Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/12/2020 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| HB300 || HB306 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 300
"An Act relating to deposits into the dividend fund
and income of and appropriations from the earnings
reserve account; relating to the community assistance
program; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 306
"An Act relating to deposits into the dividend fund
and income of and appropriations from the earnings
reserve account; establishing a permanent fund
dividend task force; and providing for an effective
date."
1:35:02 PM
Co-Chair Johnston acknowledged Representative Laddie Shaw
in the audience. She reviewed the public testimony
protocol.
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1:36:45 PM
Co-Chair Johnston OPENED public testimony. She began with
in-room testifiers.
1:37:13 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
believed the issue could be solved easily if it was put to
a vote of the people as specified by the state
constitution. She testified that the law had been broken
for four years. She stressed that the statutory [Permanent
Fund Dividend (PFD)] amount was not being allotted. She
understood the state was in a financial crisis, but she did
not believe that warranted breaking the law by not
following statute. She supported a full PFD at the
statutory amount. She implored the committee to consider
putting the issue to a vote of the people. She thanked the
committee for its time.
1:39:08 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE, JUNEAU, discussed there had been tremendous
pushback on reductions to the budget in the previous year
in the absence of sufficient and new revenues. He reported
that AML had supported fewer cuts and anything that could
be done to mitigate negative impacts to local governments,
which the legislature had determined would come at the
expense of a reduced PFD as the most feasible way to
mitigate impacts. The organization had advocated for a
broad-based tax since 2015. The organization appreciated
the committee's consideration of the bills as the beginning
of a conversation about next steps involving a distribution
or split within the percent of market value (POMV) [from
the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account], including a
reduction to the PFD. He recognized the conversation was
increasingly necessary, but AML believed the conversation
only made sense when combined with a discussion on new
revenue sources. He elaborated that the conversation only
made sense to AML if it included looking at broad-based
taxes and considering the impacts on Alaskans.
Mr. Andreassen shared that the organization understood that
a reduction to the PFD was one of the more regressive
revenue measures in the nation with impacts to individuals
without income or purchasing power. He highlighted that PFD
reductions failed to capture revenue from out of state
activities and workers even as it allowed for continued
contributions from the PFD to the federal government. He
clarified that it was not to say that reductions were not
necessary or that the conversation was inappropriate. He
stressed that the legislature needed to have conversation
about broad-based taxes as soon as possible.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted that the previous year AML had given
specific input on its preference for a broad-based tax,
with a greater preference on a tax based on income versus
sales. He asked if the organization had any perspective on
the type of broad-based tax it would support.
Mr. Andreassen replied that in the previous and current
years AML members had passed a resolution in support of a
broad-based tax with a preference for an income tax. He
added that members recognized that any taxes (e.g. a sales
tax or something that filled the gap for state revenues)
needed to be on the table.
1:42:45 PM
Representative Wool referenced Mr. Andreassen's statement
that a conversation about a reduced PFD should not happen
without a conversation about revenue. He wondered if it was
also true that a conversation about revenue should not
occur without a conversation about a reduced PFD.
Mr. Andreassen replied in the affirmative. He elaborated
that AML's understanding was that the state's financial
position (including a presentation by the Legislative
Finance Division the previous day) was at a deficit even
with a zero dollar PFD. He agreed that both of the
conversations were necessary.
Co-Chair Johnston was concerned by Mr. Andreassen's
statement that cutting the PFD equated to the most
regressive tax in the nation. She asked for further
comment.
Mr. Andreassen replied that it depended on whether a cut
was viewed as a tax. He clarified that he had referred to a
cut as a revenue measure. He stated that as long as the PFD
was reduced and the rest of the POMV was applied to state
government, the question of how to pay for state government
remained. He elaborated that a reduction to the PFD was
essentially a funding of state government, which was a form
of broad-based taxation. He recognized the point could be
argued. The idea was that a reduction to the PFD was
regressive in the sense that it took away from individuals
who were not earning or spending.
Co-Chair Johnston remarked on her concern about the
statement that a cut to the PFD was the most regressive tax
in the nation. She pointed out that Alaska was the only
state that gave a dividend.
1:45:05 PM
JOMO STEWART, FAIRBANKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), shared that because the
bills had been introduced recently, he had not yet had the
ability to obtain a position from the corporation. He
defaulted to positions the corporation held throughout the
process in the past year. He shared that bankrupt or
debunked corporations did not pay dividends because they
could not. It was the reason the first responsibility of a
fiduciary was to the health and wellbeing of the
corporation, followed by the maximization or distribution
of shares to shareholders.
Mr. Stewart reported that the Fairbanks Economic
Development Corporation supported the primary underpinning
of both bills - the adherence to the professionally defined
and statutorily enacted sustainable draw on the Earnings
Reserve Account (ERA) regardless of the proposed use of the
funds. He elaborated support for keeping the more like a
corporate dividend than an entitlement.
Mr. Stewart spoke to the division of the funds in HB 300
and HB 306 from a personal position. He was concerned about
the idea of a rigid distribution or division of funds in
light of the increasing challenges facing the state. He
believed that circumstances might overwhelm the state and
it may be necessary to have more flexibility than the
divisions outlined in either of the bills.
Representative Carpenter asked what a logical follow up
conversation would be if a corporation's shareholders
received a reduced dividend. He asked if a corporation
would look to generate revenue by modifying its market
stance and/or look at making modifications to its expenses
that had led to not having a dividend.
Mr. Stewart agreed. He stated that based on his experience
it was a low bar. He spoke to the prudence of keeping
downward pressure on the budget. However, he cautioned
against making cuts to the extent that harm was done to the
corporation's ability to sustain itself and generate future
revenues. He spoke to the importance about thinking about
the health of a corporation, broadly speaking, in order to
maintain the ability of the corporation to pay future
dividends over time.
1:48:58 PM
SUE SHERIF, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), shared
that she had come to Alaska prior to the implementation of
the PFD, before oil funds had filled the state coffers, and
when an income tax had existed. She recalled there had been
an education head tax, a university offering a full range
of classes, an operational ferry system, and a central
focus on education. She had not had enough time to read all
of the materials and had some questions about projection
charts that had been presented to the committee the
previous day. She could not speak to the particulars of the
bills. She supported the idea of community assistance in
HB 300 sponsored by Representative Wool. She believed it
would take ideas like Representative Wool's and Senator
Click Bishop fuel tax proposal in order to tackle the
problem head on. She hoped the two PFD bills would be
debated in the current session. Additionally, she supported
debate over other revenue-focused plans to ensure they were
not robbing infrastructure and services from future
Alaskans. She highlighted lower than forecasted oil prices
and the bear market that had started in the stock exchange.
She spoke to the importance of adding additional revenue
sources. She hoped there would be a full-fledged, open
discussion on the topics during the current session.
1:52:18 PM
JEANINE ST. JOHN, VICE PRESIDENT, LYNDEN, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of HB 306. She shared
that Lynden was a multi-modal transportation and logistics
company that provided transportation services for all
segments of the economy throughout Alaska. She highlighted
that the POMV draw had been established under SB 26 in June
2018. She stated that at the time, there had been a
recognition the bill lacked a structure for the
appropriations from the ERA. She continued that the PFD
formula and allocation had created a problem for the state
and a fiscal plan had been hijacked by the desire to pay
citizens before state services. She noted that the
situation typically resulted in a call for more taxes,
which created a larger problem for the state, particularly
when taxes were targeted at the resource industry.
Ms. St. John believed the statutory formula was outdated
and had not been contemplated for the current situation
facing the state. She stressed that if businesses did not
adjust their plan in 38 years, they would not grow and
would likely be out of business. She highlighted that the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) Board of Trustees
had expressed concerns about the appropriations and the
process for utilizing ERA funds. The bill helped alleviate
and set a course for stabilizing the use of the ERA. She
stated that HB 306 was structured to mitigate the issues
and establish clear rules. She spoke in support of
stabilizing the budget process and setting a course
correction for the PFD program that had been in flux since
2016. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify.
1:54:49 PM
JOHN S. SONIN, CIVILIZED HUMANITY, JUNEAU, represented
civilized humanity. He was mostly compelled by the recent
introduction of a Senate bill that gave Alaskan land in
lieu of dividends. He reported that it made him want to
address the issue. He supported the community grant concept
in HB 300. He thought that giving away land a destabilizing
supply-side economic policy. He stated that no one could
forego their share of the state's profits and trade for
property except for those who did not need it. He believed
the PFD was more of an economic stimulus than anything
else. He spoke to the need to keep the economy vital by
providing economic stimulus for individuals able to use the
funds.
1:58:05 PM
Co-Chair Johnston relayed that she was trying to call on
individuals based on when they had signed up to speak.
MIKE HAMAR, SELF, JUNEAU, shared information about his
background. He shared that he was a fan of the late Jay
Hammond. He provided remarks from a prepared statement. He
stated that as forecasts for state revenue streams looked
grim, he believed the dividend/government ratio should
remain the same. He believed Alaska was an owner state (a
phrase used by former Governor Wally Hickel). He opined
that the dividend was the most equitable way for residents
to share in state wealth. He stated that while the
government may know better where to spend/invest the funds,
it should not assume that was the case. He remarked that
the PFD pitted individual greed against collective greed.
He highlighted the intended purpose of the Permanent Fund.
He believed any tax imposed should be done in the manner
that was the least regressive. He quoted former Governor
Jay Hammond as saying that a portion of the wealth must go
to residents and that if more funds were needed for basic
institutions of government, the government must find a way
to claw the money back. He thanked the committee for its
time.
2:00:40 PM
VALERIE THERRIEN, SELF, FAIRBANKS, supported HB 306 and
applauded the committee and Representative Wool for their
leadership on ways to fund the government. She was on the
Fairbanks City Council, which had not taken a position on
the bill. She shared that the Fairbanks budget at the local
level was tight and the council had asked for funds for
community assistance, revenue sharing, and various
services. She detailed that the community dividend would
enable the community to determine the best use for the
funds. She did not personally feel entitled to a PFD and
supported a reduction. She had been saddened by cuts that
had taken place at the university level. She noted the city
was always looking for funds to take care of its capital
projects and she believed the community dividend program
would work well. She thanked the committee for its time.
2:03:00 PM
JUNE ROGERS, SELF, JUNEAU, shared information about herself
and her family living in Alaska. She provided her
background in working with an opioid taskforce, homeless
initiatives, reentry programs, and other social services
organizations. The goal for the organizations was to
achieve the most results for the smallest expenditure of
funds. She noted that she currently served on the Fairbanks
City Council that did not have a position on the issue. She
was impressed with Representative Wool's attempt for HB 300
to bring focus to a very difficult topic. She spoke to the
importance of talking about ideas to develop a solution to
the budget situation.
Representative Knopp referenced testimony by Ms. Rogers and
Ms. Therrian on the community dividend component of HB 300.
He wondered if a community dividend would be a better use
of state funds than a PFD to individuals (if the state
could not afford both).
Ms. Rogers revisited several other conversations she had
recently. She had only just learned about Representative
Wool's bill HB 300. She firmly believed working together
through the community was a direct line to individual
participation in the community. She did not believe the
bill would take from individuals in an unreasonable way and
would share the load. She believed the bill was a good
effort that deserved discussion and support.
2:07:13 PM
CRIS EICHENLAUB, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
opposed the bills. He believed the budget situation had
occurred due to the mismanagement of resources and
oversized budgets, not oversized PFDs. He stated that the
legislature needed to focus on responsible resource
development. He noted that the Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR) had already been depleted. He suspected the
legislature would use the funds in the ERA and move on to
the corpus of the Permanent Fund. He supported putting the
funding into the private sector and not towards special
interest. He supported putting the statutory formula in the
constitution in order to prevent using the funds. He stated
that oil prices had been at $9 per barrel in the past and
the state had made it through. He reiterated his opposition
to the bills.
2:09:17 PM
REBECCA CRELLEY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the bills. She shared that she had grown
up in poverty in a large family. She highlighted that when
poor people did not receive their PFDs it had a big impact
on families with children. She provided a scenario where a
single mother had problems feeding her children. She
elaborated that there were many unmet needs if the mother
did not receive the PFD. She detailed that the mother could
have problems with a vehicle, paying utilities, or with
purchasing sufficient groceries to feed her children. She
supported paying out a minimum PFD. She suggested the
legislature should figure out a tax system for the rest of
Alaskans who could afford to pay an income tax. She wanted
to see the poor people in the state get what they needed.
2:11:38 PM
JOAN WARE, SELF, TOK (via teleconference), opposed the
bills. She disagreed with previous testimony that the bills
were the most feasible way to balance the budget. She did
not support any reduction to the PFD. She believed it was
illegal to not give a PFD that Alaskans were entitled to.
She was happy the committee was looking at ways to balance
the budget. She was in favor of any bill that would freeze
raises for any legislators until the budget was balanced.
She supported an increase to the gas tax in Alaska. She
stressed that the gas tax in Alaska was lower than in any
other state. She referenced a gas tax proposal by Senator
Bishop that she supported. She had heard it would increase
revenue by approximately $1 billion per year. She believed
it took about $1.5 billion to pay the PFD. She was in favor
of any bill that would discontinue any state funding for
abortion. She thought it would increase state funds. She
shared that she may be in favor in an increase in education
tax. She liked the idea that Governor Dunleavy had come up
with regarding land in lieu of funds. She was supportive of
anything other than taking the PFD.
Co-Chair Johnston clarified that Senator Bishop's gas tax
bill would bring in between $20 million and $30 million for
road maintenance.
2:17:19 PM
RICHARD WARE, SELF, TOK, spoke against the bills. He
opposed the 80/20 proposal [in HB 306] that would take
funds from the PFD. He stated that taking the PFD away from
citizens disproportionately impacted poor Alaskans. He
spoke about things that PFD funds went to including wood to
heat homes. He used his PFD to pay for bills and other
things as he saw fit. He believed it was an elitist point
of view when the legislature thought it could spend the
money better than residents. He referenced a bill
containing a proposed tax on oil companies that would bring
in $1 billion. He asked if the bill passed and the
legislature started bringing in $1 billion from oil
companies whether Alaskans would get funds back that had
been taken in recent years. He reiterated his opposition to
the legislation. He shared that when he had owned a
business, he had been faced with determining places to cut
when things got tight. He thought cutting the PFD was an
easy way for the legislature to come up with money and that
it was illegal.
Representative Merrick asked if Tok was an incorporated or
unincorporated area.
Mr. Ware answered that Tok was unincorporated.
2:20:07 PM
CARRIE HARRIS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in strong opposition to both bills. She believed
immediately paying back the last four years of the PFD
would help ensure Alaskans could stay home when they were
sick. She detailed it would help slow the spread and lessen
the impact of the Coronavirus without fear of financial
hardship. She elaborated that there was a rolling financial
impact of the virus. She detailed that time off of work
caused expense to employers and individuals. Additionally,
the virus would change the way people spend money -
unnecessary spending would change. She spoke about the
extreme hit the tourist industry was about to take. She
stressed that people needed some type of financial security
or they would not spend anything in the economy. She spoke
to impacts of the virus like limited home construction and
other. Impacts would strongly hit municipalities because
shops and restaurants would be hard hit. She reiterated her
support for paying back past PFDs immediately.
2:23:11 PM
ALAN DAVIS, SELF, ANCHOR POINT (via teleconference),
opposed the bills. He thought any change to the statutory
PFD without a vote of the people should be considered
embezzlement. He believed meaningful budget cuts were
needed in order to realistically determine what additional
revenue sources were needed. He thanked the governor and
Representative Sarah Vance on their stance on fiscal
responsibility.
2:24:14 PM
DON GRAY, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), supported
HB 300. He stated that the U.S. government had been
democratic since the writing of the constitution. He shared
personal details about his life. He stated that the bill
provided for a smaller annual PFD of about $900 and did not
eliminate it. The additional money would be used for the
University of Alaska and to individual communities
throughout the state. He provided detail about the bill. He
highlighted that each Alaskan community was unique - urban,
rural, maritime, and more. He noted there were several
buildings in disrepair. He noted that former Governor Bill
Sheffield believed the dividend was a two-edged sword
because any governor who opposed or advocated taxes would
likely not be reelected. He noted that Sheffield thought
the state income tax that had been eliminated should
probably have been extended. He shared that he had been a
teacher and a stockbroker. He thought that all of the items
proposed in HB 30 [300] were ways to improve the lives of
the state's citizens - there would be a PFD,
infrastructure, schools, and services that made the state
civilized. He stressed that Alaskans were all in the
situation together. He supported the passage of HB 300 or
something better was fair to future generations.
2:29:18 PM
CALVIN CASIPIT, MAYOR, CITY OF GUSTAVUS, ANCHOR POINT (via
teleconference), supported the Community Assistance Program
and HB 300. He thought bill may help out or replace the
current program. He shared that community assistance had
been a reliable source of desperately needed funding for
small rural communities like Gustavus. He reported that
Gustavus relied on the funding to operate city services and
provide needed services to residents. The community had
limited and typically small revenue streams. He relayed
that reducing the community's budget by $20,000 had a huge
impact, especially with the threat of the Coronavirus and
the impact it may have on the tourism industry. He detailed
that most of the community's sales tax revenue was
generated by tourism. He stated that the importance of
community assistance was amplified in the current year.
Reducing state assistance could not come at a worse time
for Gustavus. He supported restoring community assistance
to the maximum allowable level. The community had a
difficult time providing services to residents without the
funds. He shared different ways the community raised
revenues including sales and bed taxes and user fees. He
stressed that community assistance funding was a vital part
of the community's funding structure. He thanked the
committee for its time.
2:32:17 PM
MIKE COONS, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the legislation. He stated that the two bills were
nothing but smoke and mirrors. He stressed that the bills
would grow government with the peoples' money. He
underscored that the bills were taxation without
representation. He supported a vote of the people on the
issue. He was one of the "unwashed valley trash" the
legislature had come to see in the summer when it traveled
around the state claiming to listen to the voters. He
believed legislators had come with an agenda and
preconceived notions about what they wanted. He thought it
had been a dog and pony show. He believed the legislature
had no intention of listening and acting on what the public
had to say. He thought the legislature had intent to spend
the money of the people to use towards its socialist goals.
He listed House Minority members on the committee that he
believed were the only members standing for the state, its
people, and their oath of office.
2:34:30 PM
SUSAN SHULER, SELF, SEWARD (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bills. She agreed with many of the
previous callers. She shared that she was part of a one-
income family in Seward. She discussed that the community
may see no cruise ships in the summer due to the
Coronavirus. She did not support a cut to the PFD. She
highlighted items such as food and fuel that were purchased
with the PFD. She stressed a reduction to the PFD would
have a tremendous hit on smaller economies around the
state. She emphasized that the PFD made a difference for
many including single parents and retired residents. She
asked what the legislature was doing to help. She stressed
there was overspending and a lack of picking up funds and
more revenue. She suggested that perhaps the deals for oil
companies needed to be less sweet. She thought the budget
had been overspent for years. She believed the topic should
go to the public for debate.
2:37:10 PM
DARREL SMITH, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), was
opposed to the bills. He thought the legislature had been
overspending for years. He stated that stealing the
dividend, which was the biggest economic driver in the
state, was crazy. He believed that private industry
supplied jobs, not government. He thought the legislature
took the money and wasted it on special interest projects.
He stated that one-fifth of the budget went to Medicaid. He
thought it required $281 million the previous week. He
remarked that if the federal government did not pay 100
percent of the Medicaid program, the state should
discontinue its participation. He supported an income tax
and a school tax. He was opposed to the state building
multimillion dollar schools. He thought communities should
pay for their own schools. He thought Anchorage needed to
implement a sales tax if it wanted money. He thought
legislators should be in jail for not fully funding past
statutory PFDs. He stated the legislators' socialist
programs would not work.
Representative LeBon asked Mr. Smith if he had a suggestion
on how to support the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
Mr. Smith replied that the legislature could take $20
billion out of the Permanent Fund to build some new ships.
2:39:34 PM
LEE LESCHPER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of HB 306. He shared that he is a small business
owner and worked with businesses of all types across the
state. He heard from most to all of the businesses about
the negative impact of the current fiscal uncertainty and
the fact that no action had been taken to resolve the
situation. He saw HB 306 as a meaningful plan that headed
in the direction of solving the fiscal situation. He stated
that continuing the status quo would not bring economic
stability, adequate state services, or a dividend. He
worked in other states that had dramatically higher
property taxes, sales taxes of 6 to 8 percent, and no
dividends. He would much rather have a small PFD with lower
taxes. He remarked he had been involved in many of the
groups that had debated the solution to the problem for
many years and HB 306 was the first meaningful plan he had
seen. He encouraged the legislature to take action.
2:41:25 PM
MARY CORNELIUS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
shared that she was a 40-year resident of Fairbanks. She
strongly opposed the bills. She stated that she was an
original resident that signed the contract with the State
of Alaska that no federal or state agency would touch her
PFD. She felt the contract had been breached. She asked
when the PFDs that had been taken would be paid back to
residents. She had opted out of receiving a lump sum
because she felt an annual dividend would benefit future
generations. She asked what the legislature would be giving
back to the people if it continued to take dividends to
increase the state budget.
Co-Chair Johnston asked what contract she had signed.
Ms. Cornelius replied that she had signed a contract an
original PFD contract when it had been up to the people to
decide whether they would receive a one-time payout. She
stated it had originally started out at $50,000, but her
family believed it was too small. She stated that each of
her family members could have taken the $50,000 and started
a business or invested in a house. She stressed they had
agreed to a PFD.
Co-Chair Johnston replied that she had been in Alaska since
1975 and had never seen a contract.
2:43:48 PM
BERT HOUGHTALIND, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference),
spoke against the bills. He stated that the plans were the
same as ones presented to a bicameral workgroup in the past
fall. He recalled that the workgroup had used a budget PFD
tool that had shown if the PFD was eliminated as the tax
revenue the legislature was trying to turn it into, it
resulted in a $900 million surplus. He noted that even with
the current market declining, there was a surplus of around
$500 million based on current Permanent Fund earnings. He
noted the Permanent Fund balance had been $68 billion, but
it was now closer to $65 billion due to the market drop. He
stressed that the bills did not reflect reality for Alaska,
which was proven by the legislature's PFD budget tool.
Mr. Houghtalind stressed that the budget tool showed the
money was not tax revenue to be used for the budget. He
stated that the plans did not provide inflation proofing or
cut from the budget. Everything that had been presented
offered a doom and gloom scenario that if the legislature
could not gain access to the ERA, it would not be able to
pay for the special interest budget. He believed special
interests were testifying. He thought the cuts would impose
the most regressive tax and would keep the state in the
longest recession it had ever seen. He did not support
turning the PFD into a giant welfare check by giving the
funds to communities. He strongly opposed the bills.
2:47:42 PM
CATHERINE SELT, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), opposed
the bills. She believed statutory changes to the PFD were
pointless because statutory formulas were ignored at will.
She supported a permanent solution for the PFD in the form
of a constitutional amendment. She thought the 80/20 split
was unfair. She stated that children knew it was right to
split things 50/50. She heard repeatedly that the state
could not afford to pay a PFD; however, the PFD did not get
the state into its current budgetary problems. She believed
the state could not afford to put off new revenue measures
any longer. She found it ridiculous there was not a plan
for broad-based taxes. She also supported additional cuts
to government services. She stressed the need for a
comprehensive approach. She noted that the state was
looking at a potential economic collapse resulting from a
decline the price of oil and in tourism in the current
year. She did not understand why the legislature would
choose to fund the budget with a revenue option that was
most harmful to Alaskan families and the economy. She did
not understand why the legislature was not looking at what
the distributional impacts of what funding the government
with the PFD would be. She supported revenue options that
included nonresidents.
2:49:53 PM
MIKE GILLIS, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to both bills. He described himself as a
realist. He believed that once the legislature got its
hands on the PFD, it would keep taking funding until it was
gone. He wanted the legislature to give residents their
subsurface mineral rights back.
2:50:43 PM
KRISTEN BUSH, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
testified against the bills. She found it unfathomable that
they were revisiting the topic. She stressed that the
legislature needed to do the hard work with the budget and
not look to steal the money from the PFD. She believed the
PFD formula had worked for a very long time. She noted that
many people would say that times had changed. She agreed
but highlighted that there had been no serious budget caps
or reductions in order to live within the state's means.
She reasoned that in a simple family budget it was
necessary to have more money coming in than going out. She
stressed that the PFD was not the personal piggybank for
every dollar and project. She was particularly upset about
the idea of taking the PFD from children. She stressed that
children had zero input in the matter. She stated it was
taxation without representation. She reiterated her desire
for a budget cap.
2:52:45 PM
JOHN ALICH, SELF, SALCHA (via teleconference), testified in
opposition to the bills. He was disappointed in the
legislature. He needed his full PFD. He shared that he had
been in Alaska since 1977 and had retired from food service
for two years. He spoke to the high cost of utilities in
Alaska. He supported receiving the full supplemental PFDs
from the past couple of years. He believed that any changes
to the PFD needed to go to a vote of the people. He stated
that his representatives were not representing their
constituents. He reiterated the need for full and past PFDs
and help with electric bills.
2:54:13 PM
ROBERT HEATHERINGTON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
was strongly opposed to the bills. He thought the situation
was ridiculous. He believed that most legislators only
cared about themselves and not individual Alaskans. He
spoke to the high heating cost in Fairbanks. He thought
legislators wanted Alaska to become a socialist state. He
asked why his neighbor had to fret that they could not make
it through the winter because they could not pay their
bills. He thought the legislature wanted to hoard all of
the money to itself to pay special interests. He opposed a
fuel tax. He stressed that residents already paid enough in
fuel tax. He thought a cut to the PFD and the addition of
taxes made no sense. He asked the legislature to listen to
the people.
2:56:52 PM
JOANIE BERNIER, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified against the bills. She found it disgusting that
the legislature was discussing the garnishment of the PFD
during a pandemic outbreak. She believed legislators needed
to demonstrate they worked for the people by protecting
them. She opined that the remainder of the current year's
PFD should be deposited immediately into Alaskan's
accounts. She thought there were a lot of low income
residents who could use the money immediately to prepare
their families and help their neighbors during the current
health crisis. She stressed that individuals could help
each other on a local, personal level more efficiently than
bureaucracy could. She thought the legislators were afraid
to put the issue to a vote because they knew Alaskans were
independent and did not want more government.
2:58:09 PM
LD HOWARD, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified
against the bills. He shared that he was a small business
owner in Mat-Su. He stressed that the PFD infused money
into all communities around Alaska. He pointed out that
money spent on recreational toys also increased the money
spent as Alaskans enjoyed the state. He stated that
retroactively paying the PFDs back would stabilize Alaska
during the current times. He added that many families saved
the PFD for their children's college funds. He believed
that stealing the PFD from Alaskans was stealing their
futures. He spoke to the slow population growth in Alaska
and asked why a reconfiguration of the PFD by taking as
much as 30 percent more was needed. He did not know why it
was an issue. He strongly encouraged the legislature to put
the issue to a vote of the people.
2:59:44 PM
JAVEN OSE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the bills. He referenced the prior testimony and
believed the people had spoken clearly on the bills. He
shared information about his personal experience living in
Alaska. He thought the legislature was trying to
"Californicate" Alaska. He stressed that Alaskans would get
all of their money back even if it took five to ten years
and required sweeping the House and Senate clean. He
demanded the legislature give residents their money back.
3:00:54 PM
WALTER TELLMAN, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), was in
favor of taking another look at how the state was spending.
He shared that and his family had lived in the state for
over 60 years. He was grateful to live in Alaska and
recognized the state was in a tough place. He supported the
bills. He thought it was necessary to do something. He was
willing to give up a portion of his PFD. He did not envy
the job facing legislators.
3:02:46 PM
DEAN KASISCHKE, SELF, SEWARD (via teleconference), did not
support the bills. He resented the way the House was using
the binding caucus to steal the PFD and take away from the
people's ability to vote on the issue. He wanted a voice in
how the PFD was distributed and spent.
3:03:54 PM
EUGENE VIRDEN, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
opposed the bills. He thought the issue would never be
settled without a vote of the people. He thought it was
terrible to take the funds away from grandchildren. He
remarked that residents used the money for higher
education. He was thankful for good representatives in his
district.
3:04:55 PM
RON JOHNSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of HB 306 or any bill that would change the PFD
formula to reflect the current realities. He discussed that
when the original formula had been developed 35 years back,
the government had been funded solely with oil money. He
pointed out that all of the Permanent Fund earnings could
have been given to the PFD at the time and it would not
have impacted the government's ability to function. He
stated that the situation was reversed in the current day.
He elaborated that most of the unrestricted general funds
came from the POMV draw. He stressed the need to have
sufficient funds from the draw to pay for the function of
government. He suggested that some of the savings from a
lower PFD could be used to buoy the Department of Health
and Social Services budget, which would help people in
need. He believed many people in the state would be fine
without a large PFD. He highlighted that for many years the
PFD was around $1,000 and there had been no complaints at
the time. He was in favor of a bill like HB 306 that
reflected the realities of the present. He reiterated that
most government funding was coming out of the Permanent
Fund and it was necessary to preserve the fund for the
future to enable government to function and to deal with
crisis like the Coronavirus.
3:07:03 PM
VIVIA KUZMIN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
spoke against HB 306. She believed it was unfair for the
legislature to take away the people's share of the 50/50
allocation of the PFD. She supported a vote of the people
on the issue.
Co-Chair Johnston noted there were no additional
individuals online to testify. She shared the call-in
numbers and email addresses to provide testimony.
3:08:53 PM
RECESSED
5:02:29 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the public testimony protocol
and reviewed the call in numbers.
5:04:12 PM
BRUCE BARCUS, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), did not
support former Governor Walker's decision to veto a portion
of past PFDs. He stated the people of Alaska all had
interest in the dividend. He believed special interest
groups asking for money took money out of the pockets of
Alaskans. He thought the people should be allowed to decide
what to do. He supported a petition to get the issue on the
ballot. He discussed the dramatic drop in the stock market
and the difficult financial times. He shared that he had to
quit his job and was looking for work. He stated that the
PFD would go a long way helping his pocketbook in the
current year. He was hoping the governor would request a
vote on the issue by the people and veto all special
interest groups.
Representative Merrick referred to the term special
interest group. She asked who Mr. Barcus was referring to.
Mr. Barcus thought there were three different groups who
had weighed in on using funds from the PFD. He would have
to go back to look at the information. He knew the dividend
had been used to make up for losses in the budget. He
believed the people should decide where the money went. He
stated that the reductions to the PFD by former Governor
Walker had hurt many people.
Co-Chair Johnston noted that Representative Knopp and
Representative LeBon had joined the meeting.
5:10:05 PM
DAVE MAXWELL, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified
against the bills. He stated that the governor had tried
the previous year. He stated that there was a recall effort
and he asked for what. He stated that the issue was more
volatile because oil prices had declined and would not
sustain the state. Additionally, the stock market would
currently not grow the Permanent Fund. He shared that as
responsible people, he and his wife had their children put
money away in a savings account to use responsibly. He
thought the governor's actions represented responsibility.
He emphasized that the governor's actions had not
threatened any legislators or agencies the previous year.
He viewed it as responsible action. He thought the bills
tried to make up for the irresponsibility placed on the
governor the previous year.
Co-Chair Johnston redirected the topic to the bills.
5:13:31 PM
RICHARD WAGNER, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bills. He stated that the legislature
and the former governor had been trying to dip into the PFD
portion of the budget and to take away the PFD to do so. He
did not support efforts to take away the dividend. He
recalled that when the Permanent Fund had been established,
the portion allotted to the PFD was not supposed to be
touched unless the legislature got rid of the dividend with
a minimum two-thirds vote. He added that the reserve
account was meant for emergencies. He remarked that the
passage of SB 21 [oil tax reform legislation passed in
2013] had taken billions of dollars away from the state's
budget. He spoke in opposition to the oil tax regime
established under SB 21. He stressed that the people's
portion of the dividend should not be touched.
5:16:13 PM
AT EASE
5:16:39 PM
RECONVENED
PENCIA BEATON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bills. She believed most legislators
were in office by defrauding the people by saying they were
something they were not. She stressed that legislators
represented the people. She emphasized that the PFD money
belonged to the people. She wanted her mineral rights and
the interest on the PFD that was "stolen" by former
Governor Walker. She thought special interest groups
including unions and nonprofits were taking the money.
5:18:28 PM
AFIA KUZMAN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
spoke against HB 306. She believed it was inappropriate for
the legislature to change the 50/50 split to 20/80. She
stated that families used the funding to buy food,
clothing, fuel, and to help the poor. She wanted the issue
to be put to a vote by the citizens of Alaska.
5:19:41 PM
VIRINIA KUZMIN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
she did not support HB 306. She shared that she was 13
years old and saved her PFDs to start her adult life when
she turned 18. She felt that lowering the percentage share
for the PFD was unfair. She thought the issue should be put
to a vote.
5:20:43 PM
MICHELLE LEBLANC, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
opposed the bills. She shared information about her
Athabascan and Inupiat background. She believed legislators
had been breaking laws by having secret meetings and by
stealing the peoples' PFDs. She spoke against the justice
system that had upheld the lawmakers' thievery. She
believed those involved were elitists who believed regular
people were not intelligent enough to handle their money.
She elaborated that they believed people like Alaska
Natives were wasting their money on drugs and alcohol and
other foolish things they did not need, which is why
lawmakers thought they had the right to steal the PFD. She
stated that legislators were not considering the cost of
food, transportation, fuel, and other essential needs. She
stated that former Governor Jay Hammond had established the
PFD for the people. She concluded that with the exception
of a few legislators, they were using the people's money
for special interests.
5:23:35 PM
DON STEVENS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bills. He remarked that people were
always speaking negatively against Native Alaskans who were
the minority in the state. He shared that he and his family
used the PFD for food and gas. He highlighted the high cost
of transportation and heating in rural Alaska. He thought
many people did not understand the issue and thought rural
residents were using the money for alcohol and drugs. He
disputed the claim and shared that he used the funding for
food, fuel, and other essential items. He detailed that he
was a subsistence user and he used money from the PFD for
gas for fishing, food, and airfare. He reiterated his
opposition taking the PFD. He noted there was other
resources the legislature could tap such as gas. He thanked
the committee for its time.
5:26:25 PM
YUNIA KUZMIN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to HB 306. She shared that she was
15 years old. She felt it was unfair to change the PFD
percentage from 50/50 to 20/80. She explained that many
people used the funding to support their families. Her
family used the funding to purchase food, clothes, and to
pay bills. She asked the legislature to let the people vote
on the issue. She thanked the committee.
5:27:11 PM
FRANK BAUER, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the bills. He spoke against increasing the amount
the state could spend from the Permanent Fund. He was also
opposed to income or sales taxes because he did not believe
the changes would solve the state's budget problem. He
stated that the taxes had not solved the federal
government's or other states' budget problems. He stressed
that it was not possible to solve a problem without knowing
what the problem was. He thought the state was in denial
about its spending problem; therefore, the problem remained
from year to year. He stated that except in the case of a
catastrophic event, there was no such thing as a revenue
problem because everyone, including government, received
their income from the same economic source. He opined that
whenever government tried to solve problems by increasing
revenue, the problems were pushed onto the people, which
meant residents had to cut spending. He stated the
situation had a negative impact on business, which reduced
government revenue in the next fiscal year. He explained
that the problem was cyclical.
5:29:39 PM
KAREN PERRY, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), testified
against the bills. She thanked Representative Tilton for
standing strong on PFD issues. She provided detail on her
history in Alaska. She was vehemently opposed to changing
the statutory PFD from a 50/50 split to 80/20 with 80
percent going to increase the size and scope of government.
She believed any change to the formula should go to a vote
of the people as per the state's constitution. She stressed
that all government originated with the people. She thought
some legislators chose to grow government on the backs of
people. She underscored that taking the PFD was stealing
from children. She believed taking the PFD was ruining
small businesses and breaking the law.
5:32:15 PM
SIVERIAN KUZMIN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
testified against HB 306. He did not support the change to
the PFD formula and believed it was the peoples' money. He
thanked the committee. He thought the issue should go to a
vote.
5:33:09 PM
MELISSA GUDOBBA, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bills. She thought the legislature was
breaking the law and constitution. She stressed that the
people needed the money now more than ever. She stated that
the people did not need legislators to dip into their
pockets and say they could budget better. She thought it
was socialism. She did not believe the state's children
should experience the hardships the legislature was
bringing. She supported budget cuts. She shared that when
her family budget was tight, she cut spending. She believed
the government needed to do the same thing.
Co-Chair Johnston noted the meeting would reconvene at 6:00
p.m.
5:34:59 PM
AT EASE
6:02:19 PM
RECONVENED
JONATHAN GORDAOFF, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
opposed the bills. He thought the legislators were crooks
and were stealing from his family. He thought they were
trying very hard to steal the money. He challenged the
legislature to put the issue to a vote of the people. He
stressed that the money belonged to Alaskans. He believed
the overspending was ridiculous. He stated that legislators
would be fired if they worked for a private company.
6:04:12 PM
TRISH WAGNER MIKOLAJCZK, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to the bills. She
shared information about her personal background. She asked
what the bills were funding. She asked if the bills would
take 80 percent of the Permanent Fund.
Co-Chair Johnston clarified that the bills pertained to the
structured draw from the Permanent Fund that went to
funding the dividend and state services.
Ms. Mikolajczk did not know who in office kept destroying
the people's money from the state's natural resources. She
shared that she had reviewed the Alaska's Clear and
Equitable Share (ACES) regime enacted under the Palin
administration. She stated that unfortunately legislators
did not stick with ACES and wanted to be bought and paid by
big oil. She remarked that the state had given oil
companies over $2 billion per year under SB 21. She did not
want to give anymore of the PFD away for unethical things.
She stated the PFD was established for the people. She
thought fixing SB 21 would solve the problem. She believed
using the Permanent Fund was never supposed to go towards
funding government. She stated that funds should go to
Alaskans for the next generation. She reiterated her
opposition to the bills.
Co-Chair Johnston recessed the meeting until 6:30 p.m.
6:08:01 PM
AT EASE
6:29:03 PM
RECONVENED
BARBARA MELLAND, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
opposed the bills. She shared history about her personal
background in Alaska. She relayed that she had filled out
her PFD application the previous evening and almost 500,000
people had applied. She wondered if the committee was
considering the vast number of people who were counting on
the PFD. She stressed that everyone she knew was unhappy
about the 80/20 split proposal. She believed legislators
did not care what the people thought. She was unhappy about
the situation.
6:30:28 PM
RON BERNIER, SELF, MEADOW LAKES (via teleconference),
testified against the bills. He shared that he and his wife
had nine children and his family relied on the PFD for
college savings, to start businesses for their children,
and other. He stated that if they would have received
$62,194 in the last few years if the PFD had not been taken
from his family. He stated that all Alaskans relied on the
PFD. He reiterated his opposition to the bills.
6:31:50 PM
SARAHANN JACKSON, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
strongly opposed the bills. She was appalled that the issue
kept coming up. She underscored that the public had
repeatedly called in to testify against taking the PFD. She
stressed that the PFD was not the legislature's money. She
stated it was a clown show. She emphasized that the
legislators would not wear the people down. She was
finished with the crazy thing legislators called a
government. She chided the legislature for its actions.
6:34:06 PM
DAVID NEES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), thanked
the committee for putting the bills out for public
testimony. He observed that the majority of testifiers were
not in favor of the bills. He hoped the committee would
consider that information. He remarked that if the
legislature passed the two bills it would have the option
of ignoring them like it had ignored the current laws. He
thought the proposals were interesting and should be
debated. He highlighted that testimony indicated that the
bills should not make it further than the current
committee. He pointed out that for the purpose of meeting
decorum it was disrespectful to the public testifiers when
committee members were looking at their phones during the
meeting.
Representative Merrick asked what Mr. Nees's ideal scenario
would be for the Permanent Fund.
Mr. Nees believed the state should probably go back to a
50/50 model as under former Governor Jay Hammond. He
supported putting the issue to a vote of the people. He
stated that the people had spoken once before on the issue
and it had been clear the people believed the private
sector was the best use of the fund. He noted that the
private sector was suffering because it had done without
for a while. He suggested concentrating on the core
mission. He explained that if the mission could not be
delivered "for what we have," the state would be in a great
deal of trouble if the price of oil continued to drop. He
highlighted that when the stock market dropped, the
Permanent Fund corpus did not earn as much. He preferred
the 50/50 split. He suggested defining the core mission for
services - there were many state services that had not been
provided 50 years earlier.
Representative Merrick asked if it would be possible to get
to a 50/50 split through cuts in the budget. Alternatively,
she wondered if Mr. Nees thought it would require raising
revenue through taxes or another source.
Mr. Nees believed it was likely a combination of both. He
believed the biggest problem was there were not enough
people in the state generating enough income to pay the
state's bills being produced. He explained it would be
necessary to tax each resident $17,000 to keep up with the
spending. He thought that even if spending were cut there
would continue to be a big load to carry. He recommended
refocusing on the state's core mission in terms of
delivering services.
6:37:55 PM
GREG WEAVER, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), opposed
the bills. He shared that he was disabled, and his workers'
compensation case had taken 6.5 years to get to the supreme
court. He appreciated Governor Dunleavy. He was frustrated
watching lawmakers in Juneau arguing matters that were not
of concern to anyone. He seriously objected to the bills.
He wished most of the committees were headed by people who
were on the road system. He wanted to see the capital move
to the road system.
6:40:57 PM
NEIL KUZMIN, SELF, DELTANA (via teleconference), testified
against HB 306. He shared that he is 15 years old. He
relayed that his parents had not been able to afford to pay
bills based on the PFD amount provided the previous year.
He detailed that his family was in the fishing industry. He
was faced with missing school to go fishing.
6:41:58 PM
KURT SCHMIDT, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
opposed HB 306. He remarked that the representative
government was supposed to take care of the people of the
state. He shared that his representative had his staff
taken away and he had a difficult time reaching him. He
reported that HB 306 would take away resources that many
Alaskans had understood to be a part of. He highlighted
that the PFD was a substantial contributor to the state
economy. He thought continued spending by the legislature
was irresponsible. He stated that withholding resources
from the state economy was crippling to rural villages,
small businesses on the road system, and many families. He
thought state spending should be cut back. He thought any
change to the percentage allocated to the PFD should go to
a vote of the people. He remarked that the proposed change
to the PFD did not reflect representative government. He
spoke to the silencing of various legislators by the
Majority. He did not trust the legislature to make good
decisions.
Representative Wool asked who Mr. Schmidt's representative
was.
Mr. Schmidt replied Mike Shower.
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Schmidt lived in Delta,
Alaska.
Mr. Schmidt replied affirmatively. He detailed that when he
contacted Senator Shower he did not get an immediate
response as he had in the past. He had been told by Senator
Shower that his number of staff had been cut.
Representative Wool noted that there was also a state
representative for the district.
Co-Chair Johnston relayed the representative was
Representative George Raucher.
6:45:46 PM
SHERRY EICHENLAUB, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
spoke against the bills. She was very unhappy with what she
was seeing going on in Juneau. She echoed comments by
previous testifiers.
6:46:28 PM
STERLING GALLAGHAR, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
shared that he had been the commissioner of the Department
of Revenue under the former Governor Jay Hammond. He stated
that he had drafted the Permanent Fund and developed the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. He stated that the idea
that the state did not have enough money was "poppycock."
He remarked that the state's current spending was lower
than when there had been oil. He believed it was because
the state did not have any income tax or other similar
things. He shared that there had been an income tax and
severance tax in the past that yielded about $1.3 billion
per year. He elaborated that there were pots of money
totaling $3 billion to $4 billion that would enable the
Permanent Fund to be sustained. For example, the Power Cost
Equalization (PCE) Fund contained $1.495 billion.
Mr. Gallaghar suggested having the Permanent Fund write an
annuity contract to deliver the $29 million in PCE funds
needed per year; it would leave almost $900 million left
over. He thought it would go a long way towards solving the
revenue problem. He stated that Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) earned 2.2 percent and Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) earned 0.3
percent. He asked the committee to make the state work like
the financial institution it was designed to be. He
believed AHFC and AIDEA could earn 8 to 10 percent. He
stated that the funds could increase earnings. He stressed
the need for legislative follow up. He discussed the need
to institute more fixed income. He was frustrated at the
legislature not using the tools it had in place. He
supported a full PFD.
6:49:12 PM
ALEXANDRA KUZMIN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via
teleconference), testified against the bills. Her family
depended on fishing for their livelihood and there had been
fewer fish to catch. Her family worked very hard to earn a
living. She shared that the oil industry had impacted
fishing. Her family counted on the PFD because fishing was
no longer as good. She remarked that her family paid high
taxes and she did not support a cut to the PFD. She was
against the 80/20 split in HB 306.
Representative Wool asked where the family fished.
Ms. Kuzmin replied "Homer."
Co-Chair Johnston noted there were no additional people
online. She took an "at ease" until 7:00 p.m.
6:50:46 PM
AT EASE
7:00:46 PM
RECONVENED
JENNA STEVENS, SELF, STEVENS VILLAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the bills. She did not support the
legislature using the PFD. She shared that she lived a
subsistence lifestyle in rural Alaska and relied on a PFD
to survive. She discussed that the economy was harsh, and
the PFD was needed. She spoke to the need to look out for
future generations. She asked what they would teach their
children about holding on to their cultural values as
Alaska Native indigenous people. She shared that the funds
were put back into the state's economy. Many of the state's
villages were diminishing and people were having to leave
to go to school, which meant that cultural values were
being lost. She thanked the committee for listening.
7:03:19 PM
LINDA TREMBACK, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
testified on HB 306. She thought the issue should be
brought to voters for approval. She shared that she was a
single mom with an adult handicapped child who lived with
her and two other children. She stressed that life in
Alaska was expensive. She used her PFDs for fuel in the
winter. She provided 24-hour care for her son. She counted
on the funds and shared that she was not on any other
assistance. She reiterated that the issue should go to the
people for a vote. She believed there was wasteful
government spending that could be improved.
Representative Carpenter referenced Ms. Tremback's
testimony that she had a handicapped child. She asked if
she was happy with state services she had received.
Ms. Tremback replied in the affirmative; it was the reason
she had stayed in Alaska. She shared that her son had many
different opportunities. She detailed that he had been born
with Down's syndrome. He was 28 years old and had a severe
seizure disorder. She elaborated that he needed 24-hour
care - he was in diapers and could not speak. She explained
that it was a tough life for him. She shared that she had
received recent approval from the state to put her son on
CBD oil and he now went days without seizures.
Representative Carpenter stated she was a true saint.
Co-Chair Johnston CLOSED public testimony.
HB 300 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 306 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston provided the schedule for the following
day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 306 HB 300 Public Testimony Rec'd by 031220 (2).pdf |
HFIN 3/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 300 HB 300 HB 306 HB 306 |
| HB 306 HB 300 Public Testimony Rec'd by 031720 (2).pdf |
HFIN 3/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 300 HB 306 |