Legislature(1999 - 2000)

05/11/1999 06:20 PM House FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
HOUSE BILL NO. 231                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     An Act relating to income  of the Alaska permanent fund,                                                                   
     to  the Alaska  Income Account,  and  to permanent  fund                                                                   
     dividends; and providing for an effective date.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 232                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     An Act  making a special  appropriation from  the budget                                                                   
     reserve fund  under art.  IX, sec. 17©, Constitution  of                                                                   
     the State of  Alaska, to the Alaska Income  Account; and                                                                   
     providing for an effective date.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
JIM KELLY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS,  ALASKA PERMANENT FUND                                                                   
CORPORATION,  DEPARTMENT  OF   REVENUE,  addressed  materials                                                                   
distributed  to Committee  members.   [Copies on  File].   He                                                                   
noted that  the job of the  Permanent Fund Corporation  (PFC)                                                                   
is managing  investments of  the permanent  fund.  It  is not                                                                   
the job of that staff to make  policy decisions, instead that                                                                   
is  the  work  of  the Legislature.    The  PFC  provides  an                                                                   
analysis of implications of any proposed changes.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelly  stated  that SB 232  is an  investment matter.  He                                                                   
noted that  Greg Allen  had modeedl  the proposed statute  in                                                                   
order  that PFC  could get  a concrete  understanding of  the                                                                   
financial implications  under a  variety of financial  market                                                                   
conditions.  The initial implications  of the proposal are as                                                                   
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     1.   Moving   to   a   percentage   of   "market   value                                                                 
     distribution"  approach, which  is a  sound approach  to                                                                   
     meeting  long term objectives  of achieving  consistency                                                                   
     in   distributions  and   long   term  preservation   of                                                                   
     purchasing power.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     2.   Shifting  to a GAAP  model from a statutory  income                                                                 
     approach appears to be an appropriate action.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     3.   Using a five-year averaging  approach should reduce                                                                 
     the volatility of distributions.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     4.   The   transition  approach   appears  to   be  very                                                                 
     reasonable (phasing in the five-year period).                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     5.   Incorporating  a  one-year  lag  improves  planning                                                                 
     flexibility  and also will ten,  over the long  term, to                                                                   
     reduce  the magnitude  of  the 5.25%  distribution  when                                                                   
     related to  current market value.   That would  make the                                                                   
     distribution level more consistent  with preservation of                                                                   
     fund purchasing power.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     6.   Limiting  fiscal 1999  distributions to the  $1,000                                                                 
     dividend  would definitely  enhance  the probability  of                                                                   
     maintaining   sufficient   future   balances   to   fund                                                                   
     operations    in    accordance    with    constitutional                                                                   
     requirements.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     7.   Including  the Capital  Budget Reserve Fund  (CBRF)                                                                 
     balance in  the new Alaska  Income Fund would  similarly                                                                   
     improve  the probability of  the program working  within                                                                   
     Constitutional limits.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     8.   The future dividend mechanism appears workable.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     9.   Liberalization of the  maximum equity limitation is                                                                 
     essential  to the  attainment of  the return  objectives                                                                   
     that are essential for achievement  of both distribution                                                                   
     and purchasing power objectives.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     10.  It is  clearly possible, although  improbable, that                                                                 
     a  protracted period  of weak  financial market  returns                                                                   
     would undermine  the plan or any alternative  plan based                                                                   
     on distributed earnings.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     11.  The   distribution  percentage  (5.25%)   initially                                                                 
     appears  aggressive and warrants  careful analysis.   As                                                                   
     noted  earlier,  the  averaging   and  lagging  features                                                                   
     incorporated in  the proposal moderate the  magnitude of                                                                   
     the distribution percentage.   However, it leaves little                                                                   
     if any margin for error.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelly stated  that it was improbable that  any plan based                                                                   
on   distribution  of   earnings   would   be  in   jeopardy.                                                                   
Representative  Austerman  asked  if the  proposed  plan  was                                                                   
stronger than what currently exists.   Mr. Kelly spoke to the                                                                   
features which make it stronger.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     *    Reduction in this year's payout;                                                                                    
     *    The addition of the CBR account; and                                                                                
     *    The averaging provisions.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder asked  if during  times of  a "bull  market"                                                                   
would any plan suffer.  Mr. Kelly  stated it would.  Co-Chair                                                                   
Mulder  continued,  how  would   this  plan  stack  up  in  a                                                                   
protracted market.   Mr. Kelly replied that  for the concerns                                                                   
listed, it would be structurally sound.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelly  referenced Page 2  of the handout  which addresses                                                                   
the endowment  long term spending goal prepared  by Greenwich                                                                   
Associates in February  1999.  The medium payout  rate of all                                                                   
endowments in the United States  is 4.9%.  The average payout                                                                   
rate is 4.7%.   In the case of  HB 231, it is averaged over a                                                                   
lagging  20  quarters  and  is  infused  with  dedicated  oil                                                                   
revenues which makes the effective rate less than 4.9%.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelly  continued, the following  20 pages of  the handout                                                                   
were prepared  by Gregory  Allen, EVP,  Callan &  Associates,                                                                   
Inc., on the Alaska Permanent  Fund Simulation Model, (Mother                                                                   
of Models, All - or MOMA), for HB 231.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     *    Asset allocation assumptions;                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     *    5.25% distribution - using actual results through                                                                   
March  1999,  and  using  the   1999  Callan  capital  market                                                                   
assumptions.   It would assume a  48% equity moving  to a 58%                                                                   
equity by the  end of FY2000; assuming a net  contribution to                                                                   
the income  account of  $1.873 billion dollars;  distributing                                                                   
income of 5.25%  of a graduated 5 year average;  assuming the                                                                   
dividend  is paid  at $1  thousand dollars  per applicant  in                                                                   
1999,  2000 and  2001 and  that  general accepted  accounting                                                                   
principles are used;                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     *    Fund value versus principal balance;                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     *    Real fund value adjusted for inflation;                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     *    Illustrates how the Alaska Income Account grows                                                                     
based on the median expected rates of return;                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     *    Illustrates the distribution from that account                                                                      
each  year,  dividing  it into  two  pieces,  government  and                                                                   
dividends;                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     *    Range of fund value which identifies the                                                                            
volatility  of the  plan.   The  median  case expectation  is                                                                   
$29.949  billion  dollars.   The  middle  line on  the  chart                                                                   
illustrates the medium case scenario.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     *    Illustrates the "real" inflation adjusted value of                                                                  
the  fund.   There  is  a  range of  possibilities  from  $37                                                                   
billion down to $18 billion dollars.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     *    Range of ending Alaska Income Account (AIA)                                                                         
balance. The chart shows the ending  balance in that account.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     *    Range of distributed income at 5.25%.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Discussion followed among Committee  members regarding "doing                                                                   
nothing" and the outcome of that to the Permanent Fund.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
PETER  BUSHRE,  CHIEF  FINANCIAL   OFFICIER,  PERMANENT  FUND                                                                   
CORPORATION,  DEPARTMENT  OF   REVENUE,  commented  that  the                                                                   
approach to  the health of  the State's revenue  crisis would                                                                   
be  as much  of a  decision as  taking no  action.   Co-Chair                                                                   
Mulder agreed.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Kelly acknowledged  that  the plans  implemented  twenty                                                                   
years ago were  good plans and worked well  during that time.                                                                   
The fund  has grown to $26  billion dollars which  is greater                                                                   
than  ever  expected.    During the  next  twenty  years  for                                                                   
reasons described  before, because  of crossing the  line for                                                                   
oil  revenues  and  fund income,  change  in  the  accounting                                                                   
methodology  and increased  volatility  income returns,  make                                                                   
having a  plan essential.   He  emphasized that  HB 231  is a                                                                   
change in plan.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Kelly continued previewing the handout.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     *    Range of distributed government income.  In the                                                                     
year 2003, the median expected  production of income would be                                                                   
$831 million  dollars.  In the  year 2008, it is  expected to                                                                   
pay just under $1 billion dollars.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     *    Range of effective payout rate.  The median payout                                                                  
rate  for  1999 is  $2.37  billion  dollars.   The  effective                                                                   
median  payout rate  achieved  at 5.25%  is  4.85% of  market                                                                   
value,  which  is  not  much error  in  margin  points.    He                                                                   
reiterated that it is important  that the effective payout is                                                                   
sound.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bushre spoke to the financial  projection provided in the                                                                   
handout for  the years 1999 -  2020.  The sheet  reflects the                                                                   
status quo, current  law, and includes the provision  for the                                                                   
Amerada  Hess  settlement  income being  transferred  to  the                                                                   
principal.  He offered to provide  a comparison of the status                                                                   
quo and HB 231.  [Chart included  in File].  HB 231 creates a                                                                   
much  simpler  environment  and   contains  no  Amerada  Hess                                                                   
settlement income and no inflation proofing.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 127, Side 2).                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Bushre continued,  there  is only  one  kind of  income,                                                                   
which conforms  to today's accounting standards.   That would                                                                   
be a  total return  which includes  appreciation.   Dividends                                                                   
are based  upon the thousand  dollars per year  per recipient                                                                   
for the  first three years and  42% of the distribution.   He                                                                   
emphasized   that   the   spreadsheets    are   merely   flat                                                                   
projections.  They are  not forecasts  or  anything like  the                                                                   
MOMA model.   Mr.  Bushre pointed  out that conditions  would                                                                   
not be that consistent over the next 20 years.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
In  response to  questions,  Mr.  Bushre commented  that  the                                                                   
market has been rising since October  29, 1929.  The market's                                                                   
history  teaches us  that over  the long  term equities  have                                                                   
appreciated in value.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder  clarified that  the comparison of  financial                                                                   
projections  of  the status  quo  versus  HB 231,  under  the                                                                   
status  quo, funds would  amount to  $63.733 billion  dollars                                                                   
and  under  HB 231,  those  funds  would be  $56.174  billion                                                                   
dollars.   Mr. Bushre  agreed.   That resulted  because  of a                                                                   
larger   distribution  under   HB  231.     Co-Chair   Mulder                                                                   
acknowledged the figure was closer than he had expected.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder  pointed out  that the  status quo  plan does                                                                   
not take into consideration how  the unrealized gains and the                                                                   
needs  of  the  Legislature  will  come  into  play  to  fund                                                                   
government.   Mr.   Kelly replied that  for the past  several                                                                   
years,  the  Board  of  Trustees  has  been  looking  at  the                                                                   
percentage  of market  value distribution  of income  and the                                                                   
long term  spending policy  that would fit  well with  a long                                                                   
term  investment  policy.   Their  interest  is  structurally                                                                   
creating a system that works.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bushre suggested a hypothetical  situation in which there                                                                   
were  no  other  "pockets"  of money  left  in  the  earnings                                                                   
reserve or  the Alaska Income  Account which would  mean, the                                                                   
only thing  left would  be the principal.   The principal  is                                                                   
protected   by  the  Constitution   and   it  would   take  a                                                                   
constitutional  amendment  to   access.    Representative  J.                                                                   
Davies  commented  that  the  choice  would  be  whether  the                                                                   
dividend was  funded or  if the government  was funded.   The                                                                   
status quo assumes that conversion would not happen.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Bunde  questioned   the   language  of   the                                                                   
amendment.   [Copy on File].   Mr. Bushre explained  that one                                                                   
item missing from HB 231 had been  included in the amendment.                                                                   
The amendment  would clarify in  law that the  permanent fund                                                                   
could disburse the amount of the  distribution to the general                                                                   
fund  over   the  following  12   months  which   allows  the                                                                   
Department of Revenue  to project a reasonable  cash flow for                                                                   
funding the principal.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Bunde asked  if the  corpus definition  would                                                                   
include  unrealized earnings.    Mr. Bushre  stated it  would                                                                   
not.   The unrealized earnings,  if HB 231 were  passed would                                                                   
become part of the Alaska Income Account.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative   J.  Davies   pointed  out   that  this   was                                                                   
considered consistent with the  generally accepted accounting                                                                   
principles.   He questioned where  the volatility  would lay.                                                                   
Mr.  Kelly  explained  that  the  model  runs  300  different                                                                   
correlated  scenarios.    Stocks  and  bonds  still  move  in                                                                   
relationship as do components of the assets.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  J.  Davies asked  how  the 20-year  risk  was                                                                   
determined.  Mr.  Kelly explained that was  important because                                                                   
of a transition period.  In all  cases, the model runs out in                                                                   
20 years, and  usually, only five years is  listed, although,                                                                   
once again, the model does provide numbers for 20 years.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative  J.  Davies  pointed  out  that  the  included                                                                   
information shows all stocks and  bond market and real estate                                                                   
return  variability.    The  oil  price  variability  is  not                                                                   
included.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bushre  provided a  sectional analysis  of the bill.   HB
232  will  appropriate  the  balance  in  the  Constitutional                                                                   
Budget Reserve  to the  Alaska Income  Account, which  is the                                                                   
balance  remaining after  the appropriations  for the  coming                                                                   
fiscal  year's   operating  budget   deficit,  included   and                                                                   
estimated to  be $1.873 billion  dollars.  In order  for that                                                                   
to be  effective,  the CBR must  be invested  under the  same                                                                   
asset allocation as the Permanent  Fund if kept in a separate                                                                   
fund.     The   Department   of   Revenue  could   do   that.                                                                   
Additionally,  if  there is  a  protracted period  of  market                                                                   
downturns, and there  is 5.25% draw, a larger  portion of the                                                                   
AIA  balance,  the  CBR  would  require  a  3/4  vote  to  be                                                                   
accessed.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bushre noted  that HB 231 is the primary  bill before the                                                                   
Committee and that  it would establish the definition  of the                                                                   
AIA, placing it  on the same footing as used by  all funds in                                                                   
computing income and determining  the balance of the earnings                                                                   
reserve.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bushre  noted that Section  2 is  the heart of  the bill.                                                                   
It  would  establish  this  as  a  separate  account  of  the                                                                   
Permanent  Fund and  would establish  the  percentage of  the                                                                   
market value distribution formula.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Bushre spoke  to  an additional  housekeeping  amendment                                                                   
provided by  the Permanent Fund.   The end of 1999  should be                                                                   
addressed because  there is a legal opinion that  if the bill                                                                   
is  silent,   the  20-quarter   distribution  formula   would                                                                   
automatically "kick  in" on what  is already appropriated  by                                                                   
the Legislature.   That would wipe  out the AIA.   Nothing to                                                                   
date  has been  proposed  concerning the  distribution  rate.                                                                   
There is a small  margin for error because of  the 60% cap on                                                                   
equity investments.  If the cap  were higher, it would not be                                                                   
a problem.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bushre  testified that the  board would recommend  moving                                                                   
to a percentage of market value.   Mr. Kelly interjected that                                                                   
Mr. O'Leary  would be  more comfortable  with a 5.1%  payout,                                                                   
and that  the allocation  equity ceiling  on investments  was                                                                   
65%.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder questioned  speculation  regarding the  time                                                                   
frame in which the Internal Revenue  Service (IRS) might look                                                                   
at the  Permanent Fund  as non-taxable.   Mr. Bushre  replied                                                                   
that the Permanent Fund receives  its tax exemption by virtue                                                                   
of  the  fact  that  it  is  a  fund  of  a  sovereign  state                                                                   
government's legislative  bodies.  Even if HB  231 was passed                                                                   
and enacted into law, future legislatures  have the option of                                                                   
changing it  or appropriating different  amounts.  It  is the                                                                   
opinion   of  the   Attorney   General  that   we  need   the                                                                   
appropriation from  the Legislature.   And so, if HB  231 was                                                                   
enacted,  there  would  be  a   need  to  come  back  to  the                                                                   
Legislature  every  year  with language  to  appropriate  the                                                                   
5.25%.  Mr. Bushre did not see  any change between the status                                                                   
quo and  the proposed bill in  regard to protecting  the fund                                                                   
from future taxation.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WILSON CONDON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT  OF REVENUE, provided                                                                   
his observations  of the  plan before Committee.   He  made a                                                                   
brief comparison of the policy  choices reflected in the plan                                                                   
and the  consequent results  in comparison  to the  plan that                                                                   
Governor  Knowles submitted.  He believed  that there  were a                                                                   
few policy considerations that  needed to be addressed.  When                                                                   
comparing plans,  it is important to consider  how they work,                                                                   
who pays,  and what  burdens would result  based on  the same                                                                   
assumptions.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner Condon  continued, in terms of  return on assets                                                                   
for  both  for  the Permanent  Fund  and  the  Constitutional                                                                   
Budget Reserve  Fund, the Department  of Revenue  used 8.25%,                                                                   
the return rate  consummate with the spreadsheet  provided by                                                                   
the House  Majority Plan.   Additionally,  the Department  of                                                                   
Revenue proposes  a correction  for the projections  relating                                                                   
to production  of  oil and gas  resources that  have not  yet                                                                   
been  discovered  or which  have  been discovered  but  which                                                                   
currently, there are no development plans.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SHIVELY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT  OF NATURAL RESOURCES,                                                                   
spoke to a distinct  possibility which might occur  in a high                                                                   
case  scenario   for  resource  development.     Obviously  a                                                                   
discovered  reserve  is  less   risky  than  an  undiscovered                                                                   
reserve.   He  added that  NPR-A  may have  a lot  of oil  or                                                                   
concurrently, it  could have nothing.   He spoke to  low case                                                                   
possibilities.   The  Administration  has used  the mid  case                                                                   
projections, which are more probable.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner Condon  spoke to the Governor's plan.   He noted                                                                   
that the  balance  in the CBR  would as  projected today,  go                                                                   
down between  the years  2010 and  2020.   At that time,  the                                                                   
Governor  would propose  to make another  transfer.   Details                                                                   
are being worked out.  Whether  to use a separate fund or use                                                                   
the proposal  by the House  Majority to access  the Permanent                                                                   
Fund.   He  observed  that all  technical  details have  some                                                                   
benefit.    The important  issue  to  address is  the  policy                                                                   
trade-off  between the  dividend and  a broad-based  tax. The                                                                   
Governor suggests  shifting the  burden to a broad-based  tax                                                                   
called the Alaska Credit Income Tax.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner  Condon  continued,   the  House  Majority  plan                                                                   
represents a different  policy choice for a  smaller dividend                                                                   
and then to use that revenue to  pay for government services.                                                                   
He spoke to market place volatility,  whether the plans would                                                                   
fit together,  the investment  limit which could  result from                                                                   
the  proposed legislation,  and  the asset  allocation  which                                                                   
would follow  the legislation.   He  questioned if  the State                                                                   
could plan  to pay  out 5.25%  of the  base specified  in the                                                                   
bill while covering inflation proofing and management fees.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 128, Side 1).                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner   Condon   explained    that   when   investment                                                                   
professionals   quantify  risk,   they   are  talking   about                                                                   
volatility.  It  is important to be realistic  about how much                                                                   
the  State can  depend upon  the revenue  from the  Permanent                                                                   
Fund to  pay for  schools, hospitals,  Pioneer Homes  and all                                                                   
those  things  that  are  generally  believed  essential  for                                                                   
government  to  provide.   He  questioned  if the  State  was                                                                   
putting "too  many eggs  in the Permanent  Fund basket".   He                                                                   
acknowledged   that  a   broad-based  tax   would  not   help                                                                   
legislators to  win a popularity  contest, but that  it would                                                                   
diversify and  provide sound management of  State's finances.                                                                   
Commissioner  Condon  expressed  that diversification  is  an                                                                   
important consideration.  Additionally,  there will be a need                                                                   
for a vote to access the Permanent Fund.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder  commented  that  taxes  mean  "trouble"  in                                                                   
Alaska, particularly with also  accessing the Permanent Fund.                                                                   
He   suggested   that   the  "new"   revenues   proposed   by                                                                   
Commissioner   Condon   are  flat.      Commissioner   Condon                                                                   
interjected  that the  purpose of  that number  is to  simply                                                                   
indicate  a target  revenue  level  from a  broad-based  tax.                                                                   
There  was  no  judgement  intended in  that  number  on  the                                                                   
performance  of Alaska's  economy.   He  emphasized that  the                                                                   
plan proposed by  the Administration does fill the  gap.  The                                                                   
Governor  is  open  to  using  a  percent  of  market  value.                                                                   
Those who  manage the fund can  explain the benefits  that go                                                                   
with that approach.  In addition  to the use of the Permanent                                                                   
Fund, the  Governor would ask  to see a broad-based  tax such                                                                   
as an income or sales tax.  That  would diversify the revenue                                                                   
being used to fill the gap.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that  the Governor's plan assumes                                                                   
utilization of some portion of the Permanent Fund earnings.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Austerman inquired  how far  off the  numbers                                                                   
used in  the House Majority plan  were for the  projection of                                                                   
new oil revenue.  Commissioner  Shively responded that it was                                                                   
not  significantly   off.    The  Governor's   plan  is  less                                                                   
aggressive  in the early  years and  more so  later on.   The                                                                   
total amount would be the same  if the high case scenario was                                                                   
used.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Grussendorf  commented   that  regardless  of                                                                   
which plan  is chosen, taxes will  need to be addressed.   He                                                                   
asked  which  plan  would Callan  and  Associates  deem  more                                                                   
stable from  a point of view  of investment and  soundness of                                                                   
the fund.  Commissioner  Condon replied that he  did not know                                                                   
which  plan  they  would choose,  however,  that  agency  has                                                                   
advised  the  Department for  several  years  on use  of  the                                                                   
Permanent  Fund and  that the  payout of  earnings should  be                                                                   
based  on a formula  percent of  market value.   That  agency                                                                   
would recommend that  taking steps to make the  Alaska Income                                                                   
Account relatively large compared  to the overall size of the                                                                   
Fund which  has the  effect of  reducing the availability  of                                                                   
income over  the long  range.   It is  important to  make the                                                                   
earnings reserve account as large as possible.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder pointed  out that on Table 5  of the handout,                                                                   
revenue from  incremental oil and  gas production moved  to a                                                                   
well head price per barrel, which  is historically different.                                                                   
Commissioner Shively  explained that the revenue  is based on                                                                   
a well head.   He added that both the production  tax and the                                                                   
royalty  is based  on the  well  head value,  not the  market                                                                   
value.    Commissioner   Condon  added  that   every  revenue                                                                   
forecast begins with a market  determination and then deducts                                                                   
transportation  costs   to  arrive  at  a  value   point  for                                                                   
royalties and taxes.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Austerman  inquired  if  there would  come  a                                                                   
point when it  would be important to deposit  more funds into                                                                   
the corpus.  He  believed that the AIA should  be as large as                                                                   
possible given the fluctuations  in the market and the income                                                                   
earnings.   Commissioner  Condon acknowledged  Representative                                                                   
Austerman's  concern,  although,  suggested that  there  were                                                                   
competing  considerations  and judgements.    If  there is  a                                                                   
possibility  that future legislators  would be  irresponsibly                                                                   
managing the  principal, it would  be important to  take that                                                                   
money  "off the  table".   On  the other  hand,  to have  the                                                                   
required  flexibility  to  manage finances  is  important  to                                                                   
readily access the funds.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  J. Davies requested  Commissioner Shively  to                                                                   
walk members  through the handout: "Incremental  Revenue From                                                                   
High Case Forecast of:                                                                                                          
     1. New Discoveries of Oil and Gas, and                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     2. Development of Discovered Oil and Gas Not Currently                                                                   
     Scheduled for Development".  [Copy on File].                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner   Shively  highlighted   major  points   of  the                                                                   
handout:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     *    Table 1   Base   line    Alaska   Production   from                                                                 
Department of Revenue Spring 1999 Forecast:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     *    Chart 1   High Case Technically Recoverable Oil                                                                     
Production  Not Reflected  in  Department  of Revenue  Spring                                                                   
1999 Forecast;                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     *    Table 2   Department     of    Natural    Resources                                                                 
Technically Recoverable Incremental Production 2000-2020;                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     *    Table 3   Department     of    Natural    Resources                                                                 
Economically Recoverable Incremental Production 2000-2020;                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     *    Table 4   Severance Tax and Royalty Fraction                                                                        
Contributing to State Revenue;                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     *    Table 5   Revenue from Incremental Production                                                                       
Estimates; and                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     *    Table 6   Unrestricted Revenue to State Using                                                                       
Department  of Revenue  baseline  and Department  of  Natural                                                                   
Resources Incremental Production.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Commissioner  Shively  agreed   that  there  is  not  a  huge                                                                   
difference between the two plans.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder  requested Mr.  Bushre  to  have Callan  and                                                                   
Associates run the MOMA model  on the Governor's plan so that                                                                   
there could be a comparison of the two plans.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative J.  Davies asked why the number  for inflation                                                                   
proofing  varied  among different  departments,  studies  and                                                                   
groups.   Commissioner  Condon explained  that two  different                                                                   
types of  inflation were being  addressed.  The first  is the                                                                   
national level, the nexy inflation  rate is the one reflected                                                                   
in asset prices.  The numbers  used by the State are the ones                                                                   
provided by  Callan and  Associates.  Much  of the  work that                                                                   
they  provide  annually  for   the  State  is  projection  of                                                                   
inflation and  the real returns  for all the  different asset                                                                   
classes  which  form  our  asset   allocation.    Callan  and                                                                   
Associates  believe that  over the  next 5  years, given  the                                                                   
current economy,  Alaska will  see an average  inflation rate                                                                   
of 3%.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  J.   Davies  understood  the  need   for  the                                                                   
different  figures and  agreed  that we  should  not use  the                                                                   
inflation  rate for growth  of government.   He  acknowledged                                                                   
that  the two  numbers should  be a  different policy  calls.                                                                   
Representative  J. Davies  questioned why  the Anchorage  API                                                                   
was   substantially  different   than   the  national   rate.                                                                   
Commissioner Condon explained,  it is assumed that there will                                                                   
be less  growth in concerns  such as  wages.  He  stated that                                                                   
that  broad-based   tax  would   allow  a  higher   dividend.                                                                   
Representative  J.  Davies  requested  a  calculation  scheme                                                                   
which would indicate what each  household would pay according                                                                   
to income  level.   Co-Chair Mulder  reiterated the  need for                                                                   
the back-up materials.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder   requested  feedback  from   Legal  Counsel                                                                   
regarding the  effective date  of the statutory  enactment to                                                                   
the passage of an advisory vote.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAMARA  COOK,   DIRECTOR,  LEGISLATIVE  LEGAL   AND  RESEARCH                                                                   
SERVICES,  LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS  AGENCY, explained that  there                                                                   
is  little  information  available  since  it  has  not  been                                                                   
challenged  in our  State.  She  noted that  in the  research                                                                   
that she had done, there had been  one vote placed before the                                                                   
people  by the Legislature  to approve  a voter  registration                                                                   
law  in 1968.    It was  a  binding vote  of  the people  and                                                                   
apparently it went unchallenged.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
She  continued,  the issue  is  whether the  Legislature  can                                                                   
delegate its legislative  power to enact laws  to the people.                                                                   
The Constitutional  proceedings discuss  that point.   At one                                                                   
point  in time,  some  of the  members were  in  favor of  an                                                                   
amendment to the Constitution  that would provide that.  That                                                                   
amendment was  defeated following some discussion  suggesting                                                                   
that the members  who attended the Constitutional  Convention                                                                   
felt that  the power of  initiative and referendum,  operated                                                                   
to  provide the  people a  voice  in the  enactment of  laws.                                                                   
That was sufficient, and there  was no need to have the extra                                                                   
step of allowing the Legislature  to submit to the people for                                                                   
a  binding  vote the  enactment  of  the  law. The  issue  is                                                                   
whether such a submission would  be an improper delegation of                                                                   
the legislative power.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Cook pointed  out  that  the Attorney  General's  office                                                                   
issued  two opinions  in  1982 and  1983,  concluding that  a                                                                   
binding vote  scenario tying an  effective date to a  vote of                                                                   
the  people  would  survive,  but  acknowledged  that  was  a                                                                   
minority view.   The bulk of the United  States jurisdictions                                                                   
has looked at  that question and has not come  out supporting                                                                   
that view.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
It was recently addressed when  our Supreme Court stated that                                                                   
the Constitution  specifies that we cannot use  an initiative                                                                   
for appropriation,  and the Court's have expanded  the notion                                                                   
of appropriation  to include  concerns such as  determination                                                                   
between  beneficial users  of natural  resources.  The  Court                                                                   
found  that  the  transfer  by  initiative  was  an  improper                                                                   
appropriation.   Assistant Attorney  General Jim  Baldwin has                                                                   
warned that particularly  in the area of  appropriations, the                                                                   
power  of initiative  seems to  be restricted.   The  binding                                                                   
vote scenario has not been tried and challenged.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Cook  believed that  if the  Legislature elects  the vote                                                                   
scenario  with  a concern  as  significant as  the  long-term                                                                   
fiscal  plan,   it  certainly   will  be  challenged.     She                                                                   
recommended  that the  Legislature  take  the opportunity  to                                                                   
make  it  very clear  to  the  Court  what the  intention  is                                                                   
regarding severability.  If the  Court finds that the binding                                                                   
vote  is an  invalid  condition  on  an effective  date,  the                                                                   
Legislature  should  make  it  clear whether  they  want  the                                                                   
entire bill  to fail if the  condition is struck down,  or if                                                                   
the  legislation is  to survive  if the  condition is  struck                                                                   
down.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
In response  to comments  made by  Co-Chair Mulder,  Ms. Cook                                                                   
voiced  concern with the  issue of  severability included  in                                                                   
legislation of this magnitude.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies asked  if the bill was passed, could                                                                   
an initiative  be crafted  to reverse  the legislation.   Ms.                                                                   
Cook replied that  people have the right to  do by initiative                                                                   
more or  less what  the Legislature  has the  right to  do by                                                                   
law, with some  limitations on the power of  initiative.  One                                                                   
of the limitations  is that people may not  dedicate revenue.                                                                   
The Legislature  has a  very restricted  ability to  dedicate                                                                   
revenue.    Additionally,  a   referendum  cannot  address  a                                                                   
dedication,  which  creates  a  curiosity  for  the  Earnings                                                                   
Reserve  Account, a  dedicated  account.   In addressing  the                                                                   
Permanent  Fund, the entire  concern becomes  confused.   The                                                                   
Legislature has the power to dedicate  if required by federal                                                                   
programs  or  perhaps  in  the case  of  the  Permanent  Fund                                                                   
income.    However,  the  people  have  a  clear  restriction                                                                   
against dedicating revenue.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The first concern  Ms. Cook foresaw would be  the fundamental                                                                   
question of the interrelationship  between the restriction on                                                                   
the initiative  process, dedications  and the power  that the                                                                   
Permanent Fund provision seems  to contain to dedicate income                                                                   
of the fund.  She believed that the initiative would fail.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder  agreed  that  the public,  when  given  the                                                                   
opportunity  would   raid  the  treasury.     The  initiative                                                                   
prevented that  from occurring.   Ms. Cook added  that Alaska                                                                   
is  not unique  in curtailing  the power  of initiative  with                                                                   
respect to appropriations.  It is a common restriction.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative G.  Davis asked if there were  restrictions on                                                                   
the timing of a  vote.  Ms. Cook explained that  there is not                                                                   
a statutory method for holding a special election.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 128, Side 2).                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Cook suggested  that the  Legislature  could direct  the                                                                   
Lieutenant Governor to hold an  election on a specified date.                                                                   
She recommended  that  the election date  be scheduled  after                                                                   
receiving specific advice from the Division of Elections.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder  advised that  the Division of  Elections had                                                                   
indicated  that  the earliest  that  they could  schedule  an                                                                   
election   following   Legislative   adjournment   would   be                                                                   
September 14th.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative G. Davis asked  if the Governor had proposed a                                                                   
binding vote  on an appropriation.   Ms. Cook  explained that                                                                   
would be the  effect of SB 66, which appropriates  money from                                                                   
the  earnings reserve  account  to the  budget reserve  fund.                                                                   
She understood  that the  effective date would  be tied  to a                                                                   
vote of the  people in a binding fashion.   Representative G.                                                                   
Davis understood  that would be  unconstitutional.   Ms. Cook                                                                   
replied from a  letter written by Assistant  Attorney General                                                                   
Baldwin,  it has  been suggested  that  the power  to hold  a                                                                   
binding vote may  be limited.  In particular,  Mr. Baldwin is                                                                   
concerned about any  effort to have a binding  vote attach to                                                                   
an appropriation.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder  questioned  how  the  severability  concept                                                                   
would affect  this scenario.   Ms. Cook explained that  was a                                                                   
fundamental question.  She did  not know how the Courts would                                                                   
treat severability, regardless  of what the Legislature says.                                                                   
However,   severability   should  be   used   to  carry   out                                                                   
legislative intent.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies asked  if it would be admissible for                                                                   
the populace to have an initiative  on an advisory vote.  Ms.                                                                   
Cook replied  that historically,  when  an advisory note  has                                                                   
been  presented to  the people,  the  Legislature has  always                                                                   
used legislation to  present the note and it  is then treated                                                                   
as any other substantive piece of legislation.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE  OF MANAGMENT AND BUDGET,                                                                   
OFFICE  OF THE  GOVERNOR,  pointed  out that  the  Governor's                                                                   
proposal was for an advisory vote,  not a binding vote. It is                                                                   
the Governor's  intent that any  kind of plan adopted   which                                                                   
would  use  the   Permanent  Fund  earnings,   will  be  most                                                                   
successful  if  it  has  the support  of  the  public.    She                                                                   
emphasized  the  need  for  public   education  in  order  to                                                                   
accomplish this concern.  Ms.  McConnell stressed that Alaska                                                                   
must  take  some  kind  of action  as  soon  as  possible  in                                                                   
addressing the fiscal  crisis.  The question  continues to be                                                                   
how  to  accomplish  what  needs to  be  addressed  with  the                                                                   
support of the public.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON  CISSNA asked if the  Governor believes                                                                   
if  an advisory  board  would be  polarized.   Ms.  McConnell                                                                   
replied that the  issue could be polarizing,  but not whether                                                                   
the State  has a vote.   She anticipated that the  vote could                                                                   
provide an  opportunity to Alaskans  to come together  on the                                                                   
plan.    Ms.  McConnell  reiterated  that  there  will  be  a                                                                   
tremendous amount  of public  education and information  that                                                                   
needs to be accomplished first.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms. McConnell  continued, if the  vote were not  positive and                                                                   
if the public  said no, the  plan presented would not  be the                                                                   
one to implement, which would  provide an opportunity to come                                                                   
back and take  different action.  The Office  of the Governor                                                                   
would be  interested in pursuing  either a broad  base income                                                                   
tax or a sales tax.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Williams asked if  the Governor's  plan would                                                                   
be delayed  until there was a  positive vote.   Ms. McConnell                                                                   
replied that the  plan would be put into place  if the public                                                                   
advisory vote  was positive.   If the vote was  not positive,                                                                   
then subsequent  action would need  would to be taken  by the                                                                   
Legislature.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder pointed  out that  if there  was a  negative                                                                   
vote,  nothing would  then  be in  place  under the  proposed                                                                   
Governor's plan.   Ms. McConnell  agreed.  She added  that in                                                                   
order to  pass a  plan, there  has to be  the support  of the                                                                   
House  and the  Senate.   She  submitted  that an  additional                                                                   
challenge  would  be  public  education  and  gaining  public                                                                   
support.   The question  is at  what stage  do we get  public                                                                   
support before  it is  implemented.   These are the  concerns                                                                   
behind  the Governor's  proposal,  which  need advisory  vote                                                                   
action.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Mulder asked  if it  would be necessary  to have  a                                                                   
separate piece of  legislation or could it be  tacked onto HB
231.   Ms.  Cook replied  that  if there  was going  to be  a                                                                   
question about  placing a ballot  before the people,  it must                                                                   
be  in  a  substantive  piece  of  law,  rather  than  in  an                                                                   
appropriation act.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Mulder  asked   if  HB  231   was  considered   an                                                                   
appropriation  act.    Ms.  Cook replied  that  the  bill  is                                                                   
substantive  and  it  could be  contained  within  that  bill                                                                   
subject  to a  single subject  requirement.   It is  possible                                                                   
that the single subject line could  be crossed.  She believed                                                                   
that there would  be quite a bit of latitude  in addressing a                                                                   
fiscal plan.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Cook suggested  that  there  are many  mechanisms  which                                                                   
could  be used.     Some  would involve  a  policy choice  of                                                                   
whether we want  the plan in place or to let  the Legislature                                                                   
respond to a negative effective  vote, or whether, we want to                                                                   
delay  implementation of  the plan  until the  result of  the                                                                   
advisory vote is known.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  J.   Davies  pointed  out  that   the  common                                                                   
denominator  is that in  no case  does the law  automatically                                                                   
come into effect depending on the result of the election.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Cook  said that  was  her  understanding of  a  binding,                                                                   
conditional, effective date.   That mechanism states that the                                                                   
Legislature  recognizes that  the  law only  takes effect  if                                                                   
another action occurs.  The other action would  be a positive                                                                   
vote  by the  people.    That would  put  the people  in  the                                                                   
position of  taking the last action  to make the law  go into                                                                   
effect, which is the binding effective date.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  J.   Davies  pointed  out  that   HB  232  is                                                                   
dependent on passage  of HB 231.  In effect,  even though the                                                                   
binding vote was  on HB 231, HB 232 would be  dependent on an                                                                   
advisory  vote of  the people.   Ms. Cook  agreed that  could                                                                   
"cast a  cloud" on the binding  vote, however,  the effective                                                                   
dates  could  be untangled  if  that  was  a concern  of  the                                                                   
Legislature.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Cook  spoke to  the two restrictions  on the  initiative.                                                                   
The  first  restriction  is  against   dedicated  funds.  The                                                                   
Permanent Fund is largely a gigantic  dedicated fund program.                                                                   
Additionally,  there  is  a  restriction   on  appropriations                                                                   
through  initiative.    When speaking  of  a  provision  like                                                                   
Section  6,  both  issues  are   at  play  because  a  system                                                                   
currently  exists  without the  bill.   The  existing  system                                                                   
states that there  is a formula under which  we will transfer                                                                   
an amount of money  from the income of the Permanent  Fund to                                                                   
the  dividend  program.    That transfer,  if  you  read  the                                                                   
statute,  purposes to  be  automatic.   It  is a  dedication.                                                                   
However, the Legislature  implements it every  year by making                                                                   
an appropriation.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Cook commented that raised  another fascinating question.                                                                   
Assuming  that the Permanent  Fund indeed  can be  dedicated,                                                                   
because  of the  curious last  sentence that  is attached  to                                                                   
that particular  constitutional  provision, she asked,  would                                                                   
that mean that a dedication is  not subject to appropriation.                                                                   
She  stated  that   it  would  be  consistent   to  permit  a                                                                   
dedication  and  still impose  an  appropriation  requirement                                                                   
that the two  operate as independent requirements.   There is                                                                   
nothing  that states  in the  Permanent  Fund language,  that                                                                   
expenditures  are not  ultimately  subject to  appropriation.                                                                   
Section 6 is  essentially a modification to  the formula that                                                                   
now exists and does not affect the appropriation question.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Austerman voiced  his appreciation for all the                                                                   
information  that  had  been   made  available  to  Committee                                                                   
members.   He recommended that  language of the  Constitution                                                                   
must   also    be   considered.   Representative    Austerman                                                                   
acknowledged  that  the  vote  of  the  people  is  essential                                                                   
because this is  such an emotional issue given  the perceived                                                                   
right of a dividend.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Foster commented  that his  district has  the                                                                   
highest rate  of unemployment of  any district in  the State.                                                                   
A plan depending solely upon dividends  would unfairly affect                                                                   
his area.   People in  the Bush do  not understand  the long-                                                                   
range implications  of these changes.   He acknowledged  that                                                                   
conversely,  an  income base  tax  would affect  urban  areas                                                                   
more.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative G. Davis interjected that to do nothing will                                                                     
create an incredible dilemma for both the Bush and Urban                                                                        
Alaska.  Doing nothing will make the dividend "go away".                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 231 and HB 232 were HELD in Committee for further                                                                            
consideration.                                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects