Legislature(2025 - 2026)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/09/2025 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB113 | |
| SB39 | |
| SB64 | |
| SB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act establishing an income tax on certain entities
producing or transporting oil or gas in the state; and
providing for an effective date."
10:13:44 AM
CATHY GIESSEL, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation. She
discussed the presentation, "SB 92 version S S-Corporation
Tax Structure" (copy on file). She pointed to slide 2:
C Corporations are taxed separately from their owners,
meaning they pay taxes on their profits and then the
shareholders pay taxes again on any dividends they
receive.
S Corporations pass their profits and losses directly
to their shareholders' personal tax returns, avoiding
the perceived "double taxation" seen with C
Corporations. S Corporations were created in the tax
code on January 1, 1958.
There are specific requirements and restrictions for
an entity to qualify as an S Corporation:
• Does not have more than 100 shareholders
• Does not have a shareholder who is not an
individual (with the exception for various tax-
exempt organizations, estates and trusts)
• Does not have a nonresident alien as a
shareholder
• Does not have more than one class of stock
(DCCED, Div of Corp, business & prof licensing)
There are 11,700 S Corporations registered in Alaska.
(Alaska Department of Revenue Indirect Expenditure
Report 2024)
Senator Giessel pointed to slide 3, "Limited Liability
Companies":
Limited Liability Company (LLC) were first introduced
in Wyoming in 1977, but did not catch on until the
1990s. A limited liability company is a legal business
entity, considered its own "person" by law, which
exists separate from its members. An LLC shares the
limited liability features of a corporation but has
the management and tax efficiencies of a partnership.
Members' liabilities are limited to their financial
contributions meaning an individual members' liability
is only extends to what they contribute to the LLC.
Limited liability does not shield owners of the LLC
from negligence liability.
LLCs have an array of tax options. For example,
members may file taxes as one of the following, but
not limited to:
• Single member LLC taxed as Sole Proprietorships
(Sole Prop)
• Partners in an LLC taxed as a Traditional
Partnership (LLP)
• LLC taxed as a Corporation, including S
Corporations or C Corporations (S-Corp, C-Corp)
LLCs can elect to be taxed as S Corporations if they
meet the requirements, but they have more flexibility
in structure and management compared to traditional S
Corporations. So, if an LLC opts for S Corporation
status, it's taxed similarly to other S Corporations,
but with the added flexibility of the LLC framework.
According to the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development, as of 2024, there are 67,133
active LLCs registered in Alaska. This number can
fluctuate with new formations and dissolutions
10:17:39 AM
Senator Giessel highlighted slide 4, "Alaska Linkage to
Federal Code":
Federal Code Linkage: Alaska generally follows federal
tax rules for federal tax purposes but does not have
its own state income tax code. Instead, Alaska uses
federal tax rules as a basis for compliance and
reporting for businesses operating within the state.
This means that while there's no separate state income
tax code, businesses and individuals must adhere to
federal tax regulations for their federal tax filings.
Both S Corporations and LLCs enjoy similar tax
treatments in Alaska due to the state's lack of a
state income tax.
Individual Income Tax Repeal: Alaska originally
implemented an individual income tax in 1949. However,
this income tax was repealed in 1979. The repeal came
as a result of the state's new revenue source, the
Alaska Permanent Fund, which was established to manage
oil revenues. The creation of the Permanent Fund
reduced the need for individual income taxes.
Senator Giessel looked at slide 5:
AS 43.20.021
Current Statutes for companies filing as S
Corporations
• "Under Alaska's adoption of the Internal
Revenue Code [AS 43.20.021], corporations that
have elected S Corporation status are generally
not subject to tax.
• Prior to 1980, the stakeholders' share of
income was subject to Alaska's personal income
tax.
• Since the 1980 repeal of the state's personal
income tax, the income is taxed neither at the
corporate level nor at the shareholder level"
-Legislative Finance Division Indirect
Expenditure Report January 2021
Senator Giessel looked at slide 6, "Nine States No
Personal Income Tax":
• Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wyoming
• 14 states have a flat tax rate
• 27 have graduated rates similar to the federal tax
system.
Senator Giessel highlighted slide 7, which showed the
current structure for C-corporations, which were taxed
based on profits. The shareholders were also taxed via
personal tax on profits.
Senator Giessel pointed to slide 8, which showed what was
proposed in the bill for S-corporations that were engaged
in the oil and gas industry. There was a $5 million credit
(or deduction) for any taxes under $5 million. At $5
million or more, a company would fall under the top bracket
of 9.4 percent. She thought the tax credit was significant
went compared to C-corporations tax credit of $222,000.
10:21:24 AM
Senator Giessel addressed slide 9, which showed a January
2021 indirect expenditure report from the Legislative
Finance Division. In the report, the various taxes and
sources of revenue were evaluated. The edition pictured
made the suggestion that the S-corporation loophole be
terminated. She read the statement from the report:
Without a state personal income tax, these
corporations receive the legal benefits of
incorporation without any state tax liability.
Senator Giessel discussed slide 10, which showed
information presented by Department of Revenue (DOR)
Commissioner Linda Mahoney. She recalled that Co-Chair
Stedman and Senator Kiehl were part of the legislature's
Fiscal Policy Working Group in 2021, which had proposed
taxing oil and gas pass-through entities at the same rate
as the current corporate income tax on C-corporations. She
emphasized that what the bill proposed was not a new idea.
Senator Giessel spoke to slide 11, which showed a page from
the state's latest revenue forecast. The page showed
petroleum corporate income tax on C-corporations. She
mentioned ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil. In FY 24, the tax
amount was $210 million. In FY 25 it was forecast to be
$190 million and in FY 26 it was estimated to be $230
million. She explained that the tax was a substantial
revenue for the state.
Senator Giessel displayed slide 12, which showed a table
comparing Alaska Taxable Income and Tax Owed between C-
corporations and S-corporations. She emphasized that DOR
was restricted through confidentiality requirements to not
be able to disclose how many S-corporations in the state
would be liable under the bill for tax revenue. The Senate
Resources Committee had asked a Certified Pubic Accountant
(CPA) what it would look like to apply the provisions of
the bill to a company making $1 billion in profits. She
noted that the CPA was available to present the
calculations to the committee.
10:26:21 AM
Senator Giessel pointed to slide 13, "Hilcorp investment
locations." She noted that Texas and Wyoming were the two
states other than Alaska that did not have personal income
tax. The chart on the slide came from the website of a
large S-corporation (Hilcorp) operating in the state in the
oil and gas industry. The chart showed the six locations in
which Hilcorp did work, and reflected state and local taxes
paid, number of barrels per day, gross acres of production,
and other information. She noted that Alaska was at the
bottom of the chart and had "N/A" listed under "state and
local taxes paid."
Senator Giessel thought the argument had been stated that
if the tax was updated it would be incredibly burdensome
for the state's S-corporations because of the challenging
and expensive environment. She noted that the average
royalty in Texas fields was over 20 percent, while Alaska's
royalty rate was 16.6 percent and 12 percent. She thought
it had been stated that it was ten times more expensive to
work in Alaska, while others had confirmed that total costs
were closer to two times higher. She thought many of the
companies were invested in all three of Alaska's oil
producing regions. She mentioned companies' investment in
different parts of the state, and the lack of information
available due to DOR's confidentiality restrictions.
10:30:26 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought it would be helpful for the
committee to look at the matter from a different
perspective than offered by the sponsor. He suggested
looking back to the passage of SB 21, a major oil and gas
tax reorganization bill passed in 2013. At the time, the
legislature had considered the net revenue for the state
and federal government. In considering the sharing
relationship with the industry, the state's share was
comprised of four major components of corporate income tax,
property tax, royalties, and severance tax. Corporate
income tax had a smaller weighting than the other
components. He thoguht corporate income tax was not
discussed much as it was mostly static. The three major
players in the state had been ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips,
and BP.
Co-Chair Stedman continued that as BP phased out of the
state, it sold to Hilcorp, which was an S-corporation. The
state had hypothetically lost a third of the corporate
income tax, which had reduced the state's share and created
an imbalance. He pondered the marginal benefit of losing
the revenue with the marginal increase in production that
Hilcorp brought to the state with its lower overhead and
more nimble production. He thought there was an undeniable
increase in marginal production since Hilcorp was present.
He pondered the net benefit between the lost revenue and
new production. He thought corporate income tax was a few
hundred million. He pondered how to calculate the net gain
and loss. He mentioned the perceived instability from
changing the tax structure.
Co-Chair Hoffman agreed.
10:36:23 AM
Senator Giessel replied that the Senate Resources Committee
had asked the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to come
to the table, which it had. The agency had compared (at
$68/bbl) the difference in revenue and pointed out there
would be a 2 percent decrease in producer take home, which
would equate to a .40 cent decrease in take home per barrel
at the same oil price with state corporate income tax put
in place. She noted that DNR had more extensive slides that
the committee would find of interest. She thanked Co-Chair
Stedman for his ideas.
Senator Kaufman pondered the net total return and whether
the bill incentivized or disincentivized production. He
agreed with Co-Chair Stedman's perspective.
Senator Kiehl thoguht it was difficult to set tax policy by
looking at the past. He considered the category of those
that paid taxes and taxing those in the same category the
same. He pondered if the category should be oil and gas
companies or should rather be corporate structure or
investment activity. He thought of C-corporations that were
investing heavily and would be paying the tax. He posed the
question of how to look at the category of taxation.
10:39:20 AM
Senator Giessel thought it would be difficult to attempt to
reach an equal or fair tax between C-corporations and S-
corporations. She reminded that corporations paid the tax
as an entity, and shareholders also paid taxes on
dividends. She noted that S-corporations received a $5
million credit before any tax liability. She pointed out
that it was the purview of the committee to change the bill
in any way it wished. She noted that the bill included
entities that were in the transportation industry. She used
the hypothetical of a C-corporation with subsidiaries,
which would be unitized and not taxed separately. She noted
that there were more complex facets of the bill than were
presented.
Co-Chair Hoffman offered a hypothetical situation and
considered what the committee would do if Conoco and Exxon
became S-corporations. He thought the answer was clear, and
in light of the hypothetical consideration, he was in
support of the legislation.
10:42:20 AM
AT EASE
10:43:46 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that the committee would hear
invited testimony from the CPA referenced by Senator
Giessel.
10:44:14 AM
JOHN LETOURNEAU, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, THOMAS HEAD
AND GREISEN, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), addressed the
legislation. He discussed the presentation, "CSSB 92(RES)S:
Tax analysis" (copy on file), which was designed to
illustrate the hypothetical situation of two similarly
situated companies that had the same amount of taxable
income but were taxed as a C-corporation and an S-
corporation.
Mr. Letorneau looked at slide 2, which showed that for $1
billion of federal taxable income, under current law a C-
corporation would pay the state $93 million while an S-
corporation would pay nothing.
Mr. LeTourneau looked at slide 3, which showed the total
gross income tax liability paid at the corporate level for
C-corporations ($93,990,150) versus S-corporations ($0).
Mr. LeTourneau spoke to slide 4, which illustrated the
impact of the bill as proposed with the hypothetical $1
billion in taxable income and a C-corporation would pay
almost $94 million, and an S-corporation would pay slightly
less, with the difference being the impact of $5 million
exemption.
Senator Kaufman wondered about the term, "loophole." He
asked if the present tax policy was a loophole. He asked
Mr. LeTourneau to discuss the concept.
Mr. LeTourneau replied that in tax parlance, a loophole was
a benefit that someone received that another person does
not receive. He used the example involving a person
choosing a state of residence due to tax reasons.
Senator Kaufman wondered why the term "loophole" was used
when the committee was discussing tax policy that was
already in place. He pondered if the state wanted
production, and what was it doing to enhance production and
the total return. He did not know if using the term
"loophole" was on the right track.
10:48:54 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman OPENED public testimony.
DOUG WOODBY, SELF, JUNEAU, supported the bill. He reasoned
that the bill honored the constitution in telling the
legislature to make sure the public received the maximum
revenue for its resources. He thought the state needed the
revenue badly. He noted that he was a grandfather with
grandchildren in the Juneau school system. He thought the
public school system was hurting.
10:50:19 AM
KARA MORIARTY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU, spoke against the
legislation. She discussed the Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA), which advocated for the long-term
viability of the oil and gas industry. She relayed that
AOGA firmly opposed targeted taxes, and thought the bill
imposed a discriminatory and retroactive tax on select
entities in the industry. She thought the legislation was
trying to tax one company in particular and overlooked the
company's efforts to increase production on the North
Slope. She thought the bill undermined investor confidence
in the state's fiscal stability. She thought the bill
needed more modelling and analysis to know the full impact.
She argued that the construction of the bill created
confusion and ambiguity. She mentioned further technical
concerns with the bill. She offered to return to share the
concerns in more detail at a future meeting.
10:54:07 AM
LEILA KIMBRELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUCIL, JUNEAU, testified against the
bill. She relayed that the Resource Development Council
(RDC) was a non-profit trade association representing
multiple industries. She asserted that RDC had long
advocated that responsible fiscal policy, meaningful
spending limit, a diverse private sector, and stable tax
policies were critical for maintaining competitiveness for
all industries. She contended that the bill unfairly
targeted certain S-corporations and only one company. She
thoguht the bill was retroactive and discriminatory and
raised legal and constitutional issues. She thought the
legislature should consider how the bill affected future
development and the state's long-term competitiveness. She
suggested that the bill threatened investment and
opportunity in the state and would ultimately result in
decreased jobs and revenue for the state.
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that he would reopen the public
hearing at a later time.
Co-Chair Hoffman CLOSED public testimony.
SB 92 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 39 03.26.25 SFIN Follow-Up to 03.20.25 Hearing.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Sectional Analysis version N 2.25.2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Sponsor Statement Version N 2.25.2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Summary of Changes Version N 2.25.2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Supporting Documents.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Letters of Opposition 2.25.2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Letters of Support 2.25.2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 OLA - Alaska Comment Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Hudson Cook Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Opposition Testimony ILPA AK.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Miller Testimony 2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 AFSA comment letter - AK SB 39 rate caps 03.20.2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/20/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 2025 03 31 OLA Ltr re SB 39 Testimony Inaccuracies.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Watson Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 CRL Written Response re AK SB 39.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 INFiN AK Statement.3.20.25.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 mark up rate calculation TILA.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 64 Summary of Changes I to W 4.2.2025.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Sponsor Statement version W 4.2.2025.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Sectional Analysis version W 4.2.2025.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Letters of Opposition 3.26.25.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Letters of Support 3.26.25.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 92 DOR Presentation to SRES.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 4/2/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Email DOR to SRES Staff 3.11.25 re DOR Response to Questions.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Email DOR to Senators 3.4.25 re Meeting Follow Up & Docs.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 4/2/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| Legislative Research on S-Corps in Other States.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| Hilcorp - Where We Operate.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Invited Testimony Presentation - CPA Tax Analysis Slides $10B.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Wuestenfeld.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Presentation to Senate Finance 4.9.25.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Fiscal Note DOR - OLD NOTE.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Sectional Analysis v.S |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Public Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Legislative Research Alaska Business Entities and Taxation.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 IRS Qualified Business Income Deduction.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 IRS 2024 Form 6251.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Historical Documents Provided by (S)RES.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 DOR Presentation to SRES.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Long.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Demers.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Griswold.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Maurer.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Faust.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Brown.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Baily.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Martin.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Allmeroth.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 39 Explanation of Changes ver. N to ver. I April 7 2025.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 work draft version I.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 113 3-24-25 CTIA Alaska SB 113 Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 113 Banuelos Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 113 Public Testimony Allmeroth.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 113 Research - CCH AnswersConnect - Market Based Sourcing.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/10/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 113 Sponsor Statement version A 2.26.25.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/10/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 113 Sectional Analysis version A 2.26.25.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/10/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 113 Research - CCH AnswersConnect - Apportionment Formulas.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/10/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 113 Research Tax Division 2024 Annual Report excerpt.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/10/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 39 2025 04 07 OLA Letter to Sen Kaufman re SB 39.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 RBFC AK SB 39 Opposition Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 113 Public Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 113 |
| SB 64 OOG DOE 040425.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 92 Explanation of Changes v.L to v.S.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Sectional Analysis v.S.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 39 RBFC AK SB 39 Opposition Letter (2).pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 64 2025.4.8 NM SB 64 Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 92 Testimony Fredeen.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 testimony Stead.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Support Letter 4_02_25.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Droop.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Schmidt.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Rennolds.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimoy Kandror.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 – Opposition Carlstrom.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Testimony Stokes.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 citizen testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |