Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/06/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB122 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 122 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 187
An Act establishing the Alaska capital income account
within the Alaska permanent fund; relating to deposits
into the account; relating to certain transfers
regarding the Amerada Hess settlement to offset the
effects of inflation on the Alaska permanent fund; and
providing for an effective date.
HOUSE BILL NO. 188
An Act establishing the State of Alaska Capital
Corporation; authorizing the issuance of bonds by the
State of Alaska Capital Corporation to finance capital
improvements in the state; and providing for an
effective date.
2:20:59 PM
CHERYL FRASCA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, commented that in early March 2005,
there had been a meeting discussion in the House Finance
Committee about establishing an account to use the funds,
while the bills were still in the House Judiciary Committee.
The bills did pass out of the Judiciary Committee and they
relate to the same measures discussed that day. She
commented this is the Governor's proposal, as a way to
leverage interest earnings that the State is receiving on an
account from a 1997 settlement reached with the oil
companies. That proposal was to leverage average earnings
and the Governor's proposal is to leverage approximately $30
million dollars in annual interest earnings to issue bonds
for financing additional capital projects outlined in the
FY06 Capital Budget. The ultimate decision regarding the
projects rests with the Legislature.
Ms. Frasca noted that Devon Mitchell would discuss the
actual structure of the bills. HB 187 establishes the
Alaska Capital Income Account, the account into which the
annual earnings would be appropriated. HB 188 establishes
the State of Alaska Capital Corporation, which would provide
the way to leverage earnings to issue bonds. Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) was online to address concerns
and bond counsel would address specific concerns with bond
issuance.
2:24:12 PM
DEVON MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEBT MANAGER ALASKA
MUNICIPAL BOND BANK AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
limited his remarks to questions that have come up regarding
how the bills would be enacted. He referenced back-up
material offered in member's packets. (Copies on File).
2:24:48 PM
Mr. Mitchell acknowledged that there was no reason why the
two pieces of legislation could not be passed independently.
He responded to a question from a previous committee
regarding what would happen with potential leveraging if
there were inflation proofing in the fund balance of the
Amerada Hess settlement money. He claimed that there would
be about a 37% reduction in annual revenue that would be
available to the Legislature. As time goes by, inflation
proofing would fund the balance and eventually, the State
would receive the full $29 million dollars. The result
would be a 36% reduced project list, an action that would
provide quicker leveraging but would have a dramatic short-
term impact.
2:27:42 PM
Mr. Mitchell noted that the listed 6% represents a
conservative placeholder and demonstrates the viability of
the Corporation's ability to borrow based on anticipated
transfers. He thought that 17-years was indicative to the
strength and borrowing rate that the State of Alaska
currently has on corporate funds. He added that the ideas
had been passed through the rating analysts that monitor the
State of Alaska's credit. Initially, it was indicated that
it would not be included in the State's supported average
and was an important feature of the structure. Having been
reviewed by a number of investment banks, they found that
the structure would work and financing would be feasible.
2:28:45 PM
MIKE BARNHILL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, offered to provide a background of the Amerada Hess
settlement and/or speak to legal questions.
Ms. Frasca noted the memo included in the file from Cynthia
Weed, Bond Counsel with the firm, Preston, Gates and Ellis,
and dated 4/06/05, regarding the appropriateness of the
projects.
CYNTHIA WEED, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BOND COUNSEL,
PRESTON, GATES AND ELLIS, ANCHORAGE, noted that she was on
line and offered to answer questions of Committee members.
2:31:04 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the bond counsel was in support of
the legislation and found the recommendations to be legal.
Ms. Weed explained that the bond counsel had worked with Mr.
Barnhill in review the draft bills. Bond counsel believes
that the structure of the corporation is consistent with the
Alaska Constitution. Her firm provided a preliminary review
of the initial projects and found that they were eligible
for financing. The proposed tax exemption structure has not
been finalized; it still would be possible to get bonds on a
preliminary basis.
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the Amerada Hess fund would
be a sub account and would not impact the Permanent Fund.
Ms. Weed thought that would be safe to say but requested
confirmation from the Department of Law.
2:33:16 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about modifying the suggested project
list. Ms. Frasca responded that if the Legislature could
reduce it from $340 million dollars down to $200 million
dollars and still fund it, she would say "go for it". Co-
Chair Meyer admitted that there are concerns dedicating $30
million dollar dividends over a 20-year period to purchase
two years worth of capital projects. He mentioned a
reduction to 10-years and asked if there was flexibility.
Mr. Mitchell replied that there definitely is flexibility,
which could make the financing more "do-able". The less
leveraging of the potential revenue, the easier it is to
attain high ratings.
2:35:32 PM
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out that the legal opinion
was prepared two years ago and that the percent of market
value had changed. He asked if it would still be legal and
if the use of the Amerada Hess settlement funds to bond the
projects would create a taxable event for the State of
Alaska for the Permanent Fund.
Mr. Burnhill thought that Representative Weyrauch was
referring to the Johnson opinion case, which addresses the
extent to which the Permanent Fund is subject to federal
income tax. The proposed legislation takes the stream of
revenue earnings from the Permanent Fund, which currently
are not being used for dividends and then designates them to
finance the projects. It would not create a taxable
obligation, noting that there is nothing illegal about it.
2:37:45 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if instead, the State should be
using Alaska Housing Finance Corporation monies.
2:38:21 PM
DAN FAUSKE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, stated that AHFC was involved in the original
discussion with the Administration regarding how to create a
bonding proposal utilizing general fund revenue. The
original proposal was to use AHFC having a structure of
using their own general obligation (GO) credit. Mr. Fauske
advised the Administration that AHFC would not be able to
get a favorable outcome from Wall Street as they are "tapped
out" of GO credit. AHFC originally anticipated creating a
sub corporation structure similar to what the Department of
Revenue currently does. As it turned out, it became clear
that the Department of Revenue would be able to meet the
needs.
Mr. Mitchell added that the analysis has indicated the
amount of volatility. The Department wants to guarantee
that if the revenue stream should fail, it would not become
an obligation of the State of Alaska. The plan proposes to
use the State's moral obligation for corporate credit for
the proposed obligations. He stated it was important to
have it near the Administration and the Department of
Revenue.
2:41:07 PM
Mr. Mitchell advised that the Board would consist of:
· The Commissioner of the Department of Revenue,
· The Commissioner of the Department of Administration
and
· The Commissioner of the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development.
The commissioners would have the ability to insure that the
moral obligation was honored and that they were sending a
message to rating analyst and agencies, this is a top
priority for the State of Alaska.
2:41:57 PM
Co-Chair Meyer (inaudible).
Ms. Frasca asked if he was referring to the interest
earnings being used for another public purpose.
Representative Kelly voiced concern with the proposed
legislation. The public has voiced a grave concern with any
invasion of the Permanent Fund. The people of the State
have responded overwhelming. He recommended to move forward
only with public inclusion. He understood that the Amerada
Hess case was a "convenience" to make sure that judges would
not be conflicted when receiving a dividend.
Representative Kelly reiterated caution that passing the
proposed legislation puts the State into an area that the
voters do not want go. He thought that the voters were
smarter than the intent of the bill.
2:46:08 PM
Co-Chair Meyer state that initially had similar concerns as
Representative Kelly, however, following a legal
explanation, he had been put at ease.
Ms. Frasca interjected that the issue for most Alaskans and
is how much their dividends will be. She thought that
Alaskans were willing to put out a little to invest in their
communities. Ms. Frasca pointed out that the legislation
would help leverage dollars to prepare for Alaska's future.
The intent is to leverage money to build the type of
infrastructure needed to support the gas line. She
acknowledged that the decision was politically "tuff".
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the money was not originally
part of the actual Permanent Fund or the earnings. Ms.
Frasca noted that it presently resides in the Permanent
Fund. The earnings do get redirected to the Earnings
Reserve Account and then appropriated each year into the
Amerada Hess account. Those earnings are backed out when
the dividend is calculated.
2:49:15 PM
Representative Kelly understood and maintained his concern.
He reiterated that Amerada Hess had been an accident and did
realize that Alaskans do demand more services than they are
willing to pay for. The Governor does not think the
Permanent Fund should be enshrined or that there should be a
vote of the people. The legislation is a way into the fund
from a "veiled" perspective and it is not "straight up".
2:51:35 PM
Representative Holm continued with Representative Kelly's
"farm" analogy, stating that the earnings resemble
"fertilizer". He understood the points delivered by the
previous speaker regarding the public perception and
questioned if they would buy the proposal.
Mr. Barnhill interjected that a characterization of
segragation of the earnings in the Permanent Fund as an
accident is not correct. When the legislation was enacted
in 1989, the Amerada Hess royalty litigation had been going
on for quite some time and there was a lot of money in that
fund, well over a $1 billion dollars. The Department of
Revenue realized that they might have to litigate the case
and the way to solve that would be to segregate any earnings
into a sub account so that no earnings would flow into the
Permanent Fund.
Mr. Barnhill continued, without the legislation, the
progress of the litigation was impaired. The result of the
litigation was $194 million dollars for the State of Alaska.
He said it definitely had value.
In reference to Representative Kelly, Mr. Barnhill
maintained that the fence could be kicked down but as a
policy matter that choice should be considered seriously.
There could be a future situation in which the State might
have major litigation and the judge could not be able to
preside as the money might flow into a dividend. If the
same situation came up in the future, the solution may not
be persuasive to a judge. It is within the Legislature's
prerogative to do that, however, the Department of Law
recommends against it. The bill proposes the middle ground,
putting the earnings to some use for the State of Alaska.
Representative Kelly understood the reasons not to do that
and believed there was no connection between the examples.
The State's reasons are not persuasive.
2:56:29 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze spoke to the importance of the dividend
and protecting that program, however, he believed it could
be fair game.
Representative Joule interjected that there are many
proposals "popping up" around the building. Each proposal
has something of concern regarding either the planning or
the infrastructure. He cautioned about the "blendings".
2:58:13 PM
Representative Croft stated that there is a "huge
philosophical debate" that will happen. He disagreed with
the comment that it would not be use of the Permanent Fund
earnings. They are clearly Permanent Fund earnings. Under
the current statutory structure, it would not have an effect
on the dividend. Mr. Barnhill agreed.
Representative Croft advised that there never had been a
judicial determination in the direct line of that case. Mr.
Barnhill countered that there have been so many judges that
have weight in on the matter. He referenced the chronology
of the case included in the packets and provided an overview
of the Amerada Hess chart. (Copy on File).
3:01:09 PM
Discussion occurred between Representative Croft and Mr.
Barnhill regarding the chronology of the Amerada Hess case.
Mr. Barnhill pointed out that in 1989, the Alaska Supreme
Court amended the court rule, both the civil and the
criminal rule that the mere receipt of a Permanent Fund
dividend would not be enough to cause dismissal of a juror.
That rule is still on the books. He said that signaled
where the Alaska Supreme Court rests on the issue. He
acknowledged that the State really does not know what would
happen when a case like this comes forward.
Representative Croft interjected that there are other
issues. He found it offensive that to eliminate Alaskan
jurors that cannot determine things that affect an Alaskan
fund because of the possibility of hidden minimal
differences. The debate is attempting to make sense of that
and seems as though the concern should be addressed.
3:03:34 PM
Representative Croft commented that using the money on
dividend purposes would impermissibly prejudice a judge or
jury because of the benefit they would receive. He asked
how it could be spent on capital projects that would benefit
those same judges and juries and why then could that be
legal. Mr. Barnhill countered that in using the fund for
capital projects, the effect could be more diffused. He
suspected it had been "looted" by the Supreme Court's
amendment. The only remaining issue is whether a judge was
biased by receipt of a Permanent Fund dividend.
In response to further concerns voiced by Representative
Croft, Mr. Barnhill advised that the case is not going to
impact the Permanent Fund dividend.
3:05:50 PM
Representative Croft asked if the rule that the Supreme
Court adopted on jurors would not set that type of limit,
but instead states that the fact of the dividend is not
sufficient to be disqualified. Mr. Barnhill responded that
was correct.
Co-Chair Chenault asked about the fiscal note. He mentioned
the averaged annual realized return rate of 7.61%. He asked
about the bond rate versus using straight case scenario to
pay for the bonding package and which option would be best
for the State.
Mr. Mitchell replied it would be a policy question deciding
whether to pay cash or borrow. The reasons for borrowing
are rationalized through a couple different avenues. In the
costs associated with borrowing money for capital projects,
there exists the ability to access tax exempt markets.
There is a differential between a state and municipal
entity, depending on the market, it could be between 1.5% to
2.5%. The State of Alaska is exempt on the investment side
as well. The State can invest in taxable investments and
does not have to pay income tax on those earnings. The
State can also borrow on the tax-exempt rate, where there
would be a differential. There are costs depending on the
issuance and complexity of the issuance to determine how
expensive it might be. A general obligation (GO) bond would
be inexpensive to issue. In 2003, the average underwriter
spread was under $2 dollars per 1,000 bonds.
3:10:06 PM
Mr. Mitchell advised that the flexibility would cost
something but that today's rate would still be less than 5%.
The 6% listed in the packet is quite conservative. He
admitted that there would be some risk involved and offered
to provide some number runs for the Committee. Co-Chair
Chenault requested that.
Mr. Fauske related that the State has an opportunity to
capitalize on the one thing that the federal government
gives, the ability to issue tax-exempt debt. Over the life
of these bonds, there might result between $30 & $50 million
dollars in savings versus spending that cash. He
recommended that the State take advantage of the
opportunity.
Representative Hawker commended everyone who has been
working on the proposal and voiced support for the
conclusions. He recommended that leverage is good, as well
as being a capital preservation.
Representative Hawker agreed that the proposal makes sense.
He noted that the Committee is being asked to tie up the
cash flow stream for some period of time. He questioned if
members are comfortable with that idea. It would be a one-
time solution without sustainability and inquired how it
could become sustainable.
Ms. Frasca responded that the Administration does not have a
proposal to address the sustainable base. She reviewed goal
criteria. She noted that Representative Hawker has raised a
challenge to rearrange the fund sources. At this point,
there are no alternative proposals.
3:19:27 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the Administration is
receptive to suggestions. Ms. Frasca replied that there is
room to talk. Representative Hawker termed the possibility
the "verge of a legacy concept".
Co-Chair Meyer agreed with points brought forward by
Representative Hawker. Co-Chair Meyer asked about the
science complex proposal assigned to the University of
Alaska-Anchorage (UAA) in the amount of $21 million dollars,
first phase. Ms. Frasca replied that the Administration
used the University's capital request list. In response to
comments by Co-Chair Meyer regarding the road projects, Ms.
Frasca admitted that the Administration is looking for
alternative ways to finance the projects.
3:21:47 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referenced the letter from bond counsel and
asked if that firm had anything to do with taxes. Mr.
Mitchell pointed out the firm has attorneys who specialize
in tax issues. Ms. Weed interjected that the firm is not
speaking to the tax counsel issues but addressing financing
structure concerns and the tax-exempt nature.
Representative Joule pointed out that the money that sits in
the Permanent Fund is inflation proofed. He thought the
proposed program would not be and asked the long-term impact
of that. Ms. Frasca replied that the $424 million dollars
in the settlement account would remain that amount. It
would not change. Representative Joule understood that
inflation proofing would keep it at that value. He asked
what the impact or loss in value could be.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the annual short term impact,
inflation proofing in year one would be $11 million dollars
to qualify under the 2.6% inflation rate. The amount would
reduce the transfer and for the same risk tolerance, the
project list would be reduced.
3:24:46 PM
Representative Hawker referred to HB 187, the vehicle that
creates the capital income account. He pointed out that it
modifies existing statute to allow future legislatures to
direct money for any valid public purpose. HB 188 is a bill
that creates the concept. He believed that the two bills
were separate concepts. He wondered if there were any
restrictions in HB 187. Mr. Mitchell replied there were
not.
Representative Hawker asked if it was intended to be
unrestricted. Mr. Barnhill commented that it would have to
be done that way to avoid the dedicated fund restriction.
Representative Hawker noted that he was prepared to pass HB
187 out of Committee but not HB 188.
3:28:56 PM
Ms. Frasca was concerned about the long-term effects of
separating the two bills.
Representative Kelly referred to sustainability brought up
by Representative Joule and wondered if the bill could be a
way to address that issue. Ms. Frasca replied that was only
one piece to the capital budget.
3:31:28 PM
Representative Kelly discussed the temptation to forego
achieving the sustainability for generations to come. He
added that he was counting on the House Finance Committee to
inflation proof it and felt that the proposal could be
improved.
3:32:52 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referenced the letter from Ms. Weed. He
asked the factors which would make the bonds taxable. Ms.
Weed responded that there are two ways to make the bonds
taxable. One would be the type of projects funded and how
those projects are used. The bonds may only be used for
capital projects. You cannot use long-term debt tax-exempt
bonds for ordinary operating and maintenance expense.
The second way in which bonds end up being taxable, has to
do with the overall structure of the flow of the money, the
types of money pledged to pay debt service and the structure
on how that money is actually committed.
3:37:18 PM
Representative Hawker asked if a public entity such as the
State would be exempt from spending its' assets before
engaging in tax exempt financing. Ms. Weed replied that was
correct. She added that they would be better off if they
were not broke and had collateral to borrow money for a tax-
exempt base.
3:38:14 PM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that HB 187 and HB 188 would be HELD
in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|