Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/15/2021 11:30 AM House WAYS & MEANS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB37 | |
| HB202|| HB37 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 202-PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND; ROYALTIES
HB 37-INCOME TAX; PERMANENT FUND; EARNINGS RES.
[Contains discussion of SJR 6 and SJR 7.]
12:31:01 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act relating to the Alaska permanent
fund; relating to dividends for state residents; relating to the
use of certain state income; and providing for an effective
date." and HOUSE BILL NO. 37, "An Act relating to deposits into
the dividend fund; relating to income of and appropriations from
the earnings reserve account; relating to the taxation of income
of individuals, partners, shareholders in S corporations,
trusts, and estates; relating to a payment against the
individual income tax from the permanent fund dividend
disbursement; repealing tax credits applied against the tax on
individuals under the Alaska Net Income Tax Act; and providing
for an effective date."
12:31:31 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opened public testimony on HB 202 and HB 37.
12:32:00 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING stated his strong opposition to HB 202 and HB
37. Instead, he advocated for the passage of SJR 6, which he
believed would resolve the issues pertaining to the dividend.
He explained that his opposition to the proposed legislation
revolved around the removal of the statutory dividend formula.
He opined that the bills would "take away from the children of
Alaska by taxing every single one of them."
12:33:31 PM
CRIS EICHENLAUB opined that Alaska is "grossly" mismanaging its
resources as the largest state with the most resources and the
smallest population. He characterized the permanent fund
dividend (PFD) as the "best bang for our buck," adding his
belief that the people should have the first call on all revenue
[decisions].
12:35:45 PM
SHERRY EICHENLAUB stated her opposition to HB 202 and HB 37 and
aligned herself with the comments from the two previous
testifiers.
12:36:16 PM
KATIE BOTZ stated her opposition to HB 202 and support for HB
37. She shared her belief that an income tax would help close
the fiscal gap. Additionally, she advocated for a "50/50 share
of the PFD."
12:37:06 PM
ADAM HYKES, recalled an earlier statement from Mr. Alper
regarding the repeal of the Amerada Hess settlement provision,
which he interpreted as an indication that the bill wouldn't
work without taking money that would have otherwise gone towards
the PFD. He said, "In the case that's it's not always
guaranteed in some years, then why is it reliable for you and
not for us?" Further, he opposed the idea that the PFD is a
negative tax. He shared his belief that Alaskans want the
legislature to spend less and fix the budget. He opined that
rushing the implementation of a new tax and depending on the
permanent fund to fill the gaps in the budget are both fiscally
irresponsible. He concluded that as a stakeholder in Alaska, he
did not give [the legislature] permission to take his children's
inheritance. He stated his opposition to HB 202 and HB 37.
12:39:33 PM
MIKE COONS emphasized that whether wealthy or poor, people
should be able to spend the PFD on whatever they want. He
stated his full opposition to both bills and added that he
supports SJR 6 and SJR 7. He suggested that the legislature has
no intention of working with Alaskans or the governor on a
solution.
12:41:44 PM
CLIFF GROH expressed that the state needs a comprehensive
strategy that looks beyond the next fiscal year to address
Alaska's deep structural deficit. He opined that the strategy
needs to include a revised PFD formula that is sustainable;
protection for the permanent fund against overspending; and new
revenues to help pay for public services. He believed that HB
202 goes too far to balance the budget (indisc.) of the dividend
to avoid collecting taxes from high earners in Alaska, some of
whom are nonresidents. He advocated for a sustainable dividend
formula in addition to broad-based taxes, preferably an income
tax.
12:43:55 PM
BARBARA TYNDALL stated her opposition to HB 37, which she
characterized as a plan to rob the people of Alaska and give
their money to special interests because the legislature and
administration had failed to live within their means.
Additionally, she believed HB 202 would "exacerbate the
manipulation by the legislature for the fund's original intent
and make it a political football rather than a market-driven
process." She argued that HB 202 would cut the people out of
the process almost entirely. She urged a "no" vote on HB 202
and HB 37.
12:45:18 PM
ANDRA RICE shared that she relies on a full PFD for her heating
oil and doesn't want it taken away from her grandchildren. She
said she loves Alaska, adding that the dividend belongs to the
people, as does their income. She reiterated her opposition to
both HB 202 and HB 37.
12:46:44 PM
MELISSA GUDOBBA stated that she believed the legislature is
trying to "bamboozle" and "hoodwink" Alaskans. She argued that
if people are willing to give up their liberties for temporary
securities, then they don't deserve either. She believed that
growing the government when revenues are high and not being able
to pay for those programs when revenue is low is irresponsible.
She concluded by stating her opposition to HB 202 and HB 37.
12:48:49 PM
JAMES SQUYRES [Due to technical difficulties, the majority of
Mr. Squyres' testimony is indiscernible throughout.]
12:51:21 PM
GARY MCDONALD urged the legislators to listen to the previous
testifiers. He said, "Mr. Wool is trying to pull the wool over
your eyes if he gets both bills."
12:52:07 PM
ROBERT COELTER stated his opposition to HB 202 and HB 37 as a
taxpayer and proponent of small government. He believed that HB
37 would enlarge government by taking people's money to increase
government spending. Further, he opined that HB 202 would make
government larger.
12:53:36 PM
THOMAS BELLANICH stated his opposition to HB 202 and HB 37. He
opined that children should not be taxed, because they are the
future. Further, that if a tax were to be implemented, it
should be a wage tax, as opposed to an income tax. He
emphasized that many rely on the dividend for clothing, heating,
food, and hunting, and that taking it away would be wrong. He
reiterated his belief that a wage tax is preferable, as it would
allow the state to tax nonresidents.
12:55:45 PM
JEAN HOLT stated her opposition to HB 202 and HB 37. She
believed both bills would eliminate Alaskans' ability to receive
their share of mineral rights through the PFD. She advocated
for SJR 6 and SJR 7.
12:56:58 PM
RENEE WELLINGTON expressed her opposition to HB 202 and HB 37,
especially after the difficult year Alaska has faced. She
opposed implementing an income tax to "grow" government and
reducing the PFD. She urged the legislature to listen to
Alaskans and stop catering to special interest groups.
12:58:32 PM
LAURA BONNER said she's pleased to see a proposal that would
change the outdated PFD formula, which no longer works. She
opined that HB 37 is more sustainable for future generations,
while still providing a dividend. She pointed out that in the
future, oil royalties may decrease; therefore, she opined that
HB 202 would not be the best solution. She believed HB 37 would
offer a new source of revenue, which is desperately needed to
provide services. She concluded that an income tax wouldn't be
popular, but it's necessary.
1:00:00 PM
DAVE JOHNSON disclosed that he has worked in Prudhoe Bay for
over 20 years, adding that over 50 percent of his nonresident
coworkers do not pay taxes. He stated his support for both HB
37 and HB 202. He pointed out that it's easy to "throw stones"
at solutions. He emphasized the need to pick a solution, as the
state is in a tough spot from drawing down its savings.
1:00:51 PM
JOHN SONIN expressed his support for HB 37. Regarding HB 202,
he said he was not as clear on how it would be implemented, but
he is supportive. He shared his belief that future generations
should be able to share in the "gifts" of the permanent fund.
1:03:08 PM
JANET MCCABE stated her support for HB 202. She said adopting
this bill would be a major step towards giving Alaska much
needed fiscal stability. For years, she said, the legislature
has disagreed about the percentage of POMV funds to use for
dividends and the percentage to use for state services. HB 202
would solve that issue by drawing funds for the dividend by a
totally separate source. Instead, the dividend would be a fixed
percent of annual mineral revenues. She believed the resulting
stability would benefit and strengthen Alaska's economy.
Further, she emphasized the importance of passing HB 202 to
protect the permanent fund and POMV revenue, which is now the
state's primary source of income. She concluded that passing HB
202 this session would be an important and beneficial
achievement.
1:04:50 PM
ELEANOR ANDREWS stated her support for HB 202. She believed
that without a fiscal plan that provides sustainable income from
every source, Alaska would be worse off than it was before the
discovery of oil. She indicated that HB 202 would provide an
additional source of revenue. She pointed out that government-
provided services that everyone enjoys would not be possible if
the permanent fund ceased to exist.
1:06:19 PM
PETER MICHALSKI said he agreed with the previous testifier's
comments regarding HB 202. Additionally, he opined that HB 37
would maintain the dividend program while implementing a minimal
tax. He believed HB 202 and HB 37 would put the legislature on
the right track towards fulfilling the constitutional
requirement of providing education, public safety, roads, and
other services.
1:08:08 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ closed public testimony on HB 37 and HB 202.
[HB 37 was held over.]
1:08:33 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:08 p.m. to 1:12 p.m.
1:12:39 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 202, labeled
32-LS0884\I.1, Nauman, 5/13/21, which read:
Page 5, line 16:
Delete "30"
Insert "50"
1:12:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:12:53 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that Amendment 1 would increase the
percentage of royalties the legislature may appropriate to the
dividend fund from 30 percent to 50 percent, which would allow
the dividend to remain tied to resource production while
allowing more of the revenue to go towards Alaskans through
dividends. She opined that the concept of the bill is
intriguing; however, she said she had "heartburn" in regard to
the proposed PFD formula and the corresponding amount in HB 202.
She noted that as currently drafted, HB 202 would produce a
dividend of $442 in FY 21, which she characterized as "low."
Per ITEP, she reminded the committee that a PFD reduction would
be the hardest on lower-income individuals and that 95 percent
of Alaskans would be worse off with a PFD cut, as opposed to
other forms of revenue. She added that the only people who are
better off with a PFD reduction are those in the top 5 percent
who make $228,000 a year or more. She reiterated that the
proposed amendment would increase the percentage of royalties
that would go to dividends and, if adopted, would produce a
dividend of $763 in FY 21, which would provide more certainty.
1:14:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY removed her objection.
1:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON objected. He said given that the
current statutory dividend formula provides for a dividend of
$3,400, Amendment 1 would be a marked decrease. Nonetheless, he
reported that as it's currently written, the bill would have
resulted in a dividend of $1,600 in the "productive" years of FY
08 through FY 12; therefore, he presumed that if Amendment 1
were to pass, the dividend would have increased to approximately
$2,000 in those years. He asked why that is affordable.
1:15:54 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that she only possessed modeling from the
Legislative Finance Division that dated back to FY 16. Further,
she reported that in FY 18, 50 percent of royalties would
produce a dividend of $1,008, which is significantly smaller
than the figure referenced by Representative Josephson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON clarified that he had referenced data
from 2008, as opposed to 2018.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ responded that she didn't have the information
for that year. Further, she recalled that 2008 was a fairly
high oil price environment, indicating that the state had more
money at that point in time. She reiterated that in FY 21,
Amendment 1 would yield a dividend of $763, which is still
modest and much lower than the historic average of the dividend
at approximately $1,100.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON indicated that he liked the spirit of
generosity in which the amendment was proposed. However, he
pointed out that in a world without COVID and AARPA funds, the
proposal would cross into deficit spending without new revenue,
which is concerning.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opined that Representative Josephson's statement
would be true if the dividend were the only solution to the
fiscal problem; however, she expressed her opposition to a
"permanent fund only solution," adding that it would be "the
most regressive thing that you could do." Further, she believed
that for 95 percent of Alaskans, a "PFD only solution" would be
worse than an income tax, as proposed by Representative Wool.
She stated her belief that HB 37 is a practical measure, which
would leverage the funding sustainability of the permanent fund
and require Alaskans to chip in through an updated PFD formula
while balancing the regressivity with an income tax. She
reiterated her objection to the premise that the dividend is the
only considerable solution to address Alaska's fiscal situation.
She pointed out that if Amendment 1 to HB 202 were to pass,
there are other bills that would complement the proposed
legislation, such as income and oil tax revenue bills that could
help while still keeping Alaska competitive and balance the
budget while providing for a more reasonable dividend than what
is currently proposed in the original draft of HB 202.
1:19:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE requested that the bill sponsor speak to
Amendment 1.
1:19:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 202, stated that the original intent of the
legislation was to avoid overdrawing the POMV. She deferred to
her staff, Ms. Teal, to explain the implications of Amendment 1.
1:20:09 PM
TALLY TEAL, Staff, Representative Kelly Merrick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Merrick, prime sponsor
of HB 202, said based on cursory modeling from the Legislative
Finance Division, the budget reserves would increase before
leveling off and the dividend amount would be slightly under
$800. Most concerning, she said, is the $39 million overdraw
from the earnings reserve account (ERA) in FY 23. She noted
that modeling showed FY 23 as the only year in which the ERA
would be overdrawn.
1:20:56 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that she wouldn't support an ERA
overdraw, adding that other revenue measures could complement
this legislation.
1:21:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Amendment 1 appeared to be
talking about a cap. He asked whether the dividend was intended
to be capped at "whatever amount that 50 percent of those
categories of money is" and the legislature would not be able to
appropriate more money to a dividend in a separate
appropriation.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ shared her belief that Representative Eastman
may be speaking to the underlying bill, as Amendment 1 simply
instructs the deletion of "30" and the insertion of "50" on page
5, line 16.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "50" represents a cap and
whether the intent was to increase the cap to 50 percent.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ remarked. "I believe, Representative Eastman,
that you understand that all bills and legislation are subject
to appropriation by the legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he is confused about what Amendment
1 is attempting to accomplish. He asked again whether it
pertains to a cap or not.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ responded, "We are talking about increasing the
amount of funds that are available to the dividend, as proposed
by HB 202."
1:22:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL conveyed that he shares some of the concerns
that Representative Josephson expressed. He explained that he
appreciated that the bill, in its original form, would not
produce any overdraws. Further, he characterized 30 percent of
royalties as sustainable and highlighted the surplus, which was
forecasted in the fiscal modeling. He opined that increasing 30
to 50 would push up against the wall of that surplus and asked
whether the price of oil and the budget would have to stay in
narrow parameters to maintain sustainability. He emphasized
that he was not opposed to a dividend of $700; however, he
wanted to make sure that it would be affordable.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ deferred the question to Conor Bell.
1:24:22 PM
CONOR BELL, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
explained that the division's modeling assumes that any deficits
are filled with the constitutional budget reserve (CBR) until
the CBR reaches a minimal balance of $500 million, which is the
recommended minimum balance for short-term cash flow purposes.
He confirmed that based on the division's modeling, there would
be an unplanned ERA draw of $9 million [if Amendment 1 were to
pass]. He continued to note that there are alternative options,
such as drawing the CBR below $500 million. Alternatively,
different oil prices and revenue assumptions could produce
different outcomes.
1:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL sought to confirm that above 30 percent, a
CBR draw may be assumed, as opposed to a draw from the ERA. He
concluded that to pay out a 50 percent royalty in FY 22, the CBR
would have to be drawn down to $500 million. He asked whether
that is correct.
MR. BELL clarified that based on the Legislative Finance
Division's modeling, there would be a $355 million deficit,
which would be filled from the CBR, resulting in an ending
balance of $544 million in the CBR. Additionally, in FY 23, a
small ERA draw would be required, as the $97 million deficit
would bring the CBR down to its minimum recommended balance of
$500 million.
1:26:27 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ acknowledged that [Amendment 1] would reduce the
available revenue to pay for government and dividends; however,
she strongly believed that a PFD of $442 would be too low. She
characterized a dividend of that size as "bad policy" and
"politically untenable," as the public would be angry. She
opined that [HB 202] could be one piece of an overall fiscal
plan. She added that she would be uncomfortable with a
"permanent fund-only solution." She explained that she proposed
Amendment 1 in an attempt to stay within constitutional
limitations while creating a modest change to the dividend,
which would be part of a broader discussion.
1:27:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that that there would be
a $39 million overdraw of the ERA [if Amendment 1 were to pass].
She asked whether there would be [additional overdraws] in the
following years.
MS. TEAL responded that based on the modeling, that was the only
year in which a deficit would need to be filled through some
measure. She added that the proposal appeared to be sustainable
in the outyears.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked, "How many years did you roll out?"
MS. TEAL shared her understanding that the Legislative Finance
Division's fiscal model forecasts through FY 30 or FY 31.
1:28:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE pointed out that there would still be 15
to 20 percent of the natural resource income going to the
general fund. Provided Amendment 1 requires an additional
revenue measure, he questioned why not have all the remaining
natural resource income go to the PFD and backfill with a
revenue measure? Further, he noted that [Amendment 1] would
leave no funds available for a capital budget. He asked the
sponsor of the proposed amendment to respond.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ reiterated that the proposed legislation would
seek to balance the budget using only the dividend. She
acknowledged that a method for funding the capital budget had
not been considered unless additional measures were enacted.
She understood that this proposal is one piece of a broader
conversation, such as geobonding or federal funding, and could
not stand alone if the budget were to function. She relayed
that she and Representative Merrick are in strong alignment on
the notion of a robust capital budget, and she explained that
she thought increasing [the cap] from 30 to 50 was a compromise.
Nonetheless, she said she continues to be uncomfortable with a
dividend that is less than $1,000.
1:30:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK, in response to Representative Schrage's
comments about constitutional requirements going to the
permanent fund and the rest going to dividends, noted that the
scenario in question was modeled by the Legislative Finance
Division. She deferred to Ms. Teal.
MS. TEAL deferred to Mr. Bell.
1:31:21 PM
MR. BELL responded that if only 25 percent of royalties were to
go the permanent fund's principal account, there would no longer
be an ERA overdraw. However, there would still be deficits in
FY 22 and FY 23, followed by a surplus in FY 24 based on the
division's modeling.
1:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Bell whether the small
deficits in FY 22 and FY 23 are associated with the bill in its
current form or Amendment 1.
MR. BELL answered Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to confirm that the $37 million
in FY 23 was still being discussed.
MR. BELL clarified that if the legislature were to forego paying
the additional statutory royalties to the principal and instead
pay only the constitutionally required 25 percent to the
principal and 50 percent of total royalties to the PFD, then
there would no longer be an ERA overdraw.
1:33:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK shared her understanding of
Representative Schrage's questions as "if [the legislature] paid
the constitutional requirements to the permanent fund, then paid
100 percent of the other royalties." She asked Mr. Bell to
comment.
1:33:42 PM
MR. BELL responded that there would be larger deficits under the
proposed scenario. He explained that if the constitutionally
required 25 percent were paid to the principal and the entire
remainder of royalties was allocated to the dividend, the FY 22
PFD would amount to $1,700 and there would be a deficit of $900
million.
1:34:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Mr. Bell what budget numbers were used
for his calculations.
MR. BELL said [the division] had been working off of the
governor's amended budget and the capital budget as outlined in
the Office of Management & Budget's (OMB's) 10-year plan. He
highlighted another assumption pertaining to permanent fund
investment returns below the current fiscal year to date.
1:35:13 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ [received confirmation that Representative Story
had removed her objection to Amendment 1.]
REPRESENTATIVE STORY recalled someone else had also objected.
[It had been Representative Josephson.]
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if there was any further objection.
1:35:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He said he believed that if
Amendment 1 were to pass and legislators were to exceed the 50
percent threshold through multiple appropriation vehicles, a
lawsuit would likely be engendered.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ remarked, "I presume you mean the underlying
bill could potentially create that same situation."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied, "Yeah, I'm trying to figure out
how it doesn't, but I'm not seeing that."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ clarified for the public that the amendment
would only change "30" to "50."
1:36:30 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Josephson, Story,
and Spohnholz voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1.
Representatives Wool, Schrage, and Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-3.
1:37:32 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ invited further discussion on the underlying
bill, HB 202.
1:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared one reason that he likes HB 202
is that it wouldn't suffocate government. He recalled that oil
prices crashed around fall 2014; therefore, the legislature had
been aware of this problem for seven years while generally
lacking the courage to do something about it aside from the
POMV. He opined that the proposed legislation is fiscally
responsible because it wouldn't interfere with publicly
requested services. He stated his intention to support moving
the bill from committee if an objection were made.
1:39:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE expressed his general agreement with most
of the statements from the previous speaker. He believed that
HB 202 would provide for services that the state depends on,
such as roads and education, regardless of one's income bracket.
Further, he appreciated that the proposed legislation would tie
dividends to natural resource production. However, he expressed
his concern that out-of-state workers come to work in Alaska
while contributing nothing to the state, which he characterized
as a "huge issue" that the legislature will have to reconcile at
some point. Nonetheless, he conveyed his support for the bill.
1:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated his support for HB 202 and commended
its sustainability. He indicated that he was comfortable with
30 percent going towards the dividend, which could always be
added to in the future.
1:41:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would have preferred the bill if
Amendment 1 had passed; nonetheless, she expressed her intent to
support it. She reiterated that the legislation would not
eliminate the potential of increasing the dividend through other
mechanisms.
1:41:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that normally, he doesn't favor
holding bills longer than necessary, adding that he would like
to vote the bill out of committee so that he could be a "no"
vote and recommend that others do the same. However, he posited
that because the proposed legislation is not trivial, as it
recalculates the dividend and would reduce the current dividend
by 87 percent, the committee should acquire more feedback from
the public before advancing it to the next committee of
referral. He said he would be a "no" vote because public
testimony had been limited, characterizing it as "bad process."
1:42:51 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ said she would allow the bill to move from
committee; however, she emphasized that she does not support a
dividend of $450. She shared a personal anecdote. She advised
that a dividend of that size would be bad for 95 percent of
Alaskans and only sufficient for those who earn upwards of
$228,000 per year, which is only 5 percent of Alaskans.
1:45:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report HB 202 out of committee with
individual recommendations.
1:45:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
1:45:37 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Josephson, Schrage,
Wool, and Story voted in favor of reporting HB 202 from
committee. Representatives Eastman and Spohnholz voted against
it. Therefore, HB 202 was reported out of the House Special
Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 4-2.
[Although not stated on the record, the vote was voided due to a
failure to mention the fiscal note.]
1:46:29 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:46:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report HB 202 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
1:46:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
1:46:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Josephson, Schrage,
Wool, and Story voted in favor of reporting HB 202 from
committee. Representatives Eastman and Spohnholz voted against
it. Therefore, HB 202 was reported out of the House Special
Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 202 Testimony - Support as of 5.15.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Testimony - Opposition as of 5.15.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Amendment #1.pdf |
HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 37 Testimony - AML Resolution 2019-06.pdf |
HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 202 Sponsor Statement 5.5.2021.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Sectional Analysis 5.5.2021.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Flowchart.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Fiscal Note OMB-PFD 5.9.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Fiscal Model Output REVISED.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Testimony - Opposition as of 5.11.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 37 Testimony - Opposition as of 5.15.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 ITEP Flat Tax Report 12.2020.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX - Updated 5.11.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Fiscal Note DOA-OAH 5.7.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Presentation 5.13.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Fiscal Model.pdf |
HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |