Permanent Fund; however, he advised members to look at the
economic context of Alaska in the 1980s, as the population was
about one-third of the population that it is today. He pointed
out that, in the last ten years, there have been economic
challenges which were not present in the 1980s. He continued
that, before enacting the proposed legislation, the members
should first examine the state's revenue streams.
9:59:01 AM
PHILLIP TAFS, representing self, shared that he is a small
business owner in Alaska with 28 employees. He expressed the
opinion that state services need to be funded first. While he
appreciates the PFD, he continued that large PFDs impact state
services. He expressed opposition to adding language to the
constitution which would make these proposals permanent. He
said that the state should maintain its flexibility in funding
programs. He said that as a small business owner he needs
consistency and the ability to plan without having every
legislative session bring fear. He expressed frustration from
having to wait until the last minute in August for a special
session and said this creates a difficult business environment.
He suggested that anyone who needs the PFD should rely on state
services more, which as a small business owner, would allow him
to grow his business.
10:01:55 AM
CANDY MILLER expressed support for HJR 7. She expressed the
opinion that money from the Permanent Fund should go to the
residents, and then there would be no concern on raising taxes
because the people will direct it.
10:05:12 AM
MICHAEL BUCY, representing self, shared that he has been a
resident of Alaska and has received a PFD since 1982. He said
he would support putting language into the constitution only if
it were to cap the PFD payout. He shared that he was
flabbergasted when the governor announced a $4,000 PFD, in
conjunction with no BSA increase. He stated that this prompted
him to rally at the capitol. He expressed appreciation for what
the PFD has done for his family, and he acknowledged that others
rely on the PFD; however, he suggested that the state needs
robust welfare funding instead. He opined that millionaires do
not need the PFD and should not receive it. He described the
function of government as doing economically what individuals
cannot do alone. He said that residents now are depending on
the government; however, the problem is not simply government,
it is bad government. He said that people are leaving Alaska
despite high PFDs. He suggested that this needs to be
addressed, and the PFD should no longer be the center of an
[annual] debate.
10:08:49 AM
GEORGE PIERCE expressed the opinion that the PFD should be
mandated in the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and, if the
state needs resources, the oil and gas companies should not
receive subsidies. He further suggested taxing individuals
coming to Alaska to conduct tourism. He advised that there are
other kinds of revenues to generate instead of allowing the
legislature to take it from "poor" Alaskans. He reiterated the
suggestion to raise taxes on the oil and gas companies.
10:11:13 AM
HAROLD BORBRIDGE, representing self, expressed the idea that the
public needs to realize every dollar the state receives is from
the people, whether it is paid with the people's resources or
the Permanent Fund's returns. He continued that every dollar
[the state] spends is either from oil resources or from the
Permanent Fund. He suggested that a simple handout be made to
the residents, along with an explanation of the sources of state
revenue.
10:12:46 AM
WILLY KEPPEL, representing self, urged members to follow state
statute and pay a full PFD. He suggested that baseline spending
be set at $4.2 billion so the state's tax and future revenues
could pay for state services. He reminded members that for many
years Alaskans have paid for special sessions. He recalled a
previous session where there was a testimony which related that
paying PFDs is not a problem because the state has the money.
He further recounted that prior to the Walker Administration,
money going toward PFDs had never gone through the legislature.
Continuing, he referenced the conversation in a past session
where Senator Lyman Hoffman had inquired why the legislature was
not following the law on PFDs, and the response had been that
the legislature does not have to follow the law. He reiterated
to members to pay a full PFD and cut spending.
10:16:08 AM
TIM WILKINS, representing self, agreed with the comments made by
Mr. Keppel. He recounted that in 2015 the Walker Administration
had moved to take 50 percent of everyone's PFD, and he expressed
his own disagreement with this action. He suggested that the
PFD be enshrined in the Constitution of the State of Alaska. He
said that the state of Alaska needs to balance its expenses and
urged that the money should be replaced in the Permanent Fund.
He expressed his support for the Dunleavy Administration.
10:18:18 AM
PAULINE HESSING, representing self, thanked the committee
members for the discussion; however, she expressed the opinion
that debates on the Permanent Fund is wasted time, as the
legislature should be debating more pressing matters. She
suggested that the PFD be capped at $1,000, and anything over
this should be given to the state to use for state services.
She pointed out there is no income tax in Alaska and suggested
that her idea would be like an income tax. She stated that
Permanent Fund earnings are not for the individual but are owned
by all Alaskans. She suggested that if the PFD was capped, it
would also be less of an enticement for people who have no money
to come to Alaska for "free money."
10:20:01 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
10:20:05 AM
CHAIR CARPENTER made comments regarding the committee's intent
to hear further public testimony.
10:21:47 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:21 a.m. to 10:31 a.m.
10:31:45 AM
LEONARD MILLER, representing self, stated that he could support
HJR 7 and HJR 8 but would need more information. He expressed
concern that, without research and legal understanding,
legislation which deals with the Permanent Fund is difficult to
understand, so it is hard for ordinary Alaskans to make an
informed decision. As far as what is fair, he said that
residents share the Permanent Fund's wealth, and this encourages
him to defend the principal of the Permanent Fund. Since a vast
majority of the residents do not have mineral rights in the
state, he expressed the opinion that the minerals should be part
of the residents' corporate royalties, as former Governor Jay
Hammond's vision was that Alaska residents would share in the
earnings so residents would stay engaged in limiting the growth
of government. He urged the members not to steal the residents'
royalties.
10:34:22 AM
LILA HENDERSON, representing self, disclosed that she is a
registered member of the Republican Party. She expressed
disagreement with HB 72 and HB 90 and expressed support for HJR
8 and parts of HJR 7. She continued that she is overall in
favor of constitutionalizing the PFD. She expressed the idea
that the state is taking more of the Permanent Fund each year
and opined that the people are entitled to their royalties. She
echoed Mr. Millers comments on this matter.
10:35:34 AM
JAMES SQUYRES, representing self, stated that he supports a full
statutory PFD. He pointed out that the public has testified for
many years for a full statutory PFD. He urged members to
remember the people who have testified in favor of the PFD in
the past. He argued that just because these people are not in
the room today, this should not take away from past testimony.
He said he does not support putting POMV in the Constitution of
the State of Alaska unless the earnings reserve account (ERA) is
rolled into the Permanent Fund. He questioned the difference
between statutory PFDs not previously paid, and refundable oil
and gas tax credits. He pointed out that rolling ERA into the
Permanent Fund would end PFD paybacks, of which he insisted are
still owed to residents in the state. He advised members to
repeal Senate Bill 26 [passed during the thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature], which he said put POMV into statute. He noted
that last year the administration had POMV in the budget, but
there was no effort to repeal Senate Bill 26. He argued that,
if Alaska wants to go back to the way it was with the PFD, this
bill will need to be repealed. He suggested that enacting POMV
is what put the "squeeze" on the funding for government
services.
10:37:56 AM
JEAN HOLT, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 72.
She stated the government has taken away freedoms, and the PFD
should be enshrined in the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
She further urged members not to "mess" with the PFD.
10:39:17 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
10:39:54 AM
GARY MCDONALD, representing self, stated that he supports the
regular PFD formula which Alaska had used for about 30 years.
10:41:12 AM
RYAN BROUSSARD, representing self, inquired about the number of
active military members who receive a PFD. He explained that in
boot camp he was told to go to Alaska, do a short tour, and
collect the PFD for the rest of his career. He said this
process is recommended to people, and he recounted that in
Virginia there were many Alaska license plates. He expressed
concern that many PFDs are going out of state, and out of the
country. He said that he and his family rely on the PFD, and
the statutory levels should be returned.
10:43:20 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:43 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.
10:47:57 AM
LAURA HECKERT, representing self, called for the passages of HJR
7 and HJR 8. She expressed support for going back to the
previous PFD distribution formula.
10:49:18 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:49 a.m. to 10:52 a.m.
10:52:09 AM
WILLIAM REINER, representing self, expressed support for HJR 8
and expressed disagreement with HB 72, HB 90, HJR 7, and HJR 9.
He highlighted that in HJR 9 "muddies the water." He shared
that he's been an Alaska resident since 1976 and was around for
the start of the PFD. He referred to the U.S. Supreme Court
case, Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982), and expressed
support for the court decision in this case. Regarding mineral
and gas royalties, he disclosed that he is not an Alaskan
Native, and because of the 1948 law, he is unable to access any
minerals, oil, or gas on his own property.
10:55:55 AM
JOEL SIGMAN, representing self, testified in support of HJR 7,
as he wants a full PFD. He expressed the opinion that the
legislature is stealing people's money and budgeting improperly
and all residents should get a full PFD. He urged members to
not take the money from the state's residents.
10:58:15 AM
SYBIL CURRY, representing self, shared that she has lived in
Alaska for 20 years and is a legal immigrant from a socialist
country. She further shared that she is a U.S. citizen, a law
enforcement veteran, and her grandparents are survivors of Nazi
Germany. She expressed the opinion that what is happening in
America is horrible, noting that several banks have crashed.
She said the people want an original statutorily determined PFD,
and she recommended that the PFD be enshrined in the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
[HB 90, HB 72, HJR 9, HJR 8, and HJR 7 were held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR009A.PDF |
HW&M 3/11/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 sponsor statement.pdf |
HW&M 3/11/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 sectional analysis.pdf |
HW&M 3/11/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 9 |
| 2003-05-APFC-Resolution-POMV.pdf |
HW&M 3/11/2023 9:00:00 AM HW&M 3/6/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| 2020-01-APFC-Resolution-POMV-Support.pdf |
HW&M 3/11/2023 9:00:00 AM HW&M 3/6/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| PF_singleaccount_graphic.pdf |
HW&M 3/11/2023 9:00:00 AM HW&M 3/6/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| PF_TwoAccountgraphic.pdf |
HW&M 3/11/2023 9:00:00 AM HW&M 3/6/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |