Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519

05/06/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to a Call of the Chair --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Moved CSHB 31(FIN) Out of Committee
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                        May 6, 2019                                                                                             
                         2:35 p.m.                                                                                              
2:35:12 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson  called the House Finance  Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 2:35 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair                                                                                    
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Ben Carpenter                                                                                                    
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Gary Knopp                                                                                                       
Representative Bart LeBon                                                                                                       
Representative Kelly Merrick                                                                                                    
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard                                                                                         
Representative Cathy Tilton                                                                                                     
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Grey  Mitchell,  Director, Worker's  Compensation  Division,                                                                    
Department of Labor and  Workforce Development; Lynn Gattis,                                                                    
Staff,   Representative  Tammie   Wilson;  Paloma   Harbour,                                                                    
Administrative  Services Director,  Department of  Labor and                                                                    
Workforce  Development,  Office  of Management  and  Budget;                                                                    
Representative   Jonathan  Kreiss-Tompkins,   Bill  Sponsor;                                                                    
David Teal, Director, Legislative Finance Division.                                                                             
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
HB 31     APPROP: EARNINGS RESERVE TO PERM FUND                                                                                 
          CSHB 31(FIN)  was REPORTED  out of  committee with                                                                    
          four "do pass" recommendations,  one "do not pass"                                                                    
          recommendation,     two    "no     recommendation"                                                                    
          recommendations,       and      four       "amend"                                                                    
HB 68     LABOR STDRS/SAFETY; WORKER COMPENSATION                                                                               
          HB 68 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 68                                                                                                             
     "An  Act relating  to the  division of  labor standards                                                                    
     and  safety;  relating  to  the  division  of  workers'                                                                    
     compensation;  establishing  the division  of  workers'                                                                    
     safety   and  compensation;   and   providing  for   an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
2:35:55 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston  MOVED   to  ADOPT  proposed  committee                                                                    
substitute   for  HB   68,   Work  Draft   31-GH1049\U(Marx,                                                                    
05/03/19) (copy on file).                                                                                                       
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Wilson invited  the  department  to the  testifier                                                                    
table. The  committee would hear  from the department  and a                                                                    
review of the committee substitute would follow.                                                                                
2:36:29 PM                                                                                                                    
GREY  MITCHELL,  DIRECTOR, WORKER'S  COMPENSATION  DIVISION,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND  WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, relayed that                                                                    
the  bill  merged  the  Division  of  Worker's  Compensation                                                                    
together with  the Division of  Labor Standards  and Safety.                                                                    
The divisions  shared complimentary missions  and functions.                                                                    
One  division worked  to prevent  accidents,  and the  other                                                                    
worked to  provide compensation for  lost wages  and medical                                                                    
costs  if there  was an  injury. Merging  the two  divisions                                                                    
made good sense  in many ways. The  department was cognizant                                                                    
of the critical rolls each  division played. The merger bill                                                                    
would not  impact any of  the legal or regulatory  duties of                                                                    
either  division. He  aimed to  take  advantage of  position                                                                    
vacancies and explore  opportunities to streamline processes                                                                    
wherever possible.                                                                                                              
Mr.  Mitchell  continued  that  the  fiscal  note  reflected                                                                    
streamlining in a couple of  areas. The merger would flatten                                                                    
the management  structure and labor standards  and safety by                                                                    
reclassifying  the division  director to  a deputy  director                                                                    
position.  The   new  position  would   focus  on   the  new                                                                    
division's   inspection,   consultation,   and   enforcement                                                                    
functions. It would allow for  a middle management reduction                                                                    
in the  Alaska Occupational Safety Health  (OSHA) component.                                                                    
He expected  to see additional opportunities  to consolidate                                                                    
and share administrative duties  between the division as the                                                                    
merger matured. The  merger would not happen  over night but                                                                    
would be  carefully developed  over time.  The bill  did not                                                                    
propose  to  change   any  of  the  functions   of  the  two                                                                    
divisions. He  expected it to  produce opportunities  as the                                                                    
year progressed to share resources  and to be more efficient                                                                    
and effective moving forward delivering  the services of the                                                                    
two divisions.                                                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson  asked her  staff  to  further discuss  the                                                                    
2:39:01 PM                                                                                                                    
LYNN  GATTIS, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE  TAMMIE WILSON,  review                                                                    
the  changes   in  the  bill.   On  page  7,   lines  20-22,                                                                    
"grandparent"  was  added  to  AS  23.10.330(a)  -  exempted                                                                    
employment which would  allow a child to work  in a business                                                                    
that was  owned and  operated by a  parent or  a grandparent                                                                    
under the  section. She  referred next to  page 7,  line 26.                                                                    
The number "17" was changed  to "16" to remove authorization                                                                    
of a work requirement  for a 16 year old. On  page 8, line 3                                                                    
"5:00  a.m. to  9:00  p.m."  was changed  to  "7:00 a.m.  to                                                                    
9:00 p.m." defining the  time during the day that  a 14 year                                                                    
old  or 15  year old  child  could perform  work outside  of                                                                    
school  hours. She  continued to  page 8,  lines 8-15  which                                                                    
added a  new section  to redefine  the conditions  and hours                                                                    
during a day that  a 14 year old or 15  year old child could                                                                    
perform work between  June 1 and ending the  first Monday of                                                                    
September  of each  year  as  7:00 a.m.  to  10:00 p.m.  She                                                                    
completed reviewing the changes.                                                                                                
Representative  Knopp  asked   about  the  period  beginning                                                                    
June 1  and ending  on the  first Monday  of September  each                                                                    
year. He  clarified that kids  would not be allowed  to work                                                                    
starting in September. Co-Chair  Wilson indicated there were                                                                    
two  times designated  for youth  ages 14-15  to be  able to                                                                    
work during  school. They  would be able  to work  from 7:00                                                                    
a.m. to  9:00 p.m. When they  were not in school  they would                                                                    
be allowed to work from 7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.                                                                                    
Representative  Knopp  did  not   understand  the  need  for                                                                    
defining the  hours. Co-Chair Wilson explained  that defined                                                                    
times  were necessary  because of  the Fair  Labor Standards                                                                    
Representative LeBon  asked if  there would be  an advantage                                                                    
to  moving the  dates back  to  May 20th.  Most high  school                                                                    
graduation  dates  fell  before May  20th.  Co-Chair  Wilson                                                                    
relayed that the federal government would not allow it.                                                                         
2:43:06 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED Public Testimony.                                                                                        
2:43:15 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED Public Testimony.                                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson invited the department  to review the fiscal                                                                    
2:43:43 PM                                                                                                                    
PALOMA    HARBOUR,    ADMINISTRATIVE   SERVICES    DIRECTOR,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF LABOR  AND WORKFORCE  DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE  OF                                                                    
MANAGEMENT AND  BUDGET, relayed that  fiscal note 1  was for                                                                    
the Workers'  Compensation component.  It was a  zero fiscal                                                                    
note. The  department did  not anticipate  immediate savings                                                                    
in Workers'  Compensation as  a part of  the merger,  but it                                                                    
expected out years savings  not presently identified. Fiscal                                                                    
note 2 was  for the OSHA component where  the department was                                                                    
finding  savings in  some  administrative  support and  some                                                                    
mid-level  management. The  total  savings  was $283,000  of                                                                    
Workers' Safety Compensation Administration account funds.                                                                      
Representative  Knopp was  curious  about  the reduction  of                                                                    
$283,000 in the personal  services line. He highlighted that                                                                    
the funds  were listed as DGF.  He asked if the  savings was                                                                    
from  inter-agency receipts  or program  receipts. He  asked                                                                    
what would happen to the savings.                                                                                               
Ms.  Harbour  responded  that   the  funds  were  designated                                                                    
general   funds  from   the  Workers'   Safety  Compensation                                                                    
Administration account.  It was a fee  on insurance premiums                                                                    
that went into  a DGF account and could  go towards Workers'                                                                    
Compensation and safety program  administration. It would be                                                                    
a savings to  the account and would stay in  the account for                                                                    
future year spending.                                                                                                           
Representative Knopp asked if  there would be any reductions                                                                    
in  employer premiums.  Ms. Harbour  replied  that the  cost                                                                    
savings would not result in  premium savings. However, there                                                                    
had  been  premium savings  which  resulted  in the  revenue                                                                    
going into the  account being lower. She  indicated the bill                                                                    
would help the state to stay at the lower revenue amount.                                                                       
Co-Chair  Wilson  indicated  amendments   were  due  to  the                                                                    
co-chair's office by May 7, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.                                                                                   
Representative   Knopp   appreciated   the   bill,   as   it                                                                    
represented   the   department's    efforts   towards   true                                                                    
consolidation and efficiencies.                                                                                                 
HB  68  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 31                                                                                                             
     "An Act making a special appropriation to the Alaska                                                                       
     permanent fund; and providing for an effective date."                                                                      
2:46:41 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file):                                                                      
     Page 1, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "5,500,000,000"                                                                                                
          Insert "9,610,000,000"                                                                                                
     Adjust funding information accordingly.                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson deferred to the bill sponsor.                                                                                   
2:47:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   JONATHAN  KREISS-TOMPKINS,   BILL  SPONSOR,                                                                    
explained  the amendment.  The  amendment  would change  the                                                                    
transfer  from the  Earnings Reserve  Account  (ERA) to  the                                                                    
principle to $9.61 billion.  There were supporting materials                                                                    
that he had  tried to disperse to  all members. Effectively,                                                                    
the  $9.61 billion  figure  was premised  on  the notion  of                                                                    
keeping  three  times  the 5.25  percent  POMV  [percent  of                                                                    
market  value]   draw  in  the  ERA   and  transferring  the                                                                    
remaining cash in the ERA to the principle.                                                                                     
Representative  Tilton asked  about modeling  scenarios from                                                                    
the  previous  day.  She  wondered   if  the  amendment  was                                                                    
reflected in a new model.                                                                                                       
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins responded  that  two of  the                                                                    
models  from   the  moderate  bear  market   represented  an                                                                    
$8 billion transfer  and another  represented a  $12 billion                                                                    
transfer.   He  clarified   that  $9.61   billion  was   not                                                                    
specifically modeled but fell between the two.                                                                                  
Representative Josephson  referred to the  presentation from                                                                    
the   bill's    previous   hearing   [A    presentation   by                                                                    
Representative   Kreiss-Tomkins   to   the   House   Finance                                                                    
Committee  on 4/29/19:  "HB 31:  $5.5 billion  transfer from                                                                    
the  ERA to  the  Corpus"]. He  referred to  page  7 of  the                                                                    
previous  presentation.  Representative  Kreiss-Tomkins  had                                                                    
noted that in  a moderate bear market spanning  3 years with                                                                    
an $8  billion transfer, one  scenario reached an  amount of                                                                    
$5 billion.  He thought  the number  would be  lower because                                                                    
the transfer  would increase  by $1.6  billion. He  asked if                                                                    
the legislature  should be concerned. He  suggested that the                                                                    
dip in the model had to be lower.                                                                                               
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins concurred  that the dip would                                                                    
be  lower   than  the   $8  billion   model  and   would  be                                                                    
substantially  higher than  the $12  billion model  from the                                                                    
slide in question. He explained  that the thinking behind an                                                                    
amount equal to  three times the draw was  that it protected                                                                    
a substantial amount  of cash forever in  the Permanent Fund                                                                    
which he thought  was broadly a goal of  the legislature. It                                                                    
also  struck   a  balance   by  leaving   significant  shock                                                                    
absorption in  the ERA.  He noted  that the  third of  the 3                                                                    
supporting documents  the committee had charted  the balance                                                                    
of  the ERA  through time  from 2000  to 2019.  He indicated                                                                    
that  the  chart  was  created by  his  counterpart  in  the                                                                    
Senate.  It showed  what the  balance  of the  ERA had  been                                                                    
through time. If $9.6 billion  was transferred from the ERA,                                                                    
approximately  $9 billion  would remain  in the  ERA -  well                                                                    
North of the  average from 2000 to 2019. He  argued that the                                                                    
amount  was North  of average  and the  state had  done okay                                                                    
through  time.  He  conveyed  his  thinking  in  striking  a                                                                    
balance. He noted  that the ERA had been in  the $2 billion,                                                                    
$3 billion, and $5 billion range in the ERA through time.                                                                       
Co-Chair Wilson mentioned that  someone from the Legislative                                                                    
Finance Division was available for questions.                                                                                   
2:52:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Josephson asked how  the bill sponsor arrived                                                                    
at the $9.61  billion figure. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins                                                                    
relayed that the  amount was derived with the  help of other                                                                    
committee  members  and  broadly consistent  with  the  POMV                                                                    
approach. He pointed to slide 2  of his slide deck: "HB 31 3                                                                    
Slides." that  showed the  math behind  the amount  of $9.61                                                                    
billion. He  explained that  $8.79 billion  was 3  times the                                                                    
5.25 percent  of market value draw  based on the FY  20 POMV                                                                    
draw. If it  was the amount the legislature  wanted to leave                                                                    
in  the ERA  as  a shock  absorber  (the minimum  sufficient                                                                    
balance), everything else  would go to the  principle of the                                                                    
fund. According to  the current account balance  for the ERA                                                                    
from  the  Alaska  Permanent  Fund  Corporation  (APFC)  the                                                                    
amount would be $9.61 billion.                                                                                                  
Vice-Chair Ortiz  supported the  idea of putting  money into                                                                    
the corpus  of the Alaska  Permanent Fund. He was  aware the                                                                    
number had been derived in  consultation with members of the                                                                    
body.  He asked  if worst-case-scenarios  had been  reviewed                                                                    
when  looking  at  the new  amount.  Representative  Kreiss-                                                                    
Tompkins  replied   that  he  had  been   cognizant  of  the                                                                    
potential  for  market  corrections  similar  to  the  great                                                                    
depression. The impact would be significant.                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson thought Vice-Chair  Ortiz wanted more detail                                                                    
about the reason for the number.                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Ortiz clarified  his question.  He wondered,  if                                                                    
the state  were to see  a significant correction  similar to                                                                    
recent  major   corrections  in  the  market,   whether  the                                                                    
movement of  the $9.61 billion  into the corpus  would limit                                                                    
the  legislature's  ability  to  pay out  a  Permanent  Fund                                                                    
Dividend (PFD).                                                                                                                 
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins  thought it would  be helpful                                                                    
to hear  from LFD. He  suggested that there would  always be                                                                    
the  potential [for  a major  correction in  the market]  as                                                                    
long as the  state had a permanent fund  that was structured                                                                    
with an ERA  and a principle. The heart of  the question was                                                                    
about finding the right balance.  He suggested having a true                                                                    
endowment was  much safer and  sustainable for the  state of                                                                    
Alaska. He asserted  the reason there was a  problem was the                                                                    
same reason he  thought the state should move  away from the                                                                    
current structure  of the Permanent Fund.  He continued that                                                                    
unless  the state  was committed  to protect  the fund  from                                                                    
bottoming out in any scenario,  the North Star principle for                                                                    
managing the  fund, the legislature  should always  leave as                                                                    
much cash in the ERA as  possible. The downside was that the                                                                    
fund could be raided in the future.                                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson was unsure who  would raid it. She asked Mr.                                                                    
Teal to  come to  the testifier table  to address  a smaller                                                                    
amount versus a larger amount.                                                                                                  
2:58:17 PM                                                                                                                    
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR,  LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, thought                                                                    
Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins  had answered  the  question                                                                    
well  when  he  suggested  that no  one  actually  knew.  He                                                                    
reminded members  in 2008 or  2009 the state nearly  ran out                                                                    
of  earnings reserves  which would  have meant  no dividends                                                                    
would have  been paid. It  was not  until June of  that year                                                                    
that  it was  clear  dividends  would be  paid.  It was  not                                                                    
merely a remote  possibility of running out of  money in the                                                                    
ERA. It depended on the earnings.                                                                                               
Mr. Teal relayed  that, currently, the ERA  balance was very                                                                    
high for  a couple of reasons.  First, the state had  had an                                                                    
earnings  recovery period,  roughly a  10-year bull  market.                                                                    
Also, the  state did not  inflation-proof for 3  years which                                                                    
was a  contributing factor in  the high balance of  the ERA.                                                                    
He  argued that  with  the current  balance  the danger  was                                                                    
fairly  low of  running out  of reserve  balance and  of not                                                                    
being  able  to  pay  out  dividends  in  the  near  future.                                                                    
However, the  more money taken  from the ERA to  protect the                                                                    
principle of  the fund, the  more dangerous it would  be for                                                                    
the  state to  run out  of money.  There was  a risk  of not                                                                    
being able  to pay  out dividends  or the  POMV draw  to the                                                                    
general fund. The  consequences of an error  would be fairly                                                                    
Mr.  Teal  pointed to  the  slide  with  an ERA  balance  of                                                                    
$18.4 billion  which also  included unrealized  earnings. He                                                                    
indicated  that for  the last  several years  the unrealized                                                                    
gains had  been assigned in  proportion to principle  and to                                                                    
the  ERA.  He  estimated  that roughly  $4  billion  of  the                                                                    
balance was unrealized gains. He  explained that because the                                                                    
$4  billion  was  unrealized,  it could  not  be  spent.  He                                                                    
reported   that  the   proper  starting   point  was   about                                                                    
$16.6 billion.  He referred  to the  slide which  moved $9.6                                                                    
billion. If the legislature was  going to move funding over,                                                                    
he thought it should remove  the unrealized balance from the                                                                    
amount. He estimated that only  $7.8 billion could be moved.                                                                    
He elaborated that  when $7.8 billion was moved  over to the                                                                    
corpus the unrealized gains assigned  to the cash moved with                                                                    
it.  He  suggested  it  was  important  to  understand  that                                                                    
legislators  should look  at realized  earnings rather  than                                                                    
the  total value  of  the ERA.  He  suspected the  amendment                                                                    
moved  $2 billion more  than Representative  Kreiss-Tompkins                                                                    
might  want to  move.  He conveyed  the  discussion had  not                                                                    
occurred. He  was unsure about the  assignment of unrealized                                                                    
Mr. Teal also  suggested that when money was  moved from the                                                                    
ERA  to the  corpus  it would  require additional  inflation                                                                    
proofing.  Mr. Teal  asserted that  moving money  over would                                                                    
increase the  amount of inflation proofing  by approximately                                                                    
$100 million  to $150  million in the  future. In  answer to                                                                    
the original  question, the more  money that was  moved into                                                                    
the corpus,  the more  unsafe it was.  He could  not predict                                                                    
what the  market would do.  He had  seen the ERA  respond to                                                                    
down-turns in the market.                                                                                                       
Vice-Chair  Johnston suggested  that saying  the legislature                                                                    
could not  divest itself of  the realized gains and  the ERA                                                                    
perhaps went too  far. She supposed that  in a spend-thrifty                                                                    
market if there  was interest in the funds,  the state could                                                                    
divest itself  of the realized  gains. She asked if  she was                                                                    
3:05:07 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Teal  indicated  that  it  was  not  the  legislature's                                                                    
decision to make,  rather it was up to  the Alaska Permanent                                                                    
Fund  Corporation.  It was  possible  that  they could  turn                                                                    
unrealized gains into realized gains.                                                                                           
Vice-Chair  Johnston   asserted  that   when  there   was  a                                                                    
structured  draw  the  APFC  looked  at  its  portfolio  and                                                                    
decided how to  address the draw. She  supposed sometimes it                                                                    
was taking from  realized gains and sometimes  it was taking                                                                    
from cash. She  thought one of the best  things about having                                                                    
a  structured   draw  was  that   the  corporation   had  an                                                                    
opportunity to  plan the  draw. She  noted that  anytime the                                                                    
legislature could  draw from the  ERA with a  basic majority                                                                    
vote,  APFC had  to  respond to  it to  find  the cash.  She                                                                    
wanted to make  clear that once the  legislature decided how                                                                    
much it wanted  to draw from the  ERA, it was up  to APFC to                                                                    
come up  with the funds,  and they  needed to come  from the                                                                    
Mr. Teal  suggested that it  was possible  to do it  the way                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston stated.  However,  he  thought the  law                                                                    
limited the draw  to the cash available.  Current law stated                                                                    
that dividends would be paid if  there was money in the ERA.                                                                    
The  Permanent Fund  could realize  gains, similar  to 2008.                                                                    
However, there was not sufficient  cash to pay dividends. It                                                                    
was  possible  that in  the  last  months  of the  year  the                                                                    
corporation might have sold off  things making the gains and                                                                    
having available  cash. He  continued that  the way  the law                                                                    
read, if  there was not  sufficient cash  in the ERA  to pay                                                                    
out the dividends  and the POMV draw, the  payouts would not                                                                    
occur. The  Alaska Permanent  Fund Corporation  managed cash                                                                    
in realized gains versus unrealized gains.                                                                                      
Vice-Chair Johnston  suggested that  because of  the state's                                                                    
diversified  portfolio,  there  were assets  that  would  be                                                                    
difficult  to  liquidate  for  quick  access  to  cash.  She                                                                    
thought  there   was  a  risk   associated  with   what  the                                                                    
legislature was asking of the  funds. She asked the maker of                                                                    
the amendment  about using  3 times the  draw as  a measure.                                                                    
She thought that  because the market had  performed well the                                                                    
following year would be better.  She wondered if it would be                                                                    
a good  idea to amend  the amendment  such that 3  times the                                                                    
draw was kept in the  ERA ($9 billion) putting the remainder                                                                    
in the corpus of the fund.                                                                                                      
3:10:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Kreiss-Tompkins   viewed   the   conceptual                                                                    
amendment  as  a  friendly amendment.  He  would  ultimately                                                                    
defer to  the wisdom  of the committee.  He felt  good about                                                                    
the general  range of how  the cash  in the ERA  was divided                                                                    
between  cash  kept  in  the  ERA  and  cash  moved  to  the                                                                    
principle for  future generations. He also  noted that under                                                                    
SB  26 [Legislation  passed in  2018 having  to do  with the                                                                    
Permanent  Fund,  the  dividend,  and the  earnings  of  the                                                                    
Permanent   Fund]   the  size   of   the   draw  would   get                                                                    
proportionately smaller down to 5 percent.                                                                                      
Representative  Carpenter was  in agreement  with adding  to                                                                    
the  corpus. He  thought it  made  sense to  put money  into                                                                    
savings. He thought it was  important to consider the timing                                                                    
and the amount. He believed  it was impossible to assess the                                                                    
risk  without  answering  some  other  questions  concerning                                                                    
spending and revenues  in the future - things  that would be                                                                    
addressed in  a comprehensive  fiscal plan. He  wondered how                                                                    
the  bill  fit into  a  comprehensive  fiscal plan  for  the                                                                    
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins did  not think Representative                                                                    
Carpenter's  question  was  unfair.  He  suggested  that  in                                                                    
thinking about how  many times of a POMV draw  might be kept                                                                    
in the ERA,  the premise was that the  legislature would not                                                                    
take any unstructured draws in  the future. Overspending the                                                                    
draw would run crosswise to  his thinking. He suggested that                                                                    
if the legislature started thinking  it might take more than                                                                    
5.25  percent of  POMV  out  of the  Permanent  Fund in  the                                                                    
future, it would affect the  current conversation and create                                                                    
many  other future  conversations.  He  reiterated that  his                                                                    
assumption  or premise  in  the current  year  or in  future                                                                    
years,  regardless  of  how  it   spent  it,  was  that  the                                                                    
legislature would not  take more than the POMV  set forth in                                                                    
SB 26.                                                                                                                          
Representative  Carpenter relayed  that the  legislature did                                                                    
not  have  a  long-term  fiscal plan.  The  legislature  was                                                                    
looking at a snapshot of  the current year. In the following                                                                    
year it would  be looked at in the same  way. He thought the                                                                    
legislature was swinging at a best guess.                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Wilson had  been looking  for a  plan for  9 years                                                                    
without finding one.  She believed the bill was  in front of                                                                    
the committee  because there  was not a  plan in  place. The                                                                    
past plan had been to  utilize the state's savings no matter                                                                    
how much they dwindled.                                                                                                         
3:14:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  MOVED to  ADOPT Conceptual  Amendment 1                                                                    
to Amendment 1 (copy on file).                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                        
Vice-Chair  Johnston  explained  that instead  of  inserting                                                                    
$9.61 billion she wanted to insert $8.9 billion.                                                                                
Co-Chair Wilson  spoke to her  objection. She did  not think                                                                    
anyone felt safe  with any amount. She  suggested that Vice-                                                                    
Chair Johnston withdraw her motion.                                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Johnston  WITHDREW  Conceptual  Amendment  1  to                                                                    
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
Representative LeBon asked Mr. Teal  if the risk profile for                                                                    
the Permanent  Fund had  changed much  over the  previous 10                                                                    
years. He  was aware  that the fund  had grown.  However, he                                                                    
wondered about  the mix and  whether the state  was managing                                                                    
the fund basically the same way as 10 years prior.                                                                              
Mr. Teal  responded was aware  that certain things  had been                                                                    
changed about  4 or  5 years prior.  The corporation  had an                                                                    
investment manager that had  changed asset allocations which                                                                    
changed the state's risk profile.  The Alaska Permanent Fund                                                                    
Corporation was currently more  invested in privately placed                                                                    
investments and  still had  several real  estate investments                                                                    
in  other  non-liquid  investments.   He  could  not  answer                                                                    
whether the profile was riskier  or less risky. He confirmed                                                                    
that the profile had changed to a certain degree.                                                                               
Representative LeBon admitted his  question was not fair. He                                                                    
asserted he was more comfortable with $8 billion.                                                                               
Co-Chair Wilson agreed with Representative LeBon's figure.                                                                      
Mr.  Teal   suggested  that  the  risk   involved  could  be                                                                    
controlled by the  legislature to a great  extent because it                                                                    
had control  over inflation  proofing. If  there was  a down                                                                    
market, the  legislature could  skip inflation  proofing the                                                                    
fund  in  any  given  year immediately  increasing  the  ERA                                                                    
balance  by about  $1 billion.  It was  a dynamic  situation                                                                    
that legislators  could control as  long as a crash  did not                                                                    
happen  all  in one  year.  He  suggested  that if  a  crash                                                                    
occurred  all in  one year,  it would  be too  late for  the                                                                    
legislature to respond.                                                                                                         
Representative   Sullivan-Leonard   asked  about   inflation                                                                    
proofing.  She  thought  the legislature  had  put  in  $950                                                                    
million for inflation proofing in  the prior year. She asked                                                                    
if  Mr.  Teal recalled  the  amount  being proposed  in  the                                                                    
current  year.  Mr. Teal  replied  that  the current  year's                                                                    
inflation-proofing  amount was  estimated to  be about  $943                                                                    
Representative Sullivan-Leonard commented  that she had been                                                                    
comfortable with $5.5 billion.  She was not comfortable with                                                                    
$9.61  billion. She  would be  comfortable with  adding $943                                                                    
million to $5.5 billion.                                                                                                        
Vice-Chair  Ortiz thought,  based on  the wide  variation of                                                                    
figures  that  had been  looked  at,  the real  issues  were                                                                    
protecting  the Permanent  Fund for  future generations  and                                                                    
distributing a  PFD. He  thought the  best course  of action                                                                    
would be  to merge the  two funds and limit  the legislature                                                                    
to a  constitutional POMV  draw. He  thought there  would be                                                                    
significant  discussion as  to what  percentage of  the draw                                                                    
would go to services versus the PFD.                                                                                            
Co-Chair  Wilson responded  that,  although she  appreciated                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz's  suggestion, it  was not the  bill before                                                                    
the committee currently. Co-Chair  Wilson clarified that the                                                                    
proposal was a one-time move of funds into the corpus.                                                                          
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins responded affirmatively.                                                                          
Co-Chair Wilson asked  if there was a  figure members around                                                                    
the table were comfortable with.                                                                                                
3:21:59 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative LeBon  MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual  Amendment 1                                                                    
[Conceptual Amendment 2] to Amendment 1.                                                                                        
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.                                                                                              
Representative  LeBon explained  Conceptual  Amendment 2  to                                                                    
Amendment 1 which would insert  $8 billion rather than $9.61                                                                    
billion on line 3 of Amendment 1.                                                                                               
Representative  Josephson explained  that he  would be  more                                                                    
comfortable  with the  figure of  $7  billion after  hearing                                                                    
comments  from   Representative  Sullivan-Leonard  regarding                                                                    
inflation proofing.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Wilson argued  that  inflation  proofing could  be                                                                    
taken out  of the operating  budget if the  amendment passed                                                                    
which  would  result in  the  same  $8 billion  figure.  She                                                                    
thought it  would be the  intent of the legislature  that if                                                                    
the  bill passed,  it  would  no longer  be  looking at  the                                                                    
combined amount.                                                                                                                
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                              
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Johnston, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Wilson, Foster                                                                         
OPPOSED:  Josephson,   Merrick,  Sullivan-Leonard,   Tilton,                                                                    
The  MOTION   PASSED  (6/5).   Conceptual  Amendment   2  to                                                                    
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson  indicated that Amendment  1 as  amended was                                                                    
before the committee.                                                                                                           
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.                                                                                              
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Johnston,  Knopp, LeBon,  Ortiz, Sullivan-Leonard,                                                                    
Josephson, Foster, Wilson                                                                                                       
OPPOSED: Merrick, Tilton, Carpenter                                                                                             
The  MOTION  PASSED  (8/3).  Amendment   1  as  amended  was                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston MOVED  to  report CSHB  31(FIN) out  of                                                                    
Committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.                                                                                              
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: Knopp, LeBon,  Ortiz, Sullivan-Leonard, Josephson,                                                                    
Johnston, Wilson, Foster                                                                                                        
OPPOSED: Tilton, Carpenter, Merrick                                                                                             
The MOTION PASSED (8/3).                                                                                                        
CSHB 31(FIN)  was REPORTED  out of  committee with  four "do                                                                    
pass"  recommendations, one  "do  not pass"  recommendation,                                                                    
two  "no recommendation"  recommendations, and  four "amend"                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the following day                                                                       
at 9:00 a.m.                                                                                                                    
3:26:07 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 31 3 SLIDES.pdf HFIN 5/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 31
HB031 Amendment 1 Wilson 5.6.19.pdf HFIN 5/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
HB 31