Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/05/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB32 | |
| SB23|| SB24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 23-APPROP:SUPP. PAYMENTS OF PRIOR YEARS' PFD
SB 24-PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS
4:22:30 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act making special appropriations from the earnings reserve
account for the payment of permanent fund dividends; and
providing for an effective date." and SENATE BILL NO. 24 "An Act
directing the Department of Revenue to pay dividends to certain
eligible individuals; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SHOWER noted that the committee first heard the bills
February 1, 2019. He welcomed Mr. Tangeman and Mr. Mr. Milks to
the witness table.
4:23:08 PM
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Revenue,
introduced himself.
4:23:20 PM
WILLIAM MILKS, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, introduced himself.
CHAIR SHOWER stated that the intent is to take questions and
allow further explanation of SB 23 and SB 24 today, then
consider amendments and move the bills in the next couple of
meetings.
He asked Mr. Milks to talk about the eligibility requirements.
4:25:15 PM
MR. MILKS summarized that bills provide three years of one-time
payments to make up the difference between the dividend payments
in 2016, 2017, and 2018 and the statutorily formulated amounts
for those years. He said DOL views this concept as a policy
question without a significant legal issue regarding
eligibility. The eligibility requirements are that an individual
who is eligible this year and received a dividend in 2016 is
eligible to receive the back payment. The same process applies
in 2020 and 2021 to receive the back payments for 2017 and 2018.
He said DOL considered, but did not find, legal issues related
to eligibility. He acknowledged that in the early 1980s the
Zobels challenged the constitutionality of the original
eligibility standard. That dividend program had major
distinctions between residents. For example, a person who was a
resident for one year would receive one-twenty-fifth of the
dividend a person who had been a resident for 25 years.
MR. MILKS said the current proposal is to make one-time payments
with eligibility reviewed under the rational basis standard,
which is the lowest standard of equal protection review under
both the state and federal constitutions. This standard looks at
whether the legislature has a rational basis to draw a
distinction between individuals and DOL's view is that there is
a rational basis for the distinction. He said courts are very
deferential to legislative bodies when they review distinctions
that have a rational basis that do not involve subsequent
classifications such as those based on race, sex or religion,
which are based on the highest level of scrutiny. An economic
interest and a distinction based on being eligible and receiving
a dividend in 2016 and being eligible for a dividend in 2019 is,
in DOL's view, a valid and legitimate basis for the legislature
to draw a distinction. He reiterated that DOL views this as a
policy question rather than a legal matter.
CHAIR SHOWER asked how people who have committed crimes would be
treated in the payback.
MR. MILKS clarified that an individual would have to be eligible
in 2019 and have been eligible and received a dividend in 2016.
CHAIR SHOWER asked the legal precedent for having a one or two
year residency requirement to be eligible for the dividend.
4:31:12 PM
MR. MILKS said there's not a real bright line on eligibility
distinctions for various kinds of state benefits. Responding to
the chair's question about the Zobel case, he said that was a
case that challenged the first dividend program that allowed a
significant difference in the amount based on years of
residency. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s
and the program based on years of residency was found
unconstitutional. The state did not have a valid interest to
make that distinction. That is why the current dividend program
establishes a residency requirement and pays the same size
dividend to all eligible applicants. It is DOL's view that this
circumstance is different than the Zobel case. This is a one-
time payment [for three years] to address the specific situation
of not paying the dividend according to the statutory formula.
In Zobel, the court talked about looking at whether the
legislature had a valid interest that could rationally support a
distinction between individuals. In this circumstance, DOL's
view is that the legislature would have a rational, legal basis
to support this distinction. It says that before money is paid
out for the dividend, the person has to be a resident right now.
Then the specific situation can be addressed, which is a
particular year when the dividend was not paid according to
formula. DOL's view is the court will look at whether the
legislature has a rational basis to draw a distinction between
individuals.
4:34:55 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if DOL believes, based on that court
decision, that the state has the ability to require two years
residency instead of one to qualify for a dividend.
MR. MILKS said they would need to look at how cases have
developed since the Zobel case, but DOL does believe that the
legislature has the ability to address this situation without
violating the constitution.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he foresees a problem with citizens using
something like Pick.Click.Give.org to allocate their dividend to
either education specifically or the general fund.
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Revenue,
said there are ways such as Pick.Click.Give.org or the education
raffle for citizens to give away all or part of their dividend.
Some citizens already sign and ask for their checks to be
deposited to the general fund. From a technical perspective,
there would be programing costs to expand the options to give
individual dividends to specific state services, but it could be
done.
CHAIR SHOWER said he just wanted to understand whether there
would be legal ramifications associated with dedicating
dividends to a specific service such as education since there is
a prohibition against dedicated funds.
4:40:20 PM
MR. MILKS said he thinks an individual could say they want their
money to go to education because people have always been able to
make bequests to the state for a particular purpose. That is not
viewed as an overall dedication but rather an individual giving
a specific gift for a specific purpose. He clarified that he had
not thought it through completely, but this seems to fit in that
framework.
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out the need for each department to
have receipt authority if this amounts to a lot of money or be
set up in Pick.Click.Give.org. He also opined that it would be
designated funds if the funds left the general fund or the
earnings reserve and came back to the state as a designated
general fund item in the form of a contribution.
He asked Mr. Tangeman to clarify that legislation is required
for the appropriation and the payback and that checks won't
immediately appear. He said he sees a clear misunderstanding of
the process in some blogs, emails and public testimony.
4:43:54 PM
COMMSSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN explained that the legislature has
to appropriate money from the earnings reserve to the dividend
fund. Then the dividend is distributed at the instruction of the
Department of Revenue in early October. There is definitely a
process and the legislature has a role, he said.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that the governor can't write 650,000
$3,000 checks. There is a process and the legislature is going
through that process right now.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said that's correct.
CHAIR SHOWER added that DOR gets to write the checks.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN agreed.
4:45:09 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Milks if DOL was disputing the legal
analysis from legislative legal that questioned the
constitutionality of SB 24. In part it said:
...a court would likely find SB 24 to be an
unconstitutional durational residency requirement by
discriminating against some state residents and by
infringing on an individual's fundamental right to
travel.
MR. MILKS responded that he has not seen the memorandum but DOL
does not view the issue that way. Rather, they believe the court
would look at whether there was a rational basis for the
distinction between residents. He acknowledged that any
legislation can be challenged.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said that legislative legal always issues a
memo to highlight potential constitutional issues it sees, and
the legislator and the bill drafter try to correct those
potential issues. He asked if DOL drafted a memo cautioning that
there might be a constitutional issue with SB 24.
4:47:29 PM
MR. MILKS explained that DOL drafted this legislation with the
view that the legislature is not barred from making this
distinction.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether or not the Department of Law
issued a memo or a statement to the Office of the Governor
warning that constitutional challenges could arise should SB 24
pass.
MR. MILKS replied he would not answer specifically because DOL
has an attorney-client-relationship with the governor's office,
but the question could be presented in writing. He added, "But
what I can tell you is our view from the Department of Law is
that this would be a constitutional piece of legislation. That
it would survive a constitutional challenge."
4:48:38 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied, "My official request is that we see
something from the Department of Law that says Senate Bill 24
would be considered constitutional because I know each of us has
a memo that says it probably isn't."
CHAIR SHOWER determined that Senator Kawasaki preferred that the
committee make the request and said he would have it formally
drafted from the Senate State Affairs Committee.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if this would be subject to appropriation
in any given year.
MR. MILKS said yes.
SENATOR COGHILL said he asked because one legislature can't bind
another. The way to do it is to have one legislature make a
suggestion to another, but there is no obligation.
MR. MILKS said that is DOL's understanding.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. King to continue the explanation that was
cut short in the previous meeting about what would happen to the
permanent fund if there was a payout and the stock market
declined appreciably.
4:50:39 PM
EDWARD KING, Chief Economist, Office of Management and Budget,
said he hoped to have this conversation on Thursday when the
committee had received the materials he recently prepared.
CHAIR SHOWER said he'd hold the question. He asked if he was
prepared to clarify the analogy from the previous meeting about
the intake and outflow of the earnings reserve.
MR. KING explained that the permanent fund corporation
projection of earnings is a little more than $4 billion a year.
Those earnings go into the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA). The
other side of the transaction log shows all the funds that are
flowing out of the account. The only money that is allowed to
flow out of the account into the General Fund is under the
percent of market value (POMV) law, Senate Bill 26 that passed
in 2018. That is in the neighborhood of $3 billion. The required
statutory inflation-proofing of the principal amounts to about
$1 billion. That money flows from the holding account into the
principal account which prevents it from being spent by future
legislatures.
He summarized that the entire account is growing by about $1
billion a year from its earnings plus whatever royalty deposits
there are, and the outflow is only $3 billion. However, to think
that over the next three years you can withdraw a total of $9
billion from the $16 billion account and end up with $7 billion
is faulty math because that doesn't count the inflows of cash.
CHAIR SHOWER said that was the point he was trying to make at
the last meeting. That's why he simplified to math to say $20
thousand in the account, put $4 thousand in and take $4 thousand
out leaves a balance of $20 thousand. He said he wanted it to be
clear to the public that money is both flowing in and flowing
out of the fund. He said this relates directly to SB 23 and how
the payback scheme would work.
4:54:33 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE described that as a very general statement that
hinges on the assumption that $4 billion is flowing into the
account and that only $4 billion is flowing out. He added that
the committee will see more modeling on that, including possible
overdraws by the legislature. He said his concern is that if the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) draw does not pass and there
aren't sufficient cuts in the budget, there is a strong
possibility that the legislature will overdraw the earnings
reserve. In that circumstance, more than $4 billion (with
inflation proofing) would be flowing out. He said his real
concern is overdrawing the money that is potentially flowing
out. He drew an analogy to teens smoking their first cigarette;
it's much easier to smoke a second one. He noted that the stress
test problem associated with overdrawing the earnings reserve
would be discussed during the next meeting.
CHAIR SHOWER confirmed that those issues would be discussed on
Thursday. The intent is to answer all the questions and clarify
the assumptions that are the basis of DOR's analysis.
4:57:29 PM
MR. KING responded that the earlier conversation was that both
sides of the equation, the draws and the earnings, should be
considered.
4:58:18 PM
CHAIR SHOWER stated that he would hold SB 23 and SB 24 in
committee.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified for the public that the individual
members of the committee ask questions about the legislation in
order to understand the impacts and protection of the permanent
fund as well as the fair distribution of the PFD, not because
they support or oppose the legislation.
4:59:55 PM
CHAIR SHOWER agreed and recessed the meeting until 6:00 pm when
public testimony would continue on SB 23 and SB 24.
6:01:34 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting at 6:01 and noted that all
members were present. He stated that the purpose this evening is
to take public testimony on SB 23 and SB 24. He limited
testimony to one minute and asked everyone to be respectful and
focus their comments on the bills, not the budget.
6:04:43 PM
LORA VESS, representing self, Juneau, said she opposes both SB
23 and SB 24 and she finds it difficult to talk about the PFD
unrelated to what it could supplement that is proposed to be cut
from the budget. She said she isn't speaking solely because she
works for the university; it's because she believes that
government services are vitally important, and she sees that
they are connected to the spending of the PFD.
6:06:45 PM
KENLEY JACKSON, representing self, Sitka, said she opposes SB 23
and SB 24. Her mother-in-law lives in the Pioneer Home and her
out-of-pocket payment is going up $8,000 per month. She
acknowledged the difficult fiscal climate and respectfully asked
the committee to consider the needs of all Alaskans and to
provide funding for services that everyone relies on, rather
than authorizing individual checks. She said she doesn't have
children, but she would gladly pay an income tax if schools,
ferries, and state services received more funding.
6:07:30 PM
KATIE BOTZ, representing self, Juneau, said she is deeply
opposed to both SB 23 and SB 24 because they will drive the
state into bankruptcy. She suggested the Governor could do a
better job of proving his true intentions for the state. She
described the PFD as an entitlement.
6:09:00 PM
LINDA TIMOTHY-WOOD, representing self, Palmer, stated support
for SB 23 and SB 24.
6:09:38 PM
KATHLEEN SHOOP, representing self, Palmer, stated support for SB
23 and SB 24. The economy needs the PFD, she said.
6:10:08 PM
DENISE BOGUE, representing self, Anchorage, said she supports
continuing to receive the PFD and the payback. Taking the
dividend has had a drastic effect on her family budget. She said
they use it to buy food, clothing, and other essential needs for
their home, family and local businesses. We'll remember you when
we vote, she warned.
6:10:53 PM
MIKE MICKELSON, representing self, Cordova, stated that he is
completely opposed to SB 23 and SB 24. He is a lifelong
resident, a teacher, and a fisherman. He said the PFD is
financially helpful but not at the expense of the services he'll
be forced to give up with Governor Dunleavy's proposed budget.
He voiced opposition to cutting education and fish and game. He
said the Alaska Marine Highway is his road and comparing its
cost per mile to a regular road is unrealistic. He agrees that
the state should make cuts but not so the reduced PFDs can be
paid back. He opined that that methodology is counter to the
original intent of the PFD program and that the state should
return to the income tax model.
6:12:08 PM
RICHARD KULLBERG, representing self, Anchorage, stated
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He described the bills as an
attempt to rewrite the state budget for the last three years. He
said it would be okay to retroactively increase the dividend if
it was also possible to retroactively increase the price of oil.
That's not possible, he said, so we should move on. He said he
speaks for many Alaskans who not only want a budget that is
balanced but also a budget that is civilized, one that provides
health, education, and public safety. These Alaskans are willing
to pay for it with a reduced PFD, he said.
6:13:08 PM
PAT HOLMES, representing self, Kodiak, said he opposes SB 23 and
SB 24. He opined that there should be a state income tax and a
head tax.
6:13:52 PM
GARVAN BUCARIA, representing self, Wasilla, stated opposition to
SB 23 and SB 24. He said a $3,000 dividend will provide a short
term benefit but will likely result in the imposition of a state
income tax, local tax increases, nickel and dime fees and
charges to subsidize education and other necessary public
benefits. Furthermore, there is a need to retain the earnings
reserve fund for investment for the future, he said.
6:15:27 PM
LAURIE WALTON, representing self, Fairbanks, stated strong
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She said she would much rather
have her portion of the PFD go toward sustaining things like
public education and the ferry system that make her community a
place to live. If the budget remains as proposed, people will
leave their communities and the state, she said.
6:16:33 PM
ELISABETH BRENNAN, representing self and family, Nome, described
SB 23 and SB 24 as poor policy that threatens the state she
loves. She doesn't support these bills, and neither should the
Senate State Affairs Committee. She opined that it would
endanger the financial stability of the Alaska Permanent Fund to
cut the budget so drastically in order to pay higher dividends.
She pointed out that the budget has already been cut
significantly the last several years and she believes other
revenue sources should be considered.
6:17:35 PM
BRIAN LIEB, representing self, Douglas, said he strongly opposes
SB 23 and SB 24 because the permanent fund was established to
create a predictable, financial situation for the state. He
opined the offering "this bribe" and cutting state services at
the same time is reprehensible and should not be done.
6:18:11 PM
KATHLEEN KREISS, representing self, Sitka, said she is a retired
physician who is urging the committee to vote no on both SB 23
and SB 23. She offered her belief that government should serve
the people by enabling services that benefit everyone
collectively. These services include strong schools, a
university system that educates informed citizens,
transportation such as the Alaska Marine Highway System, support
for seniors through the Pioneer Homes, and support for
vulnerable people through Medicaid. These collective needs are
more important than a large permanent fund dividend check. She
stated support for an income tax to develop an economy that is
sustainable without sole reliance on resource extraction.
6:19:04 PM
THOMAS SKONIECZKI, representing self, Anchorage, said he is a
lifelong Alaska who has seen that the permanent fund enhance the
state economy. He supports the permanent fund for the people not
the government, because it enhances small and large businesses
in Alaska, social services, and the elderly. "The permanent fund
was made for the people, not the government, and it should stay
that way for future generations, so I'm for the permanent fund
and not balancing the budget," he said.
6:20:07 PM
ORTH APRIL representing self, Kenai, stated support for SB 23
and SB 24 to restore the PFD. She said she can use the money for
her daughter's education, and it helps community stores and the
economy. She shared that she recently watched a documentary
where Jay Hammond said the permanent fund was created for the
people, not the government.
6:21:09 PM
SUMMER KOESTER, representing self, Juneau, said she is an
educator who supports the PFD but not at the expense of
education. Noting that her sixth grade class has 36 students and
some colleagues has even more, she said schools need more money,
not less. She shared that even with the $20 million that was
forward funded last year for education, her school will lose two
fulltime positions next year due to flat funding, which will
translate to even larger class sizes. She said the Governor may
have proposed this budget to make a compromise seem more
satisfactory, but schools can't afford more cuts. Our children
and society will pay the price, she said.
6:22:04 PM
ELEILA PRESTON, representing self, Wasilla, said she is a former
professional educator and a homeschool mother. She shared that
her homeschooled children are doing better than their peers and
the cost is a fraction of what it costs the state. She said her
current concern is that her children will not only lose their
PFDs, but also pay state income taxes for the rest of their
lives. She said she would love for her kids to see politicians
follow through on their campaign promises. She urged the
committee to vote yes on both SB 23 and SB 24.
6:22:38 PM
MICHEAL GOZDOR, representing self, Wasilla, stated that as a 25-
year Alaskan and a business owner, he supports the PFD payback.
It will boost the economy and small businesses like his.
6:23:25 PM
TANIA HARRISON, representing self, Cordova, said she opposes SB
23 and SB 24 because it is irresponsible to strain the state's
resources for an increase in the permanent fund dividend. "An
extra thousand dollars in the hands of an individual will not
come close to covering the added cost of living for people in
communities where the state has cut funding for state services
and taken money from local governments." She emphasized that the
PFD is not an entitlement and should never be prioritized of the
state's duty to its citizens.
6:24:25 PM
KRISTINE MANN, representing self, Anchorage, said she has been
involved in education for the 42 years that she's been a
resident. She strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24 and believes the
PFD payback should be eliminated. She also recommends reducing
the dividend this year and following the formula set out in
Senate Bill 26 for the benefit of the children and grandchildren
living in the state.
6:25:45 PM
SALLY SCHLICHTING, representing self, Juneau, said she opposes
SB 23 and SB 24. She cited Internal Revenue Source data and
calculated that $266 million of the estimated $2.4 billion
dividend payback will go straight back to the federal treasury.
She opined that the money should stay in Alaska and that the
entire $2.4 billion should be used to fund essential state
services and infrastructure. She'd have to pay federal tax on
the payback, and she could not use what is left to pay for a
teacher, a state ferry, building a bridge, or maintaining a
road. Such services and projects are most effectively delivered
by state government, she said. They create and sustain jobs for
Alaskans.
6:26:54 PM
CAROLYN MACINTYRE, representing self, Sitka, said she was
calling to voice strong opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She said
the PFD was great when the state was awash in oil "but, pun
intended, that well has dried up." The focus should be on
solutions for the future and that is our children. She said she
would be happy to give up her PFD to ensure that all of Alaska's
children receive a good education. They are more important, she
said.
6:27:53 PM
RUSSEL SAMPSON, representing self, Wasilla, stated that she
strongly opposes both SB 23 and SB 24.
6:28:58 PM
PATRICK MAYER, representing self, Yakutat, stated that he is a
35-year resident of Alaska who stands in opposition to SB 23 and
SB 24. He suggested that in lieu of the annual PFD and the
proposed backfill, the revenue should be directed back into the
General Fund to protect existing state services. The idea of the
state paying out full dividends while not meeting its financial
obligations, particularly the constitutional obligation to fund
education, is not acceptable, he said. It should not be a choice
between funding education or receiving the PFD and cutting
education twenty-five percent. "Let's not dismantle the
infrastructure of our great state and encourage those citizens
that are not already doing so, to move elsewhere," he said.
6:29:55 PM
JERI MAXWELL, representing self, Fairbanks, said she is retired
from the university system, has lived in Alaska for 34 years,
and she greatly opposes SB 23 and SB 24. In the short term the
dividend seems like a lot of money but in the long term the
money will go further if it is used for the benefit of Alaskans
collectively by funding education, health care, the Alaska
Marine Highway System, and other essential services. She urged
the committee to reject both bills.
6:30:55 PM
TAMMY SCHMIDT, representing self, Wasilla, described herself as
a 68-year-old homestead-raised Alaskan. She supports SB 23 and
SB 24 and what the Governor is trying to do because Jay
Hammond's original intention was that the money was for the
people, not the government. People living in the Bush really
need the dividend, she said.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that Senator Bishop was in the audience.
6:32:01 PM
JEFF GUARD, representing self, Cordova, said he's lived in the
state since 1979 and he is strongly opposed to SB 23 and SB 24.
He described the bills as a detriment to the state economy.
Ultimately, they will cause home prices to fall which will have
a greater impact on his pocketbook than the extra money for
three years. He sits on the local city council and understands
that the state's bond rating will fall with proposals like this,
which will make it more expensive to borrow money to build
things in his community.
6:33:00 PM
BRYCE MAHN, representing self, Anchorage, said he opposes SB 23
and SB 24, and he opposes paying a full dividend this year. The
statement that Alaskans can spend the money better than the
state government does not take into account that individuals
will pay federal income tax on the additional dividend and they
cannot take advantage of matching programs. The state using
these funds will have a greater impact on the overall economy
than if the money was distributed to individuals.
CHAIR SHOWER reminded individuals who don't want the dividend to
consider not applying for it.
6:33:38 PM
SCOTT ADAMS representing self, Cordova, said he supports SB 23
and SB 24. He shared that his sons paid for college with their
dividends and his belief is that some low-income families need
the money. The dividend was set up so that the government get
some and the people get some so the people should be able to
decide what they want to do with their portion, he said. "We
should still get our fair share."
6:34:45 PM
CATHERINE REARDON, representing self, Juneau, said she is
retired and has received the PFD since 1986. She said she
opposes SB 23 and SB 24 and was struck that the transmittal
letter said that citizens had not received the full value of
their mineral wealth ownership share. She offered her
perspective that her share does not need to be an individual
distribution. She pointed out that she doesn't receive her
individual share of state land and wildlife by getting title to
a square mile of state land. She said individuals create the
government and government is the way that collective decisions
are made. Thus her opposition to both bills.
6:36:13 PM
DR. CINDY WESTERGAARD, Neurobehavioral Consultants, LLC, Sitka,
said she is a small business owner and a small training site for
psychology students at the university. She said she opposes SB
23 and SB 24 because she doesn't believe that giving individual
residents a larger dividend will improve the quality of life for
people in the state. Rather, it will cause suffering because
there won't be adequate resources to fund schools, ferry
service, the university, hospitals, or the Pioneer Home. She
asked the members to consider that their legacies will depend on
their ethical decision-making.
6:37:24 PM
ARIEL STARBUCK, representing self, Sitka, said she is opposed to
SB 23 and SB 24. She shared that she is a homeowner, a mother,
and the daughter of a logger whose hard work helped her have a
good education and better life. She would like the same thing
for her own children. She opined that choosing to take the
additional PFD while defunding vital state services and the
education system will leave the state with nothing. She urged
the committee not to pass SB 23 and SB 24.
6:38:25 PM
DAVID BRIGHTON, representing self, Kenai, state opposition to SB
23 and SB 24. He said he doesn't believe the campaigning was
done in the context of making large cuts to fund the PFD. He
opined that the majority of Alaskans oppose the large dividend
when it's presented in the proper context. He said he also
disagrees with the notion that individuals can decline to take
their PFDs and thereby help fund essential services. He pointed
out that the money must be allocated.
6:39:32 PM
SETH ROBERTS, representing self, Palmer, said he is in full
support of SB 23 and SB 24. His reasoning is that giving the
money to the government would be a temporary solution and would
not change the status quo. The solution to the budget deficit is
to cut services. "I believe the PFD should go to the people as
it was intended and the government needs to do what it needs to
do to cut and get smaller," he said.
6:40:45 PM
JENNY ROHLER, representing self, Sutton, said she was calling to
ask the committee to support SB 23 and SB 24, to restore the PFD
that was unlawfully taken from Alaskans. She said the Governor
based his campaign on restoring and protecting the PFD and
Alaskans elected him. The expectation is that he will fulfill
his campaign promises. She offered her opinion that the poor
were more greatly affected by the reduced PFD. The money should
be returned to all Alaskans and those who oppose the bills
should have the opportunity to donate their PFD to the state. It
should be an individual decision. She thanked the committee for
supporting the Governor.
6:42:01 PM
MICHELLE HAHN, representing self, Cordova, said she opposes SB
23 and SB 24, but she finds it distasteful to do so because
taking the PFD is a draconian tax that impacts the poor and
rural areas the most. She recalled pleading with then Governor
Hammond to keep the income tax in place. She said she was
worried that once it was abolished, the wealthy and powerful
would prevent the reinstatement of such a fair tax when it was
justly needed. She concluded her comments saying, "I want an
income tax that fully taxes myself, the affluent, the
corporations, and instead of just the poorer Alaskans as taking
the PFD does."
6:43:22 PM
MARY FISHER, representing self, Anchorage, stated opposition to
SB 23 and SB 24 and pointed out that Governor Hammond said
abolishing the state income tax was the worst thing that
happened during his administration. She said she fully supports
reinstating that tax.
6:44:18 PM
EVE DOWNING, representing self, Sterling, said she is a high
school student speaking in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. An
equitable budget is not possible with a full PFD and the
payback, she said. It will not allow her to get a quality
education and it won't make up for the increase in tuition at
UAA. She said she knows many students who won't be able to
afford to attend UAA as they had planned. As proposed, the PFD
will damage the economy and drive citizens away. She reported
that the proposed $1.6 billion cut will result in the loss of
more than 13,000 jobs, which will not be good for the economy.
6:45:39 PM
LISA BUSCH, representing self, Sitka, said that as an Alaskan, a
mother, someone who works in science, and woman of reason, she
sees SB 23 and SB 24 as the saddest bills she's seen in a long
time. She said the Alaskans she knows are can-do, hard-working,
community-minded, independent, and creative, and they do not
need a "handout retro check" from a program that has created an
unseemly sense of entitlement. Rather, they need legislators to
invest permanent fund money in K-12 education, the university,
health care, and the management of resources that make Alaska a
special place to live.
6:46:28 PM
TIM NELSON, representing self, Fairbanks, said he has lived here
since 1976 and he supports SB 23 and SB 24. He's a grandfather
living on a fixed income and he needs the money for birthdays,
fuel oil, and many other things.
6:47:25 PM
LESLIE JACKSON, representing self, Ketchikan, said she strongly
opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She opined that the claim that the
payback will stimulate the economy is a short-term solution. She
asked the legislature to use the money to balance the budget and
keep state services and assets open for business and providing
benefits for communities.
6:47:59 PM
ERIC MILLIKEN, representing self, Anchorage, said he is
testifying in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. Although he and his
family would benefit from the large PFD in the short term, in 20
years his child would see an economy that is much weaker than it
is today. He urged the committee to consider a different path
forward.
6:48:50 PM
RONALD HOWARD JR., representing self and his family, Ketchikan,
said he strongly supports SB 23 and SB 24. He described the
economic benefit of the PFD to his family as astronomical. His
is a single-income family and the extra funds go towards
homeschool education and college savings. He also pointed out
that when the PFD is paid in October it helps businesses stay
open for the winter.
6:50:03 PM
LOU PONTIOUS, representing self, Kasilof, stated support for SB
23 and SB 24.
6:50:33 PM
MELODY MCCULLOUGH, representing self, Wasilla, said she strongly
supports SB 23 and SB 24. She and her husband are raising two
grandchildren and their PFDs help pay for winter gear, heating
expenses, and groceries. This helps stimulate the economy. She
said she supports a state income tax.
6:51:45 PM
ROBERT WATSON, representing self, Wasilla, said he strongly
supports SB 23 and SB 24. It is intended to help the people. He
said the people who don't want their dividend don't need to
apply. He maintained that the state will never cut the amount of
money it spends, and the people shouldn't have to pay for that.
6:52:11 PM
ANDREW SMALLWOOD, representing self, Cordova, said he is a
commercial fisherman. He offered his opinion that rather than
find alternative sources of revenue, the state has depleted its
reserves. Now the proposed budget cuts are so sudden and drastic
that they risk triggering a statewide recession and the
destruction of rural communities. Thus he opposes SB 23 and SB
24.
6:52:50 PM
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, representing self, Anchorage, said she is a
second generation Alaskan who has lived here her entire life.
She said she strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24 as a short-term
infusion of money into the economy that will have a very long-
term negative economic impact that will affect generations to
come. She said the reason Alaska doesn't have an educated
workforce is because the education system in the state is being
decimated. She urged all legislators to oppose SB 23 and SB 24.
6:53:40 PM
KEVIN MAIER, representing self, said he's lived in Juneau since
2014 and is raising two children. He works as a fishing guide
and educator. He said he understands that the PFD is very
important to many Alaskans, but he strongly opposes SB 23 and SB
24. "We should not be forced to choose between funding PFDs on
the one hand, and on the other funding K-12, higher education,
state ferries, homeless shelters, and the countless public
services we count on to live in this great state." He said the
Governor believes his budget is sustainable, predictable, and
affordable but evidence suggests that relying on oil means it is
neither sustainable nor predictable. He urged the committee to
instead consider a diverse array of revenue, including a
progressive, broad-based income tax and using the earnings
reserve as necessary to fund essential services.
CHAIR SHOWER clarified that the previous speaker was not the
lieutenant governor.
6:55:09 PM
CLAIRE SANCHEZ, representing self, Sitka, stated that she works
for the University of Alaska Cooperative Extension. She said she
opposes SB 23 and SB 24, and supports investing in education,
the university, senior services, Medicaid, and the Alaska Marine
Highway System. She voiced a preference for state services that
support the wellbeing of the state's future as opposed to
receiving money individually through the PFD.
6:55:51 PM
GAYLE CHRISTENSON, representing self, Anchorage, offered her
opinion that the Governor was elected on the promise to pay back
the PFD, and that the dividend payments are poured back into the
economy. She suggested that people who want to donate their
dividends to the state and specifically earmark the funds should
be allowed to do so just as the people who need the money should
be able to receive it to use for things like heating fuel.
6:57:31 PM
ANGELA DARBOUS, representing self, Anchorage, said she is in
full support of SB 23 and SB 24. She pointed out that the
Governor ran and won on the promise to restore the PFD, and that
it helps the economy when people have more money. She
highlighted that Alaska spends more money on education per
capita than any other state and it doesn't make the kids any
smarter. She voiced support for the latitude to choose how and
where to educate her child and to receive the PFD to help with
college.
6:58:35 PM
BEN STEVENSON, representing self, Talkeetna, stated support for
SB 23 and SB 24. He said he believes the PFD helps support local
communities and families. People who want to donate their PFD
have the option to do so.
6:59:21 PM
BROTHER TOM PATMOR, representing self, Clam Gulch, stated
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He said there is no need to
continue to take money from the permanent fund when it results
in lower checks and less money to invest. He highlighted that
the Dalton Highway currently costs $20 million per year for
maintenance and in today's dollars it would probably cost $1
billion to build. He suggested selling it to the permanent fund
for that amount. He further suggested that the ferry system and
the railroad could be traded to the fund, depending on their
values. This would do away with the need for annual
appropriations for maintenance of these assets.
7:00:35 PM
MARC CARREL, representing self, Cordova, said he is a commercial
fisherman and teacher and he strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24.
He said his community relies heavily on state services such as
the ferry system, state schools, and a well-funded Department of
Fish and Game. He opined that all Alaskans are better served if
resources are pooled to pay for state services as opposed to
issuing individual checks. This is particularly important in
rural Alaska. Without valuable state services, the quality of
life will suffer dramatically, he said.
7:01:29 PM
SKYLER QUIN, representing self, Anchorage, said he strongly
opposes SB 23 and SB 24. He reminded the committee of the Alaska
Supreme Court ruling last year that said the previous governor's
veto of the permanent fund was legal because it is an
appropriation, not a transfer. It is irresponsible to
voluntarily pay out billions of dollars, and it is not in the
best interest of the future of the state, he said.
7:02:01 PM
TANYA KITKA, representing self, Kodiak, said she fully supports
funding the PFD, but doesn't believe that the debate should be
either fund the PFD or support state services. She pointed out
that in previous years people received their PFD and the state
provided services. She doesn't believe that the children should
be asked to pay what amounts to a tax for their education, but
their parents should. She said she supports an income tax in
that respect, but it should not be by taking the PFD.
7:02:55 PM
KYLE HASSE, representing self, Wasilla, said he is a student who
believes in a prosperous and sustainable Alaska and is therefore
adamantly opposed to SB 23 and SB 24. He described the
legislation as a puzzle piece in a series of proposals that will
undermine essential services that contribute to a prosperous and
sustainable Alaska.
7:03:35 PM
CATHERINE RILEY, representing self, Sitka, said she strongly
opposes SB 23 and SB 24 and the premise that Alaskans need a PFD
more than services such as public education, public safety, the
Marine Highway System, Pioneer Homes, affordable health care.
She is part of the rural community that will be most devastated
by the Governor's policies. She is fortunate to have received an
excellent education from dedicated teachers who had the
resources and time to deliver that excellent education. She
urged the committee to reject both bills saying the future of
the state and Alaska's youth depend on it.
7:05:06 PM
JACK JOHNSON, representing self, North Pole, said he strongly
favors SB 23 and SB 24 and once again receiving the full PFD and
the backpay.
7:05:27 PM
ANDREW NAVARRO, representing self, Mat-Su Valley, said he's a
contractor, he finds the PFD very important, he supports SB 23
and SB 24, and he believes the government spends too much money.
He said it doesn't matter that 90 percent of the people calling
oppose the bills because the people overwhelmingly voted for the
Governor who promised to restore the PFD and the backpay.
7:06:23 PM
GEORGE SMALLWOOD, representing self, Homer, said he's lived in
Alaska for 46 years and he opposes SB 23 and SB 24. He clarified
that he is not connected to education or government employment.
He believes it is best to put the money into public safety and
services such as the Marine Highway System.
7:08:19 PM
AMY JO MEINERS, representing self, Juneau, said she is a fourth
generation Alaskan who strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She
said it's time for Alaskans to put in a little money to pay for
existing services, whether it's the Alaska Marine Highway,
Pioneer Homes, education, or public safety. It's time to have a
balanced budget that relies on a stabile revenue source. Thus
she strongly opposes this legislation.
7:09:07 PM
MAURICE STOVALL, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said he
supports SB 23 and SB 24 and wants to remind the committee that it
would be a felony offense to steal $500 from everyone in your family.
That's how he views the taking of the PFD by the previous
administration. He maintained that the money was intended for the
people, not the budget.
7:10:48 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked all testifiers to talk about the bills
and not impugn the intentions of others.
CHAIR SHOWER said it's a good reminder for everyone.
7:11:29 PM
CHRISTIAN ALMAN, representing self, Anchorage, said he's a 36-
year resident and he opposes SB 23 and SB 24. It is not the time
to give this sort of handout when the state has a $1.6 billion
deficit, he said. The Governor has submitted a budget that is
devastating to transportation, education, homeowners, seniors,
and priority services. He also expressed hope that there would
be a discussion about oil company tax credits.
7:12:35 PM
JENNA STRINGER, representing self, Barrow, said she is a high
school student speaking in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She
said the families that depend on the PFD for necessary items are
in this position because there aren't enough jobs that pay a
decent wage. She suggested that instead of giving individuals a
larger PFD in the hope of bandaging problems with the economy,
the money should be reinvested to create jobs, build
infrastructure, and support Alaskans who stay in the state. This
will reduce the number of Alaskans who are leaving the state in
search of decent-paying jobs., she said.
7:13:38 PM
PAT KEHOE PENDELL, representing self, Sitka, said ditto to the
last testimony. She said she is a 38 year resident, a fisherman,
a nurse, and a former homeschooling mother. She supports great
education for all children, health, the Alaska Marine Highway,
the Department of Fish and Game, and the other essential
services the state provides. She is in favor of reinstating the
state income tax and a small, consistent PFD. She said the PFD
payback cannot be justified and she strongly opposes SB 23 and
SB 24.
7:15:34 PM
DAMON KNIGHT, representing self, [Clam Gulch], stated that just
like most Alaskans who voted for the Governor, he robustly
supports SB 23 and SB 24. He opined that most Alaskans who voted
for the Dunleavy Administration want their PFD restored and paid
back.
7:16:28 PM
CRYSTAL HAITE, representing self and three children, Wasilla,
stated strong support for SB 23 and SB 24. She said she didn't
believe that taking money from the people was a way to
strengthen the economy. She doesn't believe it should be a
choice between receiving the PFD or giving kids a well-rounded
education. She suggested that the solution lies in education
reform.
7:16:47 PM
MIKE ALEXANDER, representing self, Big Lake, said he strongly
supports SB 23 and SB 24. He offered his belief that too much is
already spent on education. He would like to see a solution for
the Marine Highway System, but he believes everyone in his area
needs their dividend. Giving the PFD to individuals will help
the economy more than if the state spent the money.
7:17:41 PM
CHARLES WEAVER, representing self, Anchorage, said he absolutely
supports SB 23 and SB 24. The PFD was never intended for the
government to spend and it should be restored to the people. He
said citizens that don't want the PDF have the option of
donating it to the government.
7:18:06 PM
TIM CHIPP, representing self, Ninilchik, said the Governor knows
that the PFD was established as a fund for the future
generations of Alaskans. He said about one percent of the
population left the state last year and the last administration
is largely responsible for that. "Give the people their money
and I will promise you it will be spent wisely within our local
communities, providing a much-needed boost to our economy," he
said.
7:19:30 PM
CYNTHIA MOORE, representing self, Funny River, said she strongly
supports SB 23 and SB 24 and Governor Dunleavy's efforts to cut
the Alaska budget. She opined that the education system needs to
be rebuilt from the bottom up because it costs among the highest
in the nation and yields the poorest results.
7:19:56 PM
LYNN KUPA representing self, Eagle River, said she fully
supports SB 23 and SB 24. The PFD was made for the people and it
should be restored to the people, not to teachers. She said the
people spoke by voting Governor Dunleavy into office. She
concluded saying, "We need the PFD back."
7:21:05 PM
MARY GEDDOS, representing self, Anchorage, said she is a 35-year
resident, a mother, and grandmother of children who also live in
Alaska. She is a senior and a property owner and she strongly
opposes 23 and SB 24. She said these bills will cost $1.95
billion and future investment returns will be lower because
there will be less to invest. Essential state services will be
devastated, and the quality of life will be radically altered.
She urged the committee to reject these extreme and ill-
considered measures.
7:22:02 PM
CASSIDY AUSTIN-MERLINO, representing self, McCarthy, stated she
is a 16-year-old who strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She
believes that removing this money from the public fund will not
only impact essential public services, it will also take much
needed money out of education. She said that as a member of the
youth community, she feels it is her job to protect her
education and the education of youths for years to come. "Giving
this money towards PFDs will not allow students in our state to
receive the education that they deserve," she said.
7:23:16 PM
JOLIE TULLEY, representing self, Sitka, stated strong opposition
to SB 23 and SB 24. She said she wants a functioning Alaska, not
a larger PFD. She said education is fundamental to freedom in
this society, and cuts to education, Medicaid, and the ferry
system will further dispossess the most vulnerable families and
propel communities into destitution. She said we rely on state
government for far-seeing policies, not short-term gains. Each
individual's purchasing power does not make up for the services
that only the state can provide. Should these bills pass, they
will send a clear message that our purchasing power is more
important than time-tested investment in the people, she said.
7:24:20 PM
REBECCA CRELLEY, representing self, Anchorage, said she supports
SB 23 and SB 24. She voiced support for homeschooling because it
costs less per capita than public schools. She asked the
committee to realize how many people can't afford their rent and
how many really need the PFD. She listed the elderly, students
with debt, and families that rely on the foodbank.
7:25:38 PM
DAVID KRUPA, representing self, Eagle River, said he strongly
supports SB 23 and SB 24 and the Governor's budget. He opined
that the PFD will give the children a future and to take it away
would be wrong.
7:26:38 PM
CLIFFORD JOHNSEN, representing self, Palmer, stated strong
support for SB 23 and SB 24. He said the PFD boosts the economy
and is an example to the rest of the world. Giving the money to
the government would destroy what Governor Hammond started, he
said.
7:27:34 PM
LATISHA PORTERFIELD, representing self, Anchorage, stated strong
support for SB 23 and SB 24. She said she believes the PFD is
for the people, not the budget.
7:28:07 PM
KEVIN MCCABE, representing self and family, Anchorage, stated
support for SB 23 and SB 24. He reminded everyone that the
dividend was designed to give Alaskans, as the owners of the oil
and the permanent fund, an indication of how well the government
was managing the people's money. He said the PFD should not be
connected to the budget and should be discussed separately. He
recounted that Governor Hammond vetoed the original permanent
fund statute because he believed that the permanent fund
belonged to the constitution and a change to it was subject to a
vote of the people. He described it as problematic that the
previous legislature thought they could modify the dividend
payout without a vote of the people. This legislature needs to
right the wrongs from the previous administration and
legislature. Then we can talk about the budget, constitution,
and taxes, he said.
7:29:15 PM
OLIVIA FELLERS, representing self, Wasilla, stated support for
SB 23 and SB 24. She said the permanent fund was not intended to
be part of the budget; it was a separate entity. She believes
the money should be returned to the people and it will be paid
back into the economy. She urged the committee to vote for the
legislation.
7:30:00 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recognized that Senator Olson was in the audience.
7:30:10 PM
JOSEPH WALKER, representing self, Anchorage, stated support for
SB 23 and SB 24. He said the PFD helps many Alaskans. Taking it
for the government use would yield a short-term benefit and
ultimately result in the imposition of a sales tax or income
tax. The people need to hold the State of Alaska accountable for
the way it spends money.
7:30:51 PM
BARBARA DERR, representing self, Anchorage, said she's lived and
worked in Alaska for 40 years and her kids have received a great
education in Alaska. She said she opposes SB 23 and SB 24. The
people aren't legally owed the PFD amounts they didn't receive
the last three years and the cost of the payback would place a
tremendous burden on Alaskans. It will cost more than
individuals will receive in cash and will prolong the current
recession. She said she supports using part of the PFD earnings
to fund government services and she recognizes the need for new
sources of revenue, but not those currently shared with
municipalities and villages. She voiced her preference for
reinstating the state income tax as a new source of revenue.
7:31:53 PM
JAMES VUORG, Unalaska City School District, Unalaska, stated
strong opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He said a couple thousand
dollars more in the bank is not worth the deprivation it would
cause. "The students, the youth, the future leaders in education
are more important and more essential to the State of Alaska
than a full PFD," he said. He expressed hope that the committee
would not support the legislation.
7:32:58 PM
ANGELA HILL, representing self, Sitka, said she opposes SB 23
and SB 24 and does not want the PFD payback to happen because it
takes away from education funds. She has lived in Alaska for 15
years, is a special ed teacher, a parent, and a therapeutic
foster parent. We need to do everything possible to keep from
cutting money to education, she said. The large check sounds
appealing but not if you look at the whole picture. It will be
detrimental to communities and the state in many areas in
addition to education. Think about how this will affect the
children and their futures, she said.
7:34:06 PM
JARROD SEEGERS, representing self, Eagle River, stated support
for SB 23 and SB 24 and the budget. He said the PFD is not part
of the budget and he views taking it away the same as removing
money from his neighbor's account. He'd go to jail for stealing.
7:34:46 PM
JOHN RICE, representing self, Big Lake, stated full support for
SB 23 and SB 24 and the Governor's budget. He is a 50 year
resident, a business owner and employer. He reminded everyone
that state politicians and individuals have a duty to spend
within their means. Giving more money to state government is
clearly nothing more than a temporary fix, he said. He
maintained that if the state could spend within its means, it
could pay for things such as Pioneer Homes.
7:36:08 PM
KRISTEN GREEN, representing self, Anchorage, said she was
speaking in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She clarified that
she does not work in education, public health, or the ferry
system but she still opposes the use of the supplemental PFD for
state services. She sees reinstating the state income tax as a
more wholistic approach to the budget.
7:36:59 PM
BRANDEE GERKE, representing self, Juneau, asked the committee to
oppose SB 23 and SB 24 and pursue a framework to use the
withheld dividend funds to pay for vital state services,
education, health care, and ferries. She said paying a full
dividend is no longer in the best interest of the state. It is
time to update the proportion of the fund paid in dividends and
to develop a plan that ensures the sustainability of the fund
for dividends and state services. Update the formula and reject
the proposal to pay back the dividends withheld the last three
years, she said.
7:38:05 PM
KASEY MACKNEET, representing self, Juneau, stated opposition to
SB 23 and SB 24. She talked about the escalating cost of higher
education and growing class sizes. She said she has an average
of 46 kids in each of her classes and questioned how kids can
get the education they need for college when they can't even
form a relationship with their teachers. She suggested changing
a generation by letting them know they do not need a payout to
support themselves.
7:39:09 PM
CINDY EDWARDS, representing self, Sitka, said she's a 25 year
resident and she strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She and her
husband chose not to have children, they are not educators, and
they are committed to the health of Alaska. People in her
community work very hard to create a thriving environment for
all Alaskans, not an extra dividend that just benefits the
individual.
7:40:15 PM
JOHNNY ROBINSON, representing self, Fairbanks, stated that he
supports the restoration of the PFD now and in the future. He
opined that no government should be able to dip into a program
that was made for the people. "The government needs to learn how
to balance the budget, or step down." He suggested that parents
should educate their kids, not the government. He further said
that people who don't need or want the dividend should be able
to donate it. Those who want the dividend should be allowed to
keep it.
7:41:12 PM
TROY SWANSON, representing self, Eagle River, stated strong
support for SB 23 and SB 24 because the dividend supports low
income and poor families. He asked legislators to look for ways
to live within the existing revenue stream and not use savings.
7:41:49 PM
TIM STATON, representing self, Fairbanks, stated that he is in
full support of SB 23 and SB 24. He said he voted for the
Governor based on his promise to cut the budget and increase the
PFD. He agreed with earlier testimony that the PFD has generated
money for the economy and removing it caused a recession that is
ongoing.
7:43:25 PM
PAUL KELLY, representing self, Sitka, stated full support for SB
23 and SB 24 and a smaller government. "I think that's a better
way for Alaska," he said.
7:43:49 PM
WINTER MARSHALL ALLEN, representing self, Palmer, said she's an
educator, a mom, and a property owner. Her family could
definitely benefit from the extra PFD money, she said, but not
at the risk of losing her job. She's nontenured and could be one
of the teacher who does not get a contract next year. The PFD
won't cover my bills if I don't have a job, she said. She stated
support for an income tax and urged the committee not to support
SB 23 or SB 24 in the interest of the longevity and health of
communities and Alaskans' livelihood overall.
7:44:58 PM
HEATHER HEPLER, representing self, Chugiak, said she and her
family fully support SB 23 and SB 24. It is not government money
and the budget needs to be cut. She suggested a flat tax,
cutting school administrative costs, and allowing people to
donate their PFDs as they wish. She predicted that if the
government takes the PFD it will impose a tax later.
7:45:37 PM
CYNTHIA NEIMEYER, representing self, Fairbanks, said she agrees
that the government should repay the PFD. She maintained that
government should be able to solve its budget issues with the
revenue it receives from legal marijuana, property tax, pull
tabs, bingo, and gambling.
7:46:49 PM
POLLY HESSING, representing self, Anchorage, said she strongly
opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She shared that she's lived in Alaska
more than 40 years, is retired, and lives on a limited income,
just as the state does right now. She said the PFD is important
and helpful, but it should not be an incentive to move to the
state. She cautioned against using the principal and mortgaging
the future. She urged working towards a diverse and sustainable
budget. She agreed with Andrew Smallwood's eloquent testimony.
7:47:45 PM
RICH CURTHER, representing self, Anchorage, reported that he
moved to Alaska 30 years ago, largely because of the strong
school system. He said he strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24. His
sons went through the local school system and they have chosen
to stay as adults. He said he believes that education is
critical to the youth of Alaska and the future of the state.
7:48:27 PM
BETH SHORT RHOADS, representing self, Sitka, said she strongly
opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She agreed with Senator von Imhof who
said, "We don't have a fiscal crisis, we have a priority
crisis." She described the bills as prioritizing large handouts
over education, transportation, jobs, and elder care. She
pointed out that these are all things that keep the economy
strong and Alaska a great place to live. She suggested that if
the Governor wants to hand out retroactive PFD payments, he
should retrieve the oil tax credit revenue that's gone to Texas.
Alternatively, she said, bring back the state income tax.
7:49:23 PM
DR. VALERIE EDWARDS, MD, representing self, Sitka said she is
speaking in opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She maintained that
there was no reason to increase the PFD given the current fiscal
situation. She shared that she was raised with the values that
tough times require personal sacrifice for the greater good. She
pointed out that the greater good includes funding priorities of
core government services such as education, infrastructure,
health care, public safety, and care for natural resources and
vulnerable citizens. She said many people depend on the PFD to
cover expenses for college, fuel, health care and groceries, but
if the state has to cut core services to pay for the dividend
these people are not better off.
7:50:29 PM
JOSEPH CURRY, representing self, Anchorage, said he's lived here
for more than 25 years and he strongly supports SB 23 and SB 24.
He agreed with previous testimony that Jay Hammond created the
dividend for the people, not the government. He said that
governor advocated for fiscal responsibility, which is something
the state doesn't seem to understand. He suggested that rather
than throwing more money at education, "it should be looked at
in a way that would make it better."
7:51:28 PM
BEN MUSE, representing self, Juneau, said he opposes SB 23 and
SB 24, but he believes the upcoming dividend payments should be
made according to existing state law. He noted that many people
have been testifying about the tough tradeoffs between dividend
payments and other programs such as education and the ferry
system. He suggested that a lot of the problems stem from the
refusal to consider new revenue sources. He concluded saying, "I
think that is crippling our ability to deal with the budget
crisis that we're facing."
7:52:21 PM
TULENA HUDDLESTON, representing self, Palmer, said she is a
retired accountant, a mother, and grandmother of Alaskans. She
said she supports SB 23 and SB 24 because the poor, our
children, and our grandchildren need it to pay for their
education. She believes the government should control its
spending and that an income tax is a better approach for the
state.
7:53:18 PM
JEFFERY KNAUF, representing self, Anchorage, said he stands in
full support of SB 23 and SB 24. He called a point of order to
say that Alaska is the 49th state and it ranks 49th to 50th in
every category. He said this is nothing more than Einstein's
definition of insanity. You can't expect a different outcome
when you continue to overfund what doesn't work. It's time to
start over, he said.
7:54:26 PM
AARON HALL, representing self, North Pole, said he strongly
supports SB 23 and SB 24. He said it's the government's job to
protect people, not to educate the people; that is the parents'
job. He said the Governor was elected on the promise to pay back
the PFD and legislators should remember that. This debate should
not be about which service is more important. It should be about
balancing the budget and getting back to reality, he said.
7:55:21 PM
BILL AIKENS representing self, said he strongly supports SB 23
and SB 24 and Governor Dunleavy's wise approach to balancing the
budget. He said Alaska has a moral problem with a spiritual
root. People who have spent years spending other peoples' money
expect that to continue. The Governor doesn't support that. He
maintained that the solution to the education problem lies in
the difference between Christian and home schools versus
Anchorage schools.
7:56:25 PM
WENDY ALDERSON, representing self, Sitka, said she and her
husband are commercial fishermen and 30 year residents. They
live in the community year round and shop in local stores. She
stated strong opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She said it would
be easy to more somewhere warmer in the off season, but they
choose to live in Sitka because of the quality of life. This
includes the excellent public school education her child has
received. She said there is no way a padded dividend will make
up for slashing the education budget. An extra $1,500 won't make
her commit to stay in a state that prioritizes a quick buyoff
over a long term investment in the children of Alaska. She
voiced support for a reasonable dividend and an income tax.
7:57:32 PM
MONICA EASTHAM, representing self, Sitka, said she's a lifelong
Alaskan who opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She maintained that the
money should go to sustain important services like education,
the Pioneer Home, and the Alaska Marine Highway. She predicted
that many jobs would be lost if this legislation passes.
7:58:16 PM
DIANE BUNDY, representing self, Kenai, spoke in high support of
SB 23 and SB 24, restoring the peoples' money, and the Governor.
She offered her view that the government needs to be cut, and
that the education system is broken. More money is not the
solution, she said.
7:59:25 PM
GREG WEAVER, representing self, Mat-Su, said he'd like the state
to get back to basics and take care of the people who've lived
here for decades. He voiced support for more politicians like
Dick Proenneke, Jay Hammond, and Sarah Palin. He described
Anchorage and the Valley as the heartland of the state and
maintained that they support coastal villages.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he supported or opposed SB 23 and SB 24.
MR. WEAVER replied, "Kill um."
8:00:37 PM
GREGORY WHITE, representing self, Anchorage, said he supports SB
23 and SB 24. He's received the PFD since 1986. The dividend
fund was set up for the people and was never intended to fund
government programs or services.
8:01:02 PM
FARLEY DEAN, representing self, Willow, said he's a father of
four and grandfather of nine. He strongly supports SB 23 and SB
24 and the Governor's budget. More than enough money has gone
toward education, he said.
8:01:47 PM
RANDY GRIFFIN, representing self, Fairbanks, said he opposes SB
23 and SB 24 and he hopes there is a way to opt out of receiving
the back payments should the bills pass. He said he plans to
apply for the 2019 PFD and, just as he's done for the last four
years, he'll sign the check over to the General Fund to help
with the deficit. He said he doesn't mind paying tax on the PFD
but does not want to be saddled with the extra tax on the
payback.
8:02:49 PM
KRISTEN HOMER, representing self, Sitka, stated strong
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She believes the supplemental
PFDs the Governor proposed will be harmful to the state. The
money should instead be spent on education, ferries, Medicaid,
and other essential services. She has two children in the school
district, and she works as a nurse practitioner in a school-
based health clinic. She said that every day she sees the
benefit that quality education and the access to health care
have on Alaskan youth. Because they are the future leaders of
the state, continuing to invest in the educational system is the
best investment for the future of Alaska. Giving individuals a
few extra dollars is short sighted and will ultimately cripple
the state, she said.
8:03:55 PM
BRIDGET HITCHCOCK, representing self, Sitka, said she is a
mother and a physical therapist at the local hospital, and she
strongly opposes SB 23 and SB 24. She said the legislation
proposes a short term infusion of cash for individuals, but it
will take away from essential state services like education,
ferries, Pioneer Homes, and health care that benefit all
Alaskans. She expressed concern about the effect of the
legislation on the viability of her community.
8:04:46 PM
SARA BEABER-FUJIOKA, representing self, Sitka, said she strongly
opposes the supplemental PFDs. Without supplemental revenues
these payments will gut state and local budgets leading to the
loss of public services that are core to a civil society. She
said government is how the people come together to meet public
needs and provide services that individuals cannot organize or
pay for. This includes public schools, the university, Medicaid,
Pioneer Homes, and the ferry system. She said earlier
generations of Alaskans wisely invested oil revenues to help pay
for services when oil revenues waned. She said now is the time
to use the allowable portion of the permanent fund in a
sustainable way to support essential services.
8:05:41 PM
DAVID NEES, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said he and
his family voted for Governor Dunleavy and they fully support SB
23 and SB 24. He reminded everyone that the dividend was set
aside as the peoples' money as their portion of the oil
royalties. "It is part of the private economy and that is
exactly where it belongs," he said.
8:06:56 PM
SIRI SCHLIES, representing self, Anchorage, said she called to
say, "I'm for the permanent fund." She agreed with the previous
testimony that this is the peoples' money as their portion of
the oil royalties because the oil on private property belongs to
the state.
8:07:54 PM
NATASHA LESKO, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, said she is a
small business owner and a large portion of her clientele
depends on the PFD. She firmly believes in the dividend and she
sees that it is good for the economy, small businesses in
particular.
8:09:13 PM
DAN POLTA, superintendent, Denali Borough School District,
Healy, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. Should the
bills pass, they would remove important tools needed to solve
Alaska's fiscal morass. He drew analogies and asked the
committee not to lock away such important tools when the state
has so much work to complete. He pointed out that teachers will
recover if they're laid off, but the students that are left
behind will have less support in learning to read, write and
problem solve. He worries about their ability to gain the skills
demanded of workers in a modern economy and secure good jobs and
help build Alaska into a great state for everyone.
JEANEAN COREY, representing self, Chugiak, stated support for SB
23 and SB 24. She said government should manage its finances
responsibly; more money doesn't necessarily solve a problem. She
offered her belief that home schools are more effective and cost
less than public schools.
8:11:21 PM
STEVE MECKEL, representing self, Fairbanks, stated strong
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. He said he believes it is
shortsighted and irresponsible to pay large dividends,
particularly when the tradeoff is cuts to education, health
care, and critical infrastructure.
8:12:00 PM
MARK HUDDELSTON, representing self, Palmer, stated support for
reinstating the PFD, the new Governor, and getting the budget
under control. He pointed out that Governor Hammond developed
the PFD as part of the state royalty system and not to supply
money to the school system. That is a separate issue, he said.
8:13:02 PM
CINDY HIMMELBERGER, representing self, Ketchikan, stated full
support for SB 23 and SB 24. She said those who opposes this
legislation should have the option to donate their share.
People also have the right to vote on this matter. She believes
that the education system needs to be reformed. This includes
requiring everyone to contribute and halting free services.
8:14:05 PM
BERVERLY EDWARDSON HUGO, representing self, Utqiagvik, stated
opposition to SB 23 and SB 24. She argued against the
administration's budget proposal to redirect oil property taxes
from local governments to the state. "Don't take from the North
Slope, Arctic slope. This is ours; this is from our land," she
said.
8:15:29 PM
JESSE VIZCOCHO, representing self, Anchorage, urged the
committee to pass SB 23 and SB 24 because the $2.3 billion in
unpaid dividends sitting in the earnings reserve is owed to
Alaskans.
8:16:20 PM
ANTHONY BAIOCCHI, representing self, Wasilla, said he stands
tall with Governor Dunleavy and he supports SB 23 and SB 24. He
told the committee to remember the constituents that elected
them to support right-sizing the government and restoring the
unpaid PFD money. He said he does not support socialism,
Communism, or the redistribution of wealth but recognizes the
need to streamline a failed education system.
8:17:19 PM
CHAIR SHOWER thanked the testifiers and noted that his office
had received more than 1,000 comments between written and oral
testimony. He said everyone who signed up to testify this
evening has been heard and anyone who had not had a chance to
call in could submit written testimony to
[email protected].
8:18:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 23 and SB 24 and held
the bills in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA .pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Agenda |
| SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Highilghts.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32-FN1-DPS.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32-FN2-DOL.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32-FN5-DHSS.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN6-DOC.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN-Court System.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN-DOA-Public Advocacy.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32-FN-DOA-Public Defender Agency.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB0023A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB0024A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB24 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| SB32 - Version A.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
DOR PFD Info |
| 23&24 (IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 Written Testimony (IN FAVOR) |
| 23&24 (NOT IN FAVOR) Written Testimony(uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 Written testimony (not in favor) |
| 23&24 (VARIOUS TESTIMONY) (uploaded 03-06-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 Written Testimony (various comments) |
| SB 32 Support Crime Bills AACOP.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - PSEA Letter of Support.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |