Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/08/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB35 | |
| SJR5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SJR 5-CONST. AM.:PERMANENT FUND & DIVIDEND
2:27:22 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She announced that the
final order of business would be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5,
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the Alaska permanent fund and the permanent fund
dividend.
[Before the committee was the CSSJR 5(STA), Version U.]
2:30:23 PM
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Revenue,
Anchorage, stated that SJR 5 would change the Constitution of
the State of Alaska to include the permanent fund dividend. He
explained that for over three decades the permanent fund
dividend calculation and the amount paid to Alaskans was never
questioned. As recently as 2012 and 2013, the amount of the
dividend was $900. The Alaska Permanent Fund and the permanent
fund dividend were not broken and did not need to be fixed.
During the previous administration the legislature appropriated
the full permanent fund dividend amount. However, the governor
vetoed half of it. The following two years, the legislature and
the governor agreed on a dividend that was less than the
calculated amount.
He said that SJR 5 will guarantee the permanent fund dividend
(PFD). It would not be subject to appropriation. The funds would
automatically be transferred for payment to Alaskans. He said
this process would protect the permanent fund dividend (PFDs),
which would not be subject to the governor's veto. The PFD would
follow the calculation amount. Any changes to the statutory
permanent fund dividend formula would require a vote of the
people. He said this resolution is part of the fiscal plan that
the governor introduced this legislative session, which also
includes a constitutional spending limit and a constitutional
amendment for any changes to taxes or new taxes proposed in
Alaska.
2:32:58 PM
WILLIAM MILKS, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
& State Affairs, Department of Law, Juneau, presented a
sectional analysis during the hearing of SJR 5. He reviewed
Section 1.
Section 1: This would provide a conforming amendment
to the existing language in order to authorize a
portion of permanent fund income to be used for
dividends as set forth in Section 2.
MR. MILKS said that except as provided under subsection (b), all
income from the permanent fund shall be deposited to the general
fund unless otherwise provided by law.
2:33:51 PM
MR. MILKS reviewed Section 2.
Section 2: This section would create two new
subsections in the permanent fund amendment.
MR. MILKS explained that a portion of the income from the
permanent fund shall be transferred solely for a program of
dividend payments to state residents.
2:34:04 PM
MR. MILKS read subsections (b) and (c).
Subsection (b) would require that a portion of the
permanent fund income be used, without an
appropriation, solely for the purpose of paying
permanent fund dividends to state residents. Those
payments would occur according to the dividend program
and formula currently set forth in statute.
Subsection (b) would also allow the legislature to
change the dividend program, including amount and
eligibility, subject to the approval of the voters in
subsection (c).
Subsection (c) would require that any law passed by
the legislature to amend the permanent fund dividend
program, including the amount and the eligibility
requirements, would not take effect unless the voters
approved the proposed law at the next statewide
election. If approved by the voters, it would take
effect 90 days after certification of the election or
on a special effective date concurred in by two-thirds
of the members of each house upon passage, whichever
date is later.
MR. MILKS read Section 3.
Section 3: This transition provision specifies that
the dividend program in place on January 1, 2019 would
remain in place until the legislature and the voters
approved a change to the program.
2:35:10 PM
MR. MILKS read Section 4.
Section 4: This section would require that the
constitutional amendment be placed on the general
election ballot in 2020.
2:35:21 PM
MR. MILKS said that as Commissioner Tangeman explained, SJR 5
would do several important things. It would provide that a
portion of permanent fund income would be used for a dividend
program. It also would provide for an automatic transfer of the
income for the permanent fund dividend program without any
appropriation. It would place into the Constitution of the State
of Alaska a permanent fund dividend program that could be
changed by the legislature and the voters working together. This
resolution follows up on the Alaska Supreme Court decision in
Wielechowski v. State that the permanent fund dividend program
set forth in statute is subject to legislative appropriation and
the governor's veto. He characterized that as the sum and
substance of SJR 5.
2:36:29 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked how many years the permanent fund dividend
has gone through the budget appropriation process. She related
her understanding that initially it was a direct transfer to the
program and payment.
MR. TANGEMAN said he was unsure.
MR. MILKS remarked that certainly through the 80s it has been
through the budget appropriation process. He added that the
court ultimately said it is subject to the appropriation
process.
CHAIR HUGHES said that one argument she has heard against
putting the permanent fund dividend in the Constitution of the
State of Alaska is that it does not reach the level of a
fundamental right. She highlighted areas that are important to
Alaskans. For example, education and health care are very
important to society. The U.S. has a K-12 system and the federal
government provides Medicaid and Medicare. The U.S. Constitution
does not set out public education or health care as a
fundamental right. She asked whether other functions are not
included in the Constitution of the State of Alaska or in other
states' constitutions.
MR. MILKS directed attention to Article VIII of the Constitution
of the State of Alaska to the Natural Resources Section. He
identified this as an uncommon provision that embodies a policy
statement in terms of the utilization of the state's natural
resources for the collective benefit of the Alaskans in the
constitution.
2:39:04 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she would be interested to know if other
states also have unusual constitutional provisions.
MR. MILKS said he would need to contemplate it and report back
to the committee.
2:39:16 PM
CHAIR HUGHES turned to the mathematical provision in statute to
the Percent of Market Value (POMV), which is set at 5.25 percent
but will drop to 5 percent. She recalled that a Legislative
Legal Services opinion indicated that the legislature could
decide to draw out additional funds. She asked whether it would
ever be necessary to draw out more than the POMV.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN answered yes. He said that the
calculation for the POMV is 5.25 percent, stepping down to 5
percent. He pointed out that the statute is silent on how those
funds are spent. Obviously, this discussion is related to
government and dividends. However, the historical rate of growth
has been 4 percent. Under that scenario, the entire POMV would
be consumed by government. He estimated that this could happen
within the next 10-15 years. Since the rate of growth for
spending is not connected to the POMV calculation, it still
could be consumed by government spending.
2:40:54 PM
CHAIR HUGHES clarified her interest was whether [the POMV] could
ever be consumed by the PFD by following the historical formula.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said he thought that was also
possible. If the state enjoys continued healthy returns the
dividend would continue to grow. He stated that the state saw
returns of 15-20 percent in at least two of the last five years.
He predicted that without market corrections factored in the
permanent fund dividend would continue to grow. He estimated
that this year's permanent fund dividend would be approximately
$3,000. However, the POMV could also be consumed by the full
dividend, he said.
2:41:41 PM
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that with continued healthy growth,
especially if the constitutional amendment for a spending limit
were to pass, the state could have very large permanent fund
dividends in the future. She expressed concern that people
outside Alaska might want to come to Alaska specifically to
receive this permanent fund dividend benefit.
She said that SJR 5 also would require any changes to
eligibility to be approved by a public vote. She asked whether
the administration would be open to a change in the eligibility,
perhaps requiring a two-year residency prior to eligibility. She
asked whether eligibility could reduce the allowable absence
from 180 days to 90 or 100 days, and if other restrictions could
be made to the number of years for an allowable absence from the
state for medical reasons or military personnel. She preferred
that the eligibility changes would be made in statute rather
than in the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN offered his belief that the
governor would consider any proposals the legislature would
recommend. He characterized the permanent fund dividend as a
very important issue. The dividend has been on "cruise control"
for several decades. However, in the last few years the public
has been more engaged because the statutory calculation has not
been followed.
CHAIR HUGHES asked him to follow up with information on the two-
year eligibility, lessening the allowable absences, and some
type of limitation for people who leave the state for qualifying
reasons but who no longer reside in Alaska and have not lived in
Alaska for a number of years.
2:45:10 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to Chair Hughes's questions about the
Senate Bill 26 limit and the permanent fund dividend payment. He
asked whether the statutory limit in the rapid growth scenario
is effective. He asked whether it is a part of the system
provided by law.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN responded that the Senate Bill 26
debate focused on the amount that could be taken from the
earnings reserve account (ERA) without harming it. He pointed
out that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation does not weigh in
on how the earnings are spent. The entire legislative debate
surrounds what would constitute a sustainable draw from the ERA.
Step two after adopting Senate Bill 26 would have been to
determine the split [between government services and the
permanent fund dividend]. The legislature has not been able to
come to a consensus on that issue, so the debate has shifted to
how to spend it in a responsible manner.
He highlighted that this administration believes the
constitutional amendment to the existing spending limit is a
critical part of the equation since it would cap government
spending. That would address the concern that government would
absorb the bulk of Senate Bill 26 and the POMV draw. When the
spending limit is put into place, the focus on government
spending is critical because the POMV draw would be a limited
amount, he said.
2:47:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL recapped that the state has had a five-year period
with 11-12 percent growth. He estimated that half of the
earnings over that period would be more than the 5 percent cap.
He said that SJR 5 would calculate the dividend payments as
required by law. "So is [Senate Bill 26] a provision by law
protected by this constitutional amendment? Do we reduce the
dividend?" he asked.
MR. MILKS responded that under SJR 5, the permanent fund
dividend is provided by law as the statutory dividend framework
per the Alaska Supreme Court decision under Wielechowski v.
State. The Alaska Supreme Court identified that the statutory
calculation determines the amount available for distribution,
and another calculation requires 50 percent of that income shall
be transferred from the earnings reserve account for
distribution of the permanent fund dividend. Finally, that case
also addressed the eligibility requirements. SJR 5 would set out
in law the existing three-piece statutory framework, he said.
He said that Commissioner Tangeman described the Senate Bill 26
law that set up the statutory Percent of Market Value (POMV)
framework for a sustainable draw. Thus, these components are
related. However, SJR 5 would establish the existing statutory
program for dividends.
2:49:21 PM
SENATOR KIEHL apologized for not stating his question clearly.
He offered to submit his question in writing.
2:49:34 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to [page 1, line 31 to page 2, line 1] of
SJR 5, which states, "provided by law read on January 1, 2019."
She said the POMV is involved. However, Mr. Milks referred to
the historical statutory formula. She offered her belief that
ambiguity exists since the historical statutory formula and the
statutory POMV are both laws.
2:50:11 PM
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that a lot of confusion surrounds the
statutory provisions for the permanent fund dividend. He said
that it is straightforward. He pointed out that last year the
legislature passed Senate Bill 26, which establishes the formula
for the draw. The historical statutory formula, which has been
in place for 40 years, is still law, he said. If SJR 5 were to
pass, the legislature would draw an amount using the POMV
formula [established in Senate Bill 26], but it would be
calculated and distributed using the historical statutory
formula. He suggested that the confusion about the amount arose
because the legislature did not make any change to the 50:50
split, which means a weird statute is in place.
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out a conflict exists. She said that
Commissioner Tangeman explained the conflict since
mathematically the historical statutory formula could exceed the
POMV draw.
2:51:49 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what the difference is between the way
the [Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation] invests the earnings
reserve as opposed to the permanent fund principal.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN answered that there is not any
difference, other than the liquidity aspect. For investment
purposes, the Alaska Permanent Fund does not treat the ERA and
the corpus of the fund differently.
SENATOR REINBOLD related a scenario in which the ERA balance is
$15 billion, with a $3 billion draw, and another $2 billion draw
to pay for paybacks. That would reduce the balance to $10
billion and thus affect investments. She expressed an interest
in learning the rate of return on the ERA versus the principal.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN explained that when some people
calculate the funds drawn from the permanent fund, they do not
consider the incoming revenues. He said their calculation is
typically based on a 6.55 percent expected rate of return so for
FY 2020, an estimated $4 billion would be deposited to the fund,
and $3 billion would be drawn based on the POMV. Instead, the
investment portfolio of $65 billion should be the focus, not the
ERA which is only a repository for realized gains. The issue is
more about the return on $65 billion, and that any realized
gains are deposited to the ERA, which is the current $18 billion
balance. To illustrate this, he related a scenario in which the
earnings were $4 billion, $3 billion was drawn based on the
POMV, and another $600 million was drawn for the backpay. This
would result in a net $400 million increase, he said.
2:54:55 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her belief that the POMV draw, the full
$3,000 dividend, and $2 billion in unallocated for back pay of
the dividends is important because it could affect future
dividends. She said that understanding the whole scope and
trigger points was important. Although she supports the PFD
statutory formula as a means to compensate Alaskans for their
subsurface rights, she was unsure how the mineral rights of
Native Regional Corporations might affect the fund. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska provides rights, so if
people are stripped of permanent fund dividend and mineral
rights, it raises constitutional issues, she said. She wondered
if the legislature was giving people false hope. She recalled
the ramifications of the massive dip in the permanent fund
during 2008. She feared there could be a negative dividend at
some point. That is the reason she wants to better understand
the impact that the POMV, the statutory formula and allocation
draw have on future permanent fund dividends.
2:57:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked why the administration chose 120 days in SJR
5, since it would leave the choice of using either the primary
or the general election ballot.
MR. MILKS answered that the language of 120 days was derived
from the initiative language in Article II, Section 4. He said
that the administration sought consistency in time periods in
the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
2:58:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on which ballot
would be used for proposed changes. He turned to the technical
language in the bill and asked for the impact on the funds
transferred under Article IX, Section 17(b).
MR. MILKS said that SJR 5 would provide an exception and the
funds would be moved without an appropriation. He suggested that
might be an issue for him to review since it relates to the
constitutional budget reserve account (CBR) issue.
2:59:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification of the statutory
POMV structure. He asked why the proposal does not provide any
inflation-proofing protection or a POMV cap in the Constitution
of the State of Alaska. He said that knowing the interaction
between the two would be valuable.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN answered that the administration
has proposed a series of amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska. He offered his belief that inflation proofing
would be handled under the resolution for a constitutional
spending cap. He acknowledged that inflation-proofing is not
covered in SJR 5.
3:00:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL questioned whether the administration had any
charts or for projections to show how that would work.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN offered to work with his staff to
provide the information.
SENATOR KIEHL observed that the state attempts to use a
statutory POMV cap, but still maintains the constitutional
distinction between the permanent fund principal and the
earnings reserve account. He expressed concern that over time
the value of the principal would diminish, and the value of the
ERA would take over. He suggested that without some limitation
"with teeth," unstructured draws could create more risk to the
value of the permanent fund. If the legislature is going to
consider a constitutional amendment on the permanent fund, it
should consider protections to the permanent fund that would be
effective for generations rather than for only a few years, he
said.
3:02:13 PM
SENATOR SHOWER raised a counterpoint on the three-year payback.
He pointed out that if $2 billion had been taken out over the
three years, the fund value would be less today. He offered his
belief that the fund value would have changed over time. He
related a scenario in which someone has $20,000 in his/her bank
account, then deposits $4,000, but also withdraws $4,000. It
would net to $20,000, he said.
He explained that the money not paid out for dividends over the
three-year-period is still in the fund, such that the balance is
essentially the same.
SENATOR SHOWERS expressed concern that enshrining the
eligibility requirements in the Constitution of the State of
Alaska may lead to some unintended consequences. He asked Mr.
Milks to discuss any potential downfalls.
MR. MILKS answered that SJR 5 includes a requirement of voter
approval on eligibility and computation of the permanent fund
dividend. Alaska statutes contain eligibility statutes and
exceptions that permit absences from Alaska for the permanent
fund dividend program. He said he thought it would be covered
under SJR 5 if adopted in this form. He recalled that Senator
Reinbold raised come ancillary concerns in prior committee
hearings, such as garnishment. However, he did not think that
changes of that nature would be subject to voter approval. He
characterized garnishments as being more of a consequence of
receiving a dividend rather than an eligibility issue.
3:06:45 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said that one concern is whether the permanent
fund dividend should be an individual right and if the
legislature should retain eligibility requirements in statute.
He said he would like to protect the permanent fund dividend
program. He said the struggle is related to the legislature's
ability to change the amount. He said that he favors less
government spending. He wondered if the legislature would be
stuck with a 50:50 split. He maintained that eligibility might
be better left in the legislature's purview since it may need to
change eligibility requirements for absences for college or the
military.
CHAIR HUGHES said that she does not support adding eligibility
in the Constitution of the State of Alaska either. She asked the
rationale for constitutionalizing eligibility requirements.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said the administration would be
willing to entertain discussions on eligibility. That has been a
topic of internal discussion, he said.
3:08:47 PM
CHAIR HUGHES raised an issue that she acknowledged was more of
an issue for the finance committee to consider. She asked for a
rough estimate on the number of people who would be affected if
eligibility requirements were changed to a two-year minimum
residency, a 90-day maximum absence, and an eligibility cutoff
after a three-year legitimate absence for those who do not
physically reside in Alaska. Further, she would like more
information on the "fundamental right" issue. She said her
primary interest was to identify any other programs that do not
fall under fundamental rights. She expressed concern that
protections were not in place for the earnings reserve account.
She said that the Legislative Legal Services provided a memo
after Senate Bill 26 passed that indicated the legislature has a
right to draw outside of the POMV. She asked whether this was
something that the administration would also entertain.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN answered yes. He offered his
belief that the administration's view is that the ERA would be
protected through the constitutional spending limit in SJR 4.
3:10:48 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she understood that the permanent fund
dividend would be issued based on a direct transfer to the
program. She asked whether this transfer would come before the
legislative finance committees.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN answered that it would not. He
said that the calculation would occur, and the funds would
transfer directly into the permanent fund dividend program. It
would not part of the appropriation process, he said.
3:11:28 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he agreed with the discussion on the
eligibility requirements. He offered his belief that the public
would not be interested in voting on changes to eligibility,
such as the length and cause of absences. He said the permanent
fund dividend program is about protecting residents. Eligibility
would be something else since it would pertain to someone that
may not be regarded as being qualified yet. It is not about
taking away any rights from established residents, he said.
He referred to subsection (c) on page 2, line 6. He said he
found it interesting that it refers to the amount of the
dividend instead of the dividend calculation. He said that SJR 5
supports what was in statute on January 1, 2019. He said that he
thought the dividend calculation would be a more appropriate
choice of language.
MR. MILKS said he understood the point and agreed the language
could be clearer.
3:13:51 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related his understanding that this would
preserve the dividend calculation, but the amount of the
dividend is not part of the resolution. It is not possible to
know the earnings or what would be available in the future for
distribution, he said. Instead, the statutory calculation would
be enshrined in the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
MR. MILKS agreed that the statutory formula is what would be
enshrined since the amount of the permanent fund dividend has
historically varied.
3:14:58 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether a quarterly payment could occur
under SJR 5 since it would be limited to a distribution method.
MR. MILKS offered his belief that would likely work since it
would not be part of the dividend calculation nor was it an
eligibility issue. He said he thought it would be permissible
and not subject to voter ratification.
3:16:42 PM
CHAIR HUGHES returned to an earlier discussion related to the
historical formula and the POMV laws in effect on January 1,
2019. She asked which statute would trump the other, the
historical statutory formula or the POMV formula in statute. She
wondered if the permanent fund would get to the point where
paying the permanent fund dividend according to the historical
formula would exceed the POMV draw. She asked whether it would
stop with the POMV amount and be divided by the population or if
the historical formula would trump the POMV statute.
MR. MILKS offered his belief that this would be an amendment to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska. The language in the
constitution would supersede a statute that described a
statutory draw. SJR 5 would state that a portion of income from
the permanent fund would be used for a permanent fund dividend
program.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that the historical
formula would trump the POMV law. She said that both statutes
were in law as of January 1, 2019. She asked whether he was
saying that the courts would interpret it in that way. "Even if
mathematically the historical formula to pay it out to the
residents would be more than the five, let's say we are at the
five percent point, that the constitution would say you can
exceed the law on the books that says five percent," she said.
MR. MILKS, referring to the hypothetical question, said that the
provision in the Constitution of the State of Alaska would
govern. The court would look at the constitutional provision
that established a portion of income would be used for a
dividend program. He said that the administration has tracked
the Wielechowski case, which has been described as the permanent
fund dividend program, which is based on the historical
statutory formula being the amount of income to be transferred
to pay the permanent fund dividends. He explained that the
statute enacted by Senate Bill 26 addressed the sustainable
Percent of Market Value (POMV) draw. Although these two statutes
are related, one pertains directly to the dividends, which is
the historical statutory framework. He offered his belief that
the provisions in SJR 5 would govern.
3:19:52 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether SJR 5 would require the draw be taken
out of the POMV or if it could be taken outside of it and the
POMV could be used to fund government services.
MR. MILKS answered that the POMV was established by Senate Bill
26 and is a statute. SJR 5 would address income out of the
permanent fund, which is not identified in the Constitution of
the State of Alaska as the POMV.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the POMV could be used for the state
budget and the draw could be on top of that.
3:21:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL argued that Senate Bill 26 would prevent it. He
also argued against what Mr. Milks said earlier, that this
transfer in the Constitution of the State of Alaska somehow
trumps the POMV statute established by Senate Bill 26. He said
that the statute established under Senate Bill 26 referred
directly to the transfer for dividends and an appropriation that
could be used to fund state government services. Further, Senate
Bill 26 is also a law that existed on January 1, 2019. Thus,
SJR 5 would set the Senate Bill 26 limit in stone, he said. He
said he did not share the concern that the dividends would
regularly go over 5 percent, but the possibility of limiting the
permanent fund dividend is a concern.
3:22:27 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the language in Senate Bill 26
mentioned permanent fund dividends or if it referred to an
appropriation.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said he did not think it
mentioned dividends because the legislature could not come to a
resolution on the split. He said the legislature settled on the
amount available for a sustainable draw.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that SJR 5 would have the
historical formula outside the appropriation process. She
offered her belief that the 5.25 or 5.0 percent appropriation
draw could be used for government spending and the historical
formula transfer could be separate. She asked if that was the
administration's intention.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE TANGEMAN said he acknowledges her concern
is that there would be two separate paths. He recapped her
concern, that the permanent fund dividend would be drawn using
the historical formula under SJR 5 but the POMV would be drawn
from the earnings reserve account. He offered to study the
question and respond to the committee in writing.
3:23:57 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE argued that for the POMV to be consumed by a
statutory permanent fund dividend would require 20 percent
earnings net of fees. He said would be unprecedented but he
thought it was a good point. He said if SJR 5 were to pass it
would be important to revise the statutes affected by Senate
Bill 26 to reflect that automatic transfer. The POMV would need
to be net of that transfer in order to stay within the
investment disbursement rules that were assumed when the step
down to 5 percent was established. Otherwise, it would create a
situation that would very quickly erode the earnings reserve
account, which would be problematic.
3:25:11 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said that the constitutional spending limit is
critical to curtail state government. If SJR 5 were to pass
without a spending limit in place, it would be a setup for
failure, he said.
3:25:46 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said that she concurred. However, she said that it
still makes her nervous to have the spending limit and permanent
fund dividend constitutional changes in separate resolutions.
[SJR 5 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 5 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| CSSJR 5 Version U.PDF |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 - CSSJR 5(STA) ver U Sectional 4.8.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 - CSSJR 5(STA) - Comparison 4.8.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 Fiscal Note GOV-DOE.pdf |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/2/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |