Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/14/2024 01:30 PM 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 | |
| SB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 132
"An Act imposing an annual educational facilities
maintenance and construction tax on net earnings from
self-employment and wages; relating to the
administration and enforcement of the educational
facilities maintenance and construction tax; and
providing for an effective date."
1:45:52 PM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that it was the first hearing for SB
132.
1:46:32 PM
Senator Click Bishop, Sponsor, offered an introduction to
the bill by reminding that the legislature had a
constitutional obligation to provide quality and public
education for Alaskas children. He recounted that he came
from the private sector in the construction industry before
coming to Juneau as the commissioner for the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD). He emphasized that
deferred maintenance was a liability in the private sector.
He noted that the states deferred maintenance in
education, on the major maintenance list, and on the school
construction list was monumental. He cited that in the
current year the major maintenance list for all funds was
about $330 million. The school construction list was $395
million. He asserted that the bill would be a small step
forward to start reducing the list.
Senator Bishop noted that he represented 10 school
districts and had heard that districts were having to cut
maintenance hours in half in order to maintain teachers in
the classroom. Money was being taken from classrooms to fix
leaky roofs. He thought the committee was well aware of the
issue. The University of Alaska (UA) had a deferred
maintenance list of $1.45 billion. He cited that the total
figure for educational facilities in Alaska between the
three lists was $2.18 billion.
1:49:50 PM
Senator Bishop continued his remarks. He referenced Alaska
Economic Trends magazine [published by the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development.] He told an anecdote about
learning that part of his payroll deductions went towards
school. He noted that the bill had been introduced several
times. The employment tax for education had been repealed
in 1980 and had been introduced 15 times since, not
counting his four attempts. He thought Alaska had the best
research and analysis division of any state in the country.
He mentioned the current economic trends magazine that
referenced non-resident employment. Data showed 20 to 21
percent non-resident wages, which resulted in about $3
billion leaving the state. He surmised that the out-of-
state workers were being taxed most likely had to
contribute towards taxes for education at their place of
residence. He mentioned work on the North Slope and a
positive outlook for the state. He thought wages would
continue to rise.
1:54:37 PM
JOHN BITNEY, STAFF FOR SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, discussed the
specific provisions of the bill. He offered a quick
synopsis in that SB 132 proposed to revive the head tax
that was repealed in 1980. The tax would collect $30 from
each person employed in the state and would be withheld
from each employees first paycheck of the year. The amount
would be deductible from federal income taxes. He indicated
that according to the fiscal notes, the bill was expected
to generate about $14 million per year. There was language
in the bill that marked the disposition of the funds for
the Educational Facilities Maintenance and Construction
Fund. The fund was within the General Fund and was
available for school construction and maintenance and also
for UA. He thanked the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development for its assistance.
Mr. Bitney read from a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Alaska Education Facilities, Maintenance, and
Construction Tax
Section 1 amends AS 23.05.060 relating to the powers
of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
by adding a new subsection allowing the department to
collect the tax if requested to do so by the
Department of Revenue.
Section 2 adds a new chapter to AS 43 creating the
Education Facilities Maintenance and Construction
Tax.
• Sec. 43.45.011 authorizes the Department of
Revenue to levy a tax of $30 on wages and net
earnings from self-employment on all individuals,
both resident and nonresident, with income from a
source in Alaska.
• Sec. 43.45.021 requires employers to withhold
the tax from an employee's first paycheck of the
calendar year. Failure to submit the tax may
result in a civil penalty imposed on the employer
in an amount up to five times the tax due. The
Department of Revenue shall adopt regulations
regarding the payment and maintenance of tax
records. Finally, the Department of Revenue shall
coordinate with the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development to collect and report the
tax in a manner similar to employment security
contributions if it will result in cost savings
for the state.
• Sec. 43.45.031 requires self-employed
individuals to remit the tax due in accordance
with regulations adopted by the Department of
Revenue.
• Sec. 43.45.041 outlines the process for the
refund of overpayments.
• Sec. 43.45.051 requires a person to report to
the Department of Revenue any payments to a self-
employed individual if the same is required by
the Internal Revenue Service.
• Sec. 43.45.061 establishes the education
facilities maintenance and construction fund as a
separate account in the general fund.
• Sec. 43.45.099 establishes the definitions for
key terms.
Section 3 is uncodified law pertaining to the adoption
and implementation of regulations by the Department of
Revenue.
Section 4 provides an immediate effective date for
section 3, the adoption of regulations.
Section 5 provides an effective date of January 1,
2024 for all other sections of the bill.
1:59:19 PM
Mr. Bitney discussed a presentation entitled "Senate Bill
132 - Education Head Tax Introduction," (copy on file). He
showed slide 4, "Where the money goes," which showed
details about the Educational Facilities Maintenance and
Construction Fund, where the bill proposed to direct tax
revenue to designate the funds for school maintenance
construction and facilities of UA. Mr. Bitney continued
discussing the Sectional Analysis. He noted that the
proposed effective date had passed and would possibly have
to be updated before the bill advanced.
Senator Merrick asked why the head tax had been repealed in
1980.
Senator Bishop was not certain. He suggested that at the
time the legislature was considering a repeal of the income
tax, while Prudhoe Bay was increasing production, and the
North Slope was online. He thought Co-Chair Hoffman had
been present at the time.
Co-Chair Olson reminded that the atmosphere in the state
had been positive because of large leases on the North
Slope, and the taxes were not necessary.
2:02:00 PM
Senator Kiehl asked about the definition of a part-time
state resident or part-year state resident. He asked if the
definition was in statute or if it needed to be.
Mr. Bitney noted that the definitions were not in the bill.
He thought the bill language referenced wages that were
earned in the state.
Co-Chair Olson thought there were definitions from past
legislation.
Senator Kiehl wanted to ensure that any workers in seasonal
jobs were excluded from paying the tax, while excluding a
self-employed individual that was in the state on vacation.
He thought the amount of money proposed to be raised by the
bill would not handle the states deferred maintenance
backlogs, nor current maintenance needs. He asked the
sponsor to discuss the decision of the current dollar
amount in the bill.
Senator Bishop thought it was necessary to start somewhere
and recalled that the same number had been in the bill
proposed in 2015. He thought the number had been adjusted
for inflation from when the original tax had been repealed.
Senator Bishop cited that currently there were about
390,465 employed individuals in the state.
Senator Kiehl read the bill language, and considered that a
person living on a trust fund would not be subject to the
tax. He wondered if the exclusion had been a tax policy
decision or if it was due to the difficulty of collection.
Senator Bishop relayed that the bill was in aid of
revitalizing territorial intent and that the exclusion was
not factored into the bill design.
Senator Wilson noted that there was a fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue (DOR) and a fiscal note from DLWD,
and thought the notes were vastly different with regard to
collection of the tax and the cost to do so. He pointed out
differences in the estimated fiscal impact wondered if it
would be better for DLWD to do all the collection because
it appeared much less expensive.
Senator Bishop suggested Senator Wilson's question be posed
to the departments. He did not disagree with Senator Wilson
and thought DLWD could do the work more cost effectively.
2:08:04 PM
BRANDON SPANOS, TAX DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
addressed Senator Wilson's question and relayed that DOR
had a very modern and robust tax revenue system of any of
the 50 states. He mentioned paying taxes via a mobile
device. He mentioned the improvement in reporting. He
described that the cost shown in the fiscal note was for a
new module for the tax revenue management system. He
acknowledged that the new system was costly but noted that
the department was very happy with the end product.
Mr. Spanos commented that if a resident of Alaska were to
pay an income tax, he would prefer it to be as simple as
possible. He mentioned that the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) was doing a beta program in 12 states and excluded
Alaska because 1099 forms were issued for the Permanent
Fund Dividend (PFD). The beta program was called Free File.
The program was intended to allow taxpayers to file for
free through the IRS website rather than paying a third
party. The program would be expanded to all states if
Congress continued the funding. He noted that if the bill
were to pass, it would be a simple thing to file through
the existing system.
Senator Wilson considered the personnel cost, which seemed
to be very different between the two fiscal notes. He did
not see how there would be vastly different fiscal notes
for a similar service, beyond the technology. He wondered
why the DOR note was so much more costly than the DLWD
note.
Mr. Spanos appreciated Senator Wilson's question. He noted
that there was no other state with a comparable tax, so it
was difficult to compare. He relayed that the department
had talked to other states about similar taxes. He
considered the taxpayer base and 8 employees to administer
a tax for 400,000 people. He referenced the number of
employees necessary to administer the PFD. He mentioned
self-employed individuals, individuals with more than one
job, and other circumstances that would call for technical
assistance and potential refunds.
2:13:37 PM
Senator Kiehl asked if Mr. Spanos comments were the reason
for the difference in cost between the two fiscal notes.
Mr. Spanos could not speak to DLWD's fiscal note. He
explained that DOR's note used income statics and U.S.
taxpayer information to develop the analysis and formulate
the cost and revenue estimates.
Senator Kiehl asked if there was a typo in FY 29, or a bump
in the expense.
Mr. Spanos noted that the department had submitted a new
fiscal note and had addressed the item in the fiscal note
analysis. He explained that there were necessary system
upgrades required every few years, and the system upgrade
cost was reflected in the fiscal note.
Senator Kiehl asked if the system upgrade was unique to a
head tax module, or if the cost was a portion of the period
upgrade of the entire tax system.
Mr. Spanos relayed that there was no separate cost for one
module, but the amount reflected the cost of a stand-alone
module. The cost would apply to the system as a whole.
Senator Kiehl asked if the cost was specifically attributed
to passage of the bill or if the cost would to be paid
regardless of the legislation.
Mr. Spanos relayed that there was currently no budget for
the cost, and the department had to request the upgrade
when the time came. With a broad-based tax of the size in
the bill, the department added the cost to the fiscal note
to reflect how much it would cost to administer the tax.
Senator Wilson asked about having the module built for $10
million and paying another $7 million to upgrade the system
in four years.
Mr. Spanos explained that the cost for the upgrade would
occur as often as was possible. The recommendation from the
vendor was to do the upgrade once every five years.
Senator Wilson asked how much revenue would be earned each
year.
Mr. Spanos cited that the revenue would be $14.3 million in
the first full year after implementation.
Senator Wilson asked if the state would be losing half the
anticipated revenue every four years.
Mr. Spanos explained that there would be a cost to the
system, and it was not dependent upon the revenue raised.
Senator Wilson thought the administrative cost would be
about half of the yearly projected revenue from the
proposed tax. He asked if he made an accurate statement.
Mr. Spanos answered, If this is the way you would like us
to administer it, then yes.
Co-Chair Olson thought that revenue amounts were only a
projection, and the real cost and revenue was not exactly
known.
2:18:28 PM
Senator Kiehl thought he heard the answer differently. He
thought that every four or five years, the cost of
upgrading the entire system would be attributed to the
proposed tax in the bill.
Senator Bishop thought Senator Kiehl had done a good job
with his comment. He wanted to know the cost of upgrades to
the system that collected oil and gas tax revenue. He asked
about the system model.
Mr. Spanos relayed that the DOR did not have a plan for
updating the system every few years. The original contract
had only included implementation costs and a one-year
service cost. There was no revenue in the budget at the
time to pay for ongoing services after five years. The
department had requested original funding and had updated
the base budget to maintain the system. The current
governors budget reflected an additional amount for
increased costs. He noted that there had been one upgrade
from the original rollout in 2014, with an appropriation
from the legislature.
Senator Bishop commented that he would like he preferred to
refer to the proposed tax as the education facilities
maintenance and construction tax, and noted that it was
not an income tax.
Co-Chair Olson asked if the funds collected would be used
for school construction and maintenance.
Senator Bishop answered affirmatively and noted that the
funds would also be used for UA deferred maintenance.
2:21:54 PM
PALOMA HARBOUR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself and noted that she would
address questions to the departments fiscal note.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Ms. Harbor wanted to comment on the
previous discussion about revenue and maintenance costs as
pointed out by Mr. Spanos.
Ms. Harbour relayed that currently DLWD had a mainframe-
based tax system for the unemployment insurance tax, which
could be programmed to collect the additional tax proposed
in the bill. The system was less expensive, but she
considered that the system was outdated and used decades-
old programming language. The department was looking
towards a system upgrade and had a capital request in the
FY 25 budget to start the preliminary work towards
modernizing the system. She emphasized that the project
would be expensive. She reiterated that DOLWDs system was
outdated, and although easier to program was harder to
maintain. She contrasted that DOR had a modern system that
could accommodate the new tax but did come with an
associated cost.
Senator Wilson asked for a ballpark figure cost of the
modernization for the DLWD system.
Ms. Harbour did not have a ballpark figure to offer but
noted that there was a current capital request for
approximately $450,000 to do the as-built documentation to
assess the programming before going out to solicit a
replacement system.
Senator Kiehl trusted that DLWD would include the cost of
licensing and periodic upgrades. He asked if Ms. Harbour
could speak to the difference in revenue estimates between
the two fiscal notes. He observed that the DOLWD fiscal
note showed about $10 million including a guess on self-
employment, which DORs note showed at about $14 million.
Ms. Harbour relayed that the fiscal note she submitted for
DLWD had not included a revenue estimate, as DOR had the
tax information to do a better estimation.
Senator Kiehl relayed that he would determine where he got
the figure.
Ms. Harbour believed that the previous year DLWD may have
submitted a fiscal note with a revenue estimate, but it had
not been based on tax data.
2:25:35 PM
DAN ROBINSON, CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, introduced himself and relayed that
he was prepared to answer questions about a statutorily
required report on resident and non-resident workers in the
state. He noted that there was an abbreviated version in
the February issue of the Alaska Economic Trends
publication. He referenced the report "Nonresidents Working
in Alaska 2022" (copy on file).
Co-Chair Olson thought Senator Bishop had mentioned roughly
395,000 workers, and asked if it was close to the numbers
that Mr. Robinsons department had come up with.
Mr. Robinson relayed that the report that was just released
was for 2022, because of the time taken for the PFD
applications to be matched with the wage records. The
report showed 316,809 residents, and 86,368 non-residents.
He noted that non-residents were defined as not having
applied for the PFD, for which there were rigorous
residency standards including living in the state for a
full calendar year.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Mr. Robinson could comment on what
the revenue forecast might be for the proposed tax.
Mr. Robinson mentioned discussions with DOR and worker
counts relevance to tax revenue potential.
Co-Chair Olson considered the implementation of the new
program, computer upgrades, and potential tax revenues and
wondered if it was true that half the potential tax revenue
would be used for system upgrades and maintenance.
Mr. Robinson relayed that he had no awareness of the issue.
2:28:31 PM
DR. MADELINE AGUILLARD, SUPERINTENDENT, KUSPUK SCHOOL
DISTRICT, discussed a presentation entitled "SB 132:
Employment Tax for Education Facilities" (copy on file).
Dr. Aguillard spoke to slide 2, "Alaska Schools by the
numbers":
131,212 students
53 school districts In business terms, largest
employer in most communities
452 school facilities 55% are >40 years old
Dr. Aguillard referenced slide 3, "Ongoing Challenges:
Deferred maintenance":
Growing maintenance needs, limited state funding
- Average building age: 42 years
- 71 buildings are over 60 years old
Current backlog:
Over $300 million and growing
Dr. Aguillard commented that she came from a very small
school district and noted that there were 9 buildings and 7
schools.
Dr. Aguillard discussed slide 4, "Jack Egnaty Senior
School: Sleetmute, AK":
K-12 school - 45 years old
17 students
250 miles west of Anchorage along the Kuskokwim River
Only accessible by air or river travel
Community of 75 people
Dr. Aguillard noted that her district had multiple schools
on the major maintenance list.
2:31:01 PM
Dr. Aguillard reviewed slide 5:
Capital Improvement Project: Major Maintenance
application submitted for 14 years.
FY24 rank: 15th (after appeal)
FY25 rank: 23rd
-Immediate safety concerns prompted the district to
contract LCG Lantech Inc. during the fall of 2023 to
evaluate the integrity and damaged portion of the
foundation and structure of the school.
Amount Requested: $1,608,442
"There was a noticeable increase in the damage to
several of the walls and the foundations based on the
photos provided in the original DEED report from 2021.
This indicates that the structure is deteriorating
quickly, increasing the potential for a collapse." -
LCG Lantech Inc Nov. 2023
Dr. Aguillard mentioned major health and safety concerns
and closing a portion of the school.
Dr. Aguillard showed slide 6, which showed a graphic of a
school floor plan:
"?and a portion of the floor framing which could
collapse under certain circumstances. All exterior
foundation walls in these areas require replacement or
retrofit prior to the space being occupiable once
again." LCG Lantech Inc Nov. 2023
Dr. Aguillard noted that in 2021, the district had a
conditions survey done, which was submitted with the
application for major maintenance. Conditions had continued
to deteriorate, followed by a follow-up study that
indicated that the school faced imminent structural
failure. She discussed the rapid increase in the severity
of the problem that had started with a roof replacement.
She noted that the red portion on the graphic denoted the
closed parts of the school.
Dr. Aguillard discussed slide 7:
There are no other structures in Sleetmute large
enough to accommodate students and staff during the
school day, but that also means there is no other
physical space for the community to gather.
Dr. Aguillard discussed the importance of school structures
utilized as community buildings.
Dr. Aguillard showed slide 8:
Thank you! Questions?
Dr. Madeline Aguillard
[email protected]
Dr. Aguillard summarized that the proposed tax would help
provide funding for the backlog of major maintenance needs
for Alaska school districts. She asked the committee to
remember that other school districts across the state had
the same needs.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Dr. Aguillard had indicated that
the Sleetmute school gymnasium was closed due to
maintenance issues.
Dr. Aguillard answered that half the school building,
including the gym, a bathroom, and a shop were currently
closed.
2:35:49 PM
KIMBERLY HANKINS, SUPERINTENDENT, LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL
DISTRICT, discussed a presentation entitled "SB 132:
Employment Tax for Education Facilities (copy on file).
Ms. Hankins showed slide 2, "LKSD- by the numbers":
? 29 schools
? 24 communities
? 4,000 students
? 1,200 employees
? 22,000 square miles
Ms. Hankins shared that the Lower Kuskokwim School District
(LKSD) had had major maintenance and school construction
needs throughout the district. She mentioned that LKSD was
the largest Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAA) in
the state and relied heavily on Department of Education and
Early Developments Capital Improvement Projects School
Construction and Major Maintenance Grant Funds to support
the needs of the district.
Ms. Hankins turned to slide 3, "Ongoing Challenge: Deferred
maintenance":
? LKSD has nearly $14M of deferred maintenance
projects on the FY25 Capital Improvement Projects
Major Maintenance Grant Fund list
• Bethel Campus Fire Pump House (11)
• Akula Elitnaurvik K-12 Renovation (15)
• Akiuk Memorial School Renovation (56)
• BRHS Boardwalk Replacement (59)
• GJE School Heating Mains Replacement (61)*
Ms. Hankins discussed the projects on the major maintenance
list. She pointed out that LKSD funded the heating mains
replacement five years previously and had sought to be
reimbursed for the cost of the project, which was over $1
million and needed for classroom education.
Ms. Hankins showed slide 4, "Deferred Maintenance," which
showed two pictures of the gymnasium in Akiuk Memorial
School. She noted that project 56 was for the gym, which
was closed for the second year due to roof issues. She
described that students currently commuted to neighboring
schools to use gym space to practice team sports.
2:39:04 PM
Ms. Hankins referenced slide 5, "Ongoing Challenge: School
Construction":
? William Miller Memorial School in Napakiak has been
funded
? Approximately 1/3 of the existing school has been
demolished
? Students continue classes in the remaining section
of the school
Ms. Hankins discussed projects on the school construction
list. She relayed that even with funding, the Napakiak
school would take several years to construct, while the
students used the un-demolished portion of the school shown
in the picture on the slide. She noted that she had been
the principal of Napakiak School in 2009, when the district
had communicated about issues of erosion affecting the
school. The project was on the CIP list without receiving
funding until it was an emergency situation and then funded
in 2021. She noted that if erosion continued at the same
rate, the school would not be able to be used and alternate
locations would need to be found until the new school was
complete.
Ms. Hankins referenced slide 6, "Ongoing Challenge: School
Construction":
? LKSD has over $167M of projects on the FY25 Capital
Improvement Projects School Construction Grant Fund
list
• Newtok/Mertarvik (1)
• Nelson Island School Replacement (2)
• Anna Tobeluk Renovation (4)
• Water Storage/Treatment, Kong (9)
• Bethel Campus Upgrades (16)
Ms. Hankins showed slide 7, which had two photos of Newtok.
The photo on the left showed the school, and the photo on
the left showed demolition of a water treatment plant. She
relayed that the project was completed late the previous
summer, and if it had not been finished the plant would be
in a portion of the river. She noted that there were still
approximately 30 students in the school, and there was
currently no running water. Students were provided with
time during the day to go home for bathroom breaks. She
recounted sounding the alarm for needed school funding
for years before receiving the needed funds.
2:42:16 PM
Ms. Hankins spoke to slide 8, which showed two photos of
Nunapitchuk. The photos showed a collapsed ramp, which had
caused injury to an employee. She noted that a structural
engineer had completed an analysis of the entire building.
As a result, a portion of two classrooms in the school were
closed. She relayed that the schools application also
suffered from overcrowding. The school district was tasked
with finding money to shore up the foundation as it waited
for the funding for renovation.
Ms. Hankins spoke to slide 9, which showed photos of the
school in Goodnews Bay. There were foundational issues at
the school. She noted that the school was not on the CIP
list as of yet. She commented on the cost of submitting a
school condition report and the need for the district to
prioritize the competing needs of the schools.
Ms. Hankins showed slide 10:
Thank you! Questions?
Kimberly Hankins
Lower Kuskokwim School District
Ms. Hankins expressed her support for the bill as a means
of generating more funding for major maintenance and school
construction around the state.
Co-Chair Olson asked about the progress of relocation
efforts for the new school in Newtok.
Ms. Hankins relayed that the district was working on the
foundation portion of the new school in Mertarvik. She
noted that there were plans to close the school in Newtok
at the end of the year and demolish the school due to
health and safety concerns. Most school age students would
be moving to Mertarvik the following year. The district
would be providing education in the emergency evacuation
center in the community.
Co-Chair Olson asked if there would be a heated facility
with bathrooms available for students.
Ms. Hankins affirmed that the evacuation center in
Mertarvik was currently used as the school and had heat and
bathrooms. The facility would be used until the new school
was complete.
2:46:17 PM
Co-Chair Olson OPENED public testimony.
2:46:33 PM
Co-Chair Olson CLOSED public testimony.
SB 132 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Olson discussed the agenda for the following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB132 FY25 School Construction List.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB132 FY25 School Major Maintenance list.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB132 - Nonresidents Working in Alaska 2022.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 Sectional Analysis 04.22.2023.pdf |
SEDC 4/26/2023 3:30:00 PM SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 Sponsor Statement 04.22.2023.pdf |
SEDC 4/26/2023 3:30:00 PM SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 head tax what intro slides feb 24 final.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 Presentation-Kuspuk.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 LKSD 2024 SB 132 Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 DBSD Support Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 DOLWD UI 102223.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |
| SB 132 DOR TAX 020924.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 132 |