Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/20/2022 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 | |
| SB121 | |
| SB199 | |
| SB243 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 199
"An Act relating to use of income of the Alaska permanent
fund; relating to the amount of the permanent fund
dividend; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
revenue; and providing for an effective date."
9:33:33 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the third hearing for
SB 199, and the committee would consider fiscal modelling
scenarios presented by the Legislative Finance Division
(LFD).
9:33:52 AM
AT EASE
9:34:15 AM
RECONVENED
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
discussed the presentation "Fiscal Modeling: Senate Finance
Committee Scenarios; Senate Finance Committee, April 20,
2022; Legislative Finance Division" (copy on file). He
advanced to slide 2, "Outline":
?Review of LFD Modeling Baseline Assumptions
?Comparison of Senate Finance Committee Assumptions to
LFD Baseline
?Fiscal Models Using Committee Assumptions
Mr. Painter detailed that the comparison of committee
assumptions was different than the previous time he
presented in order to reflect changes in the budget since
that time.
9:35:00 AM
Mr. Painter spoke to slide 3, "Review of LFD Modeling
Baseline":
? Legislative Finance's fiscal model is designed to
show policy makers the longer-term impact of fiscal
policy decisions.
? The baseline assumptions are essentially that
current budget levels are maintained, adjusted for
inflation. Policy changes are then applied against
that baseline.
? Our default is to assume that statutory formulas
will be followed.
This includes a statutory PFD beginning FY23.
Mr. Painter referenced slide 4, "Review of LFD Modeling
Baseline (cont.)":
Revenue Assumptions
? LFD's baseline revenue assumptions are the
Department of Revenue's Spring Revenue Forecast.
This assumes $101 oil in FY23, following
futures market thereafter.
DNR oil production forecast projects that
Alaska North Slope production will increase from
502.3 thousand barrels per day in FY23 to 576.6
thousand barrels per day in FY31.
? For the Permanent Fund, we use Callan's return
assumption of 5.86% total return in FY22 and 6.20%
thereafter.
Mr. Painter noted that the spring forecast was about a
month old and the current futures market was very close to
the spring forecast with a little flattening. He considered
the spring forecast to be appropriate for use in the
modelling.
Mr. Painter turned to slide 5, "Review of LFD Modeling
Baseline (cont.)":
Spending Assumptions
? For agency operations, these scenarios assume the
Governor's FY23 amended budget grows with inflation
(2.25%).
? For statewide items, the baseline assumes that all
items are funded to their statutory levels beyond
FY23.
This includes School Debt Reimbursement, the
REAA Fund, Community Assistance, oil and gas tax
credits.
? For the capital budget, we assume the Governor's
FY23 capital budget grows with inflation (2.25%)
? For supplementals we assume $50.0 million per year.
This is based on the average amount of supplemental
appropriations minus lapsing funds each year.
? For the PFD, we assume a statutory dividend is paid
annually beginning FY23.
Mr. Painter considered slide 6, "LFD Modeling Baseline,"
which showed two bar graphs entitled 'UGF Budget/Revenue'
and 'Budget Reserves; FY-ending Balance.' He mentioned that
at the top there was a line showing the surplus/deficit in
millions starting with FY 22 going to FY 31. The black
numbers indicated surpluses in FY 22 through FY 24, and
projected deficits from FY 26 and beyond. He highlighted
that the graph on the left showed budget and revenue, with
revenue shown in blue bars for traditional revenue from
petroleum and non-petroleum sources and green bars for the
percent of market value (POMV) draws. The other colors
signified other draws from various savings accounts, most
notably in yellow there was the Constitutional budget
Reserve (CBR) and Statutory Budget Reserve (SBR), the
states main savings accounts.
Mr. Painter explained that the graph on the right showed
savings accounts end-of-year balances, with the yellow
showing combined CBR/SBR and the green showing the realized
value of the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA). He summarized
that the slide showed that with a statutory PFD that would
pay about $4,200 per person in FY 23, there would be a
surplus (based on the governors amended budget) of about
$700 million, but by FY 25 there would be a deficit due to
projected oil price declines. The deficit would start at
about $300 million, changing to between $500 million and
$800 million in subsequent years. Because of the surpluses
in early years, savings accounts would grow by up to $5
billion by the first year, so even with deficits the state
would not need ERA overdraws for the scenario.
9:39:11 AM
Mr. Painter displayed slide 7, "Senate Finance Committee
Scenarios":
Committee Chair asked for modeling with the following
assumptions that differ from LFD's baseline:
? Capital budget baseline of $400 million (instead of
$195.4 million)
? All oil revenues resulting from ANS prices beyond
$100/barrel deposited into Permanent Fund
? Agency operations assume FY23 SCS2 budget growing at
2.25%.
? Assume expiring federal funds are replaced with UGF
and PERS healthcare is funded after FY23
? Varying PFD scenarios: statutory PFD, 50% of POMV,
and SB 199 with trigger passing and failing.
? Deficits are first filled with K-12 Forward Funding.
CBR/SBR deficit draws only occur after the entirety of
Forward Funding is used to fill deficits.
Mr. Painter discussed the assumptions for the committees
requested modelling scenarios. He noted that when looking
at the probabilistic model, the surplus size flattened out
a bit because at a certain point the surplus from high oil
prices got deposited into the Permanent Fund, which
depressed the top of the range. He mentioned a stress test
scenario that had agency budget growth at 5 percent, which
was roughly equal to the amount the Senate Committee
Substitute (CS) grew versus the FY 22 budget. He noted that
in the CS, the PERS healthcare funding for FY 23 was
deposited into the Pension Fund, but the scenario assumed
it would go into the Healthcare Fund in future years.
Mr. Painter explained that the bill had a Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) amount that would change based on a
triggering mechanism that considered the presence of $800
million in new revenues enacted. He would show scenarios
with the new revenue and without.
Mr. Painter looked at slide 8, "SCS2 Budget":
The SCS2 budget has significant changes from the
Governor's amended budget, including:
? $60m FY22 supplemental appropriation to oil and gas
tax credit fund.
? $1,215m for Forward-Funding K-12 in FY23. Modeling
assumes this funding is reduced to fill deficits.
? Added $27m UGF to offset state agencies' increased
fuel costs.
? Added $300m FY22 supplemental ARPA revenue
replacement. Remaining $186m used in FY23.
Mr. Painter detailed that one of the uses of American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding was to replace lost
Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) revenue.
9:44:06 AM
Mr. Painter highlighted slide 9, "SCS2 Fiscal Summary,"
which showed a table. He noted that SB 199 would have a
50/50 dividend. He pointed out key figures on the table
that left a roughly balanced budget: the ongoing pre-
transfer surplus of $937 million in FY 22, and $43 million
in FY 23. There was some use of savings that generated
additional surplus, which in FY 22 resulted in $1.2 billion
post-transfer surplus, and in FY 23 resulted in a bit over
$200 million in surplus. He pointed out a combined total of
about $3.5 billion for SBR and Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR) balances. When added to the K-12 forward
funding, there was close to $4.7 billion of liquid savings
that could be used to fill future deficits.
Mr. Painter addressed slide 10, "Comparison of Senate
Finance - Scenario to LFD Baseline," which showed a table.
He noted that the LFD baseline essentially represented the
governor's budget growing with inflation. In FY 23, there
was a $1.7 billion difference due in part to one-time K-12
forward funding. On an ongoing basis, the assumption
difference was about $450 million of additional spending,
with half in capital expenditures and half in operating
expenditures.
Senator von Imhof asked if the blue bars on the bar graph
showed the governors budget and asked if the amount
included all the different amendments that had been
proposed in the previous four months.
Mr. Painter answered in the affirmative and noted that the
amount included the federal infrastructure bill and the
amendments for recent salary adjustments.
Mr. Painter advanced to slide 11, "Oil Prices, FY22 to
Date," which showed a line graph entitled 'ANS West Coast
Price.' He explained that the spring forecast had shown oil
price at its peak, and it had been volatile since. Earlier
in the year the prices were lower, with a ramp-up before
the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He highlighted that when
looking at the fiscal modelling scenarios, the spring
forecast assumed that oil prices would return to the pre-
war level within a few years. He noted that volatility
scenarios would show oil price at significantly higher and
lower ranges.
9:48:46 AM
Senator von Imhof noted that the slide started showing the
price of oil in July 2021 and thought if the graph been
started two years prior it would have reflected greater
volatility. She thought it was important to note that
volatility in the price of oil was commonplace and
mentioned the amount available to spend currently as
compared to two years previously.
Mr. Painter thought Senator von Imhof had made a good
point. He noted that the price of oil had briefly been zero
two years previously, and then touched $125/bbl. He thought
when looking at scenarios and modelling, one could consider
the extreme cases of volatility that had already occurred.
Senator von Imhof asked to go back to slide 10. She looked
at FY 23, and thought it was important to note that the
committee proposed to fund several things that the
governors budget had not, such as the Regional Educational
Attendance Area (REAA) Fund, community assistance, and
deferred maintenance. She thought the committee proposed to
fund items that had not been funded for many years.
Co-Chair Bishop answered "yes." He noted that there was
also a supplemental included in the total.
Mr. Painter stated that the supplemental was not included.
He explained that the major difference in the lines on the
graph was the K-12 forward funding of $1.2 billion. Much of
the additional spending used UGF for the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS) and $400 million proposed for the
capital budget.
Senator von Imhof asked to confirm that the largest chunk
of additional spending proposed by the committee was $1.2
billion for forward funding education.
Mr. Painter looked at slide 12, "Stress Tests":
? Two types of stress tests performed:
Budget stress test: grow agency operations and
capital budget by 5% per year instead of 2.25%
Revenue stress test: use probabilistic modeling
to simulate a range of possible oil prices and
investment returns
? For each PFD scenario, we will show the non- stressed
model output and the two stress tests
Mr. Painter discussed consideration of inflation rates.
9:52:56 AM
Mr. Painter showed slide 13, "Stress Test: 25th Percentile
Example":
? Example of a single case, for which 25% of total
cases see greater overall deficits.
? Example case has average oil price of $77 and
average Permanent Fund return of 7.0%
Mr. Painter pointed out the volatility on the graph. He
directed attention to the graph on the right entitled
'Permanent Fund Total Return,' and commented that even
though there were decent years in later years, the value of
the Permanent Fund was reduced. He thought the sequence of
returns for the fund was quite important rather than just
considering a straight average. He noted that oil
volatility and the sequence of returns in the model were
not favorable. He thought deterministic modelling could be
misleadingly positive versus the actual impact of
volatility in the real world.
Mr. Painter referenced slide 14, "Statutory PFD - SFIN
Baseline (2.25% Growth)," which showed two bar graphs. He
explained that the scenario included the committee
assumptions. He pointed out items on the bottom of the
slide that indicated the cost of the PFD in the scenario
and the amount per person.
9:56:24 AM
CONNOR BELL, FISCAL ANALYST AND ECONOMIST, LEGISLATIVE
FINANCE DIVISION (via teleconference), addressed slide 14.
He explained that the slide depicted a scenario showing a
statutory PFD with a 2.25 percent growth rate of agency
operations and capital budget. The scenario included a
deficit of $1.1 billion in FY 23, which was higher in the
following years because of the $1.2 billion in K-12 forward
funding discussed earlier. He highlighted the grey bar on
the graph. The forward funding was shown as an expenditure,
and later several hundred million of the funding amount was
used to fill deficits in FY 23. He pointed out the brown
portion of the bar that showed ARPA revenue replacement
filling the first few hundred million of the $1.1 billion
pre-transfer deficit. There were smaller deficits after FY
23, with deficits growing and then unplanned ERA draws
beginning in FY 28. He pointed out that the graph on the
right, 'Budget Reserves,' showed that the CBR hit the
minimum balance of $500 million in FY 27, after which the
unplanned ERA draws began.
Mr. Bell turned to slide 15, "Statutory PFD - SFIN Baseline
(5% Growth)," which showed an identical slide to slide 14,
with the exception of 5 percent budget growth in agency
operations and capital expenditure. He explained that the
FY 23 budget was the same as the previous scenario, with
the difference between the slides compounding over time.
The deficits grew significantly, up to $2.2 billion by the
end of the period. The K-12 forward funding reduction
filled the FY 23 through part of the FY 25 deficits, after
which the CBR and SBR were relied on until FY 27 when you
could see ERA overdraws. The realized ERA balance fell to
about $7 billion by FY 31 due to the sustained overdraws to
the fund.
Senator von Imhof thought slide 14 and slide 15 indicated
that inflation had a significant impact on expenses and
could not be ignored. She was reminded of the importance of
inflation-proofing the Permanent Fund corpus. She thought
the committee should consider inflation growth rates. She
thought it was wise to model different inflation rates
because it was material.
10:00:53 AM
Mr. Bell considered slide 16, "Statutory PFD - Revenue
Stress Test," which showed the statutory PFD in the
probabilistic scenario.
Mr. Painter addressed slide 16 and pointed out the median
deficit each year shown on the top. The left-hand graph was
on a previous slide. The blue bar in the middle represented
the median scenario, the green bars represented the 25th
and 75th percentile scenarios, and the black line
represented the 10th and 90th percentile. He expected the
vast majority of scenarios would fall within the lines. He
pointed out that in FY 23 there was a bunching up where
the median, the 90th percentile, and the 75th percentile
were shown in the same place because the impact of the $100
per barrel draw into the Permanent Fund. Since the baseline
forecast going forward was reduced, there was less
compression in the graph.
Mr. Painter addressed the graph on the right, which showed
the range of fiscal year-end realized ERA balances. The
bottom of the slide showed a table with CBR and SBR balance
probabilities, which were below a certain amount. In FY 23,
there was a 100 percent probability that the combined CBR
and SBR values were below $4 billion, and by FY 31 there
was a 90 percent probability. The other probability was
that the CBR and SBR would be below $500 million. For the
models, LFD assumed that there would be at least $500
million as a balance, so the scenarios had to overdraw the
ERA. The scenario could also be interpreted as the
probability of an ERA overdraw. In FY 23 the probability
was fairly low at 21 percent, but the figure increased over
time (as the revenue risk increased) to somewhere around 60
percent.
10:04:34 AM
Mr. Bell displayed slide 17, "50% of POMV to PFD - SFIN
Baseline (2.25% Growth)," which showed the same three
scenarios except for the 50/50 PFD, which was half of the
POMV draw from the Permanent Fund. The first graph showed a
baseline of 2.25 percent annual growth for agency
operations and capital expenditures. The FY 23 budget was
roughly balanced. He noted that there was an assumption of
$50 million in supplemental budget expense in FY 23, which
would not show up in the fiscal summary. He noted that
there was higher spending in FY 23, and FY 24 showed a
significant surplus, which fell into deficits starting in
FY 26. The forward-funding reduction was sufficient to
cover the deficits through FY 28, after which began CBR and
SBR draws in FY 29. There were no overdraws from the ERA in
the scenario. He drew attention to the combined balance of
CBR and SBR and realized ERA was over $20 billion by the
end of the period.
Senator Wilson commented that with the 50/50 PFD scenario,
a low budget and modest revenues showed that the scenario
could work.
Co-Chair Bishop referenced the following slide.
Mr. Bell highlighted slide 18, "50% of POMV to PFD - SFIN
Baseline (5% Growth)," which showed a slide identical to
slide 17 but for 5 percent in annual growth of agency
operations and capital spending. He highlighted that the
$12 million FY 23 deficit was the same, with a roughly
balanced budget. The deficit started to grow based on the
different compounding spending growth. He pointed out
deficit growth up to over $1 billion by FY 28 and then up
to $1.6 billion to $1.7 billion by the end of the period.
Due to the significant reserves balance in the earlier
period, the ERA was only overdrawn in the last two years of
the scenario. He cited that the CBR/SBR and forward-funding
reductions filled the deficits through FY 29.
10:08:03 AM
Mr. Bell looked at slide 19, "50% of POMV to PFD - Revenue
Stress Test," which showed two graphs: 'Surplus/(Deficit)
by Fiscal Year,' and 'Range of FY-End Realized ERA
Balances.' He cited that median surplus and deficit shown
was similar to what was shown two slides previously, but
the amounts differed in later years. He pointed out that on
the lefthand graph the median and 75th percentile were
roughly the same with the assumption that any oil price
over $100/bbl would be deposited into the principal, which
was only forecast for the first year. After FY 23, about 50
percent of the scenarios modelled showed between roughly $1
billion to $1.2 billion in deficits ranging to about $500
million to $1.5 billion in surpluses. The right-hand graph
showed the median realized ERA balance slowly declining,
with the ERA going to zero in the percentile.
Mr. Bell noted that in the absence of any ERA overdraws, it
was still possible for the account to draw towards zero as
in the more negative scenarios, such successive low
Permanent Fund returns, and other factors combined with a
poor market. He explained that it did not require ERA
overdraws for the ERA to draw down to zero. At the 75th
percentile the scenario showed the realized ERA balance
growing up to and beyond $30 billion. He pointed out that
the bottom row of figures showed the CBR/SBR balance
probabilities.
10:11:49 AM
Mr. Bell addressed slide 20, "SB 199, Trigger Succeeds -
SFIN Baseline (2.25% Growth)," which showed SB 199, first
depicting three different models with the assumption that
the bills trigger provision succeeded and $800 million in
new revenue was instituted in FY 27. The funds would be
added to the baseline revenue assumption for each year.
Under the scenario the PFD would be 25 percent of the POMV
draw until FY 27, after which the PFD would grow to 50
percent of the POMV. He noted that the bottom of the slide
showed the PFD at $1600 per person in FY 27, growing to
$3200 per person in FY 28 when there was a change in the
PFD formula. There were surpluses throughout the period,
with no need for ERA overdraws or use of the SBR and CBR.
Senator Wilson considered the history of the legislature
and the history of legislative spending in significant
revenue years. He asked if LFD felt that the numbers would
stay static. He wondered if there was a historical spending
ratio that could be applied to the models.
Mr. Painter thought the current year's budget could be used
an example of what Senator Wilson was referencing; the
growth was at 5 percent and the capital budget was growing
significantly. He continued that starting in FY 05 and
going through FY 14, the state operating budget had grown
by an average of almost 8 percent per year. He acknowledged
that the legislature had chosen to increase spending in
times of greater revenue, which he emphasized was a policy
choice that LFD could not predict. He added that there were
still significant surpluses during the period, but spending
also grew faster than inflation.
Co-Chair Bishop made the point that some of the spending
went towards the deferred maintenance backlog. He asked how
much of the 8 percent went to deferred maintenance.
Mr. Painter clarified that the eight percent increase was
from the agency operations portion of the budget. He noted
that some of the 8 percent of agency growth had gone into
daily maintenance, but not necessarily into deferred
maintenance. By FY 04, there had been about 15 years of
flat or declining budgets. There was quite a bit of
deferred growth. He noted that employee wages had not been
increased in several years, and there was faster growth in
contracts than previous years. He referenced pent-up demand
for spending as a result of multiple years of flat budgets.
10:16:15 AM
Co-Chair Stedman referenced the mention of salary and
benefit increases in all three branches of government. He
thought the committee had to make some decisions. He
thought there was upward pressure. He commented on the
previous flat inflation and the current inflation spike. He
thought it was most likely that the inflation trend would
continue for several years. He thought the slide showed an
optimistically low rate of inflation. He thought the
committee should take the inflations effect into account.
Mr. Bell advanced to slide 21, "SB 199, Trigger Succeeds -
Budget Stress Test (5% Growth)," explained that slide 21
was similar to the prior slide but for the 5 percent growth
assumption in agency and capital spending. In the scenario,
there were strong surpluses during the first several years,
but beginning in FY 28 there were deficits. The deficits
were filled by the K-12 forward-funding reduction for the
first two years, after which the CBR and SBR filled the
deficits. There were no ERA overdraws required and the
ending CBR/SBR combined balance was about $8 billion at the
end of the period. He noted that the PFD amount was
depicted on the bottom on the slide and pointed out that it
jumped up to 50 percent of the POMV in FY 28 like the prior
slide. He noted that the orange bars on the graph on the
left showed the $800 million in new annual revenue as part
of the plan.
10:20:27 AM
Mr. Bell showed slide 22, "SB 199, Trigger Succeeds -
Revenue Stress Test," which included the $800 million in
new revenue and the 25 percent POMV dividend that jumped to
50 percent in FY 28. With the probabilistic modeling, in FY
23 there was a range of a $1 billion deficit to an $800
million surplus. He pointed out that since any revenue over
$100/bbl went to the Permanent Fund principal, the maximum
surplus would be $830 million. The following three years
showed a range of $2.5 billion to zero surplus. The jump-up
in FY 27 was due to the institution of the first year of
the $800 million in new revenue while the higher PFD had
not started yet. Beginning in FY 28 there was a similar
range of between $300 million to $500 million in deficits
and $1.5 billion surpluses in half of the cases. The graph
on the right showed that there were only ERA overdraws in
about 1 percent or 2 percent of cases per given year. There
was still some chance of the ERA going to zero if there
were poor returns, but there was also a plausible
likelihood of the ERA exceeding $30 billion. The
assumptions also showed a high likelihood (about 93
percent) that the CBR/SBR combined total became greater
than $4 billion in the later years.
Mr. Bell spoke to slide 23, "SB 199, Trigger Fails - SFIN
Baseline (2.25% Growth)," which modelled the bill effect
assuming the trigger failed, no new revenue was instituted,
and the PFD was 25 percent of the POMV for all years. He
pointed out the PFD per-person amount at the bottom as
$1,200 in FY 23, growing to about $1,700 per person in FY
31. There were surpluses shown throughout the period, with
the 2.5 percent growth assumption. The combined reserve
balances exceeded $30 billion by the end of the period, and
there was no reserve draw required.
10:23:50 AM
Mr. Bell discussed slide 24, "SB 199, Trigger Fails -
Budget Stress Test (5% Growth)," which showed the same
model as the previous slide but with 5 percent growth
rather than 2.5 percent growth. He cited deficits starting
in FY 28, with healthy reserves balances and about $100
million to $500 million in deficits per year.
Senator von Imhof thought the previous two slides showed
how inflation affected the long-term forecast. She thought
it was important for the committee to consider at least a
decade or two. She remarked on the compounding effect of
inflation. She emphasized that she had a problem with
taxing people in order to pay a dividend. She pointed out
that SB 199 had a taxation component in order to pay a
dividend.
Mr. Bell showed slide 25, "SB 199, Trigger Fails - Revenue
Stress Test," which showed a 25 percent POMV dividend for
all years, with the probabilistic modelling. He noted that
the median surplus and deficit was similar to three slides
prior. The graph on the left, 'Surplus/(Deficit) by Fiscal
Year' showed that in FY 23, one could see the deficit range
from $1 billion to $800 million in surplus until FY 27. The
range was similar throughout the period, with a balanced
budget to a few hundred million in deficits ranging up to
over $2 billion or more in surpluses in 50 percent of the
cases in each year. There was only about a one or two
percent chance of requiring ERA overdraws in the scenario.
The chart on the right was similar to that of three slides
previously since there were no ERA overdraws.
10:27:01 AM
AT EASE
10:29:02 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that the amendment deadline for SB
199 was noon the following day.
SB 199 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 121 Support Szczepanski PFAS.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Support Sylvester PFAS.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Support Miller.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 ACC testimony on SB 121 - April 12.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Support PWSRCAC.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 243 Sectional Analysis ver. B 4.19.22.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 243 |
| SB 243 Supporting Document - AEA PCE Analysis from 500 to750.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 243 |
| SB 199 SFIN Fiscal Modeling Presentation 4-20-22 UPDATED.pdf |
SFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 199 |