Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519

09/13/2021 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

Audio Topic
01:34:24 PM Start
01:35:12 PM HB189
02:07:47 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                   THIRD SPECIAL SESSION                                                                                        
                    September 13, 2021                                                                                          
                         1:34 p.m.                                                                                              
1:34:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting                                                                     
to order at 1:34 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Ben Carpenter                                                                                                    
Representative DeLena Johnson                                                                                                   
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Bart LeBon                                                                                                       
Representative Sara Rasmussen                                                                                                   
Representative Steve Thompson                                                                                                   
Representative Adam Wool                                                                                                        
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Bryce Edgmon                                                                                                     
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Chair, House Ways and Means                                                                       
Committee; Rose Foley, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz.                                                                     
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Dan Stickel, Chief Economist, Economic Research Group, Tax                                                                      
Division, Department of Revenue                                                                                                 
HB 189    EMPLOYMENT TAX FOR EDUCATION                                                                                          
          HB 189 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the meeting.                                                                           
HOUSE BILL NO. 189                                                                                                            
     "An Act imposing an education  tax on net earnings from                                                                    
     self-employment    and   wages;    relating   to    the                                                                    
     administration  and enforcement  of the  education tax;                                                                    
     and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
1:35:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE IVY  SPOHNHOLZ, CHAIR,  HOUSE WAYS  AND MEANS                                                                    
COMMITTEE,  introduced the  bill that  would reestablish  an                                                                    
education  payroll  tax.  She detailed  that  the  State  of                                                                    
Alaska  had  a  constitutional  obligation  as  provided  by                                                                    
Article VII, Section  1 to provide and maintain  a system of                                                                    
public  schools open  for  all children  in  the state.  She                                                                    
explained that the  tax would seek to raise  a small portion                                                                    
of  the overall  funding needed  to meet  the constitutional                                                                    
obligation.  She informed  the committee  that Alaska  had a                                                                    
form of  an education tax from  1919 until 1980 when  it was                                                                    
repealed. The  tax in HB  189 was estimated to  generate $64                                                                    
million  to  $66  million annually,  with  20.8  percent  of                                                                    
taxpayers as nonresidents. She stated  that the bill did not                                                                    
come  close   to  solving  the  state's   fiscal  situation;                                                                    
however,  it could  be  part of  a  broad compromise  fiscal                                                                    
plan. She thought  the legislature was closer  to a solution                                                                    
than many people understood.                                                                                                    
Representative  Spohnholz shared  that  the  House Ways  and                                                                    
Means  Committee  had  heard from  the  Legislative  Finance                                                                    
Division  on  September  1  that if  there  was  a  dividend                                                                    
formula  of  25  percent  of the  percent  of  market  value                                                                    
(POMV), the fiscal gap would be  about $347 million in FY 23                                                                    
and barring  a major  market correction,  it would  begin to                                                                    
move into the black in FY  25. She stated it was possible to                                                                    
balance the  budget with a  small series of tweaks  to state                                                                    
laws and  HB 189 could  be a piece  of the bargain.  The tax                                                                    
would  cost approximately  $572,600  to  administer for  the                                                                    
creation of  five new positions with  an administrative cost                                                                    
of  less than  1  percent.  She shared  that  her staff  was                                                                    
available to provide a sectional analysis if desired.                                                                           
ROSE  FOLEY, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE IVY  SPOHNHOLZ, reviewed                                                                    
the sectional analysis (copy on file):                                                                                          
     Section 1 adds a new chapter to AS 43 creating an                                                                          
     Education Tax.                                                                                                             
          Sec.  43.45.011   authorizes  the   Department  of                                                                    
          Revenue to  collect an education tax  on wages and                                                                    
          self-employment earnings from  a source in Alaska.                                                                    
          The amount of tax due  is based on an individual's                                                                    
          income and established in statute.                                                                                    
          Sec. 43.45.021 directs  employers to withhold one-                                                                    
          half  of the  estimated tax  due from  each of  an                                                                    
          employee's  third and  fourth regular  payrolls of                                                                    
          the   year  and   to  maintain   records  of   the                                                                    
          withholdings.   The   employer  is   required   to                                                                    
          withhold  the tax  from  the  employee unless  the                                                                    
          employee can prove they have  already paid the tax                                                                    
          due for the calendar year.                                                                                            
          Sec.  43.45.031  stipulates that  a  self-employed                                                                    
          individual will  remit the  tax required  under AS                                                                    
          Sec.   43.45.041  provides   a  mechanism   for  a                                                                    
          taxpayer to request a refund  if an overpayment is                                                                    
          Sec. 43.45.051 requires a person  to report to the                                                                    
          Department  of  Revenue  any payments  made  to  a                                                                    
          self-employed  individual  if  reporting  of  that                                                                    
          payment  is  required   by  the  Internal  Revenue                                                                    
          Sec. 43.45.061  directs proceeds from this  tax to                                                                    
          the  public  education  fund  within  the  general                                                                    
          Sec. 43.45.099 provides  definitions for key terms                                                                    
          in this chapter.                                                                                                      
     Section 2 is uncodified law allowing the Department of                                                                     
    Revenue to adopt regulations to implement this act.                                                                         
     Section 3 provides an immediate effective date for                                                                         
     Section 2, the adoption of regulations.                                                                                    
     Section 4 provides an effective date of January 1,                                                                         
     2022 for the Education Tax.                                                                                                
1:39:43 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Merrick   asked  for  verification  the   tax  had                                                                    
previously existed from 1919 to 1980.                                                                                           
Representative Spohnholz answered affirmatively.                                                                                
Co-Chair  Merrick asked  why the  tax had  been repealed  in                                                                    
Representative  Spohnholz  replied  that the  tax  had  been                                                                    
repealed when  Trans-Alaska Pipeline  System (TAPS)  and oil                                                                    
taxes  came  online. She  stated  that  like many  different                                                                    
revenue measures, the tax had been repealed.                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Foster   recognized  Representative   Spohnholz's                                                                    
testimony that  the state  was constitutionally  required to                                                                    
provide  for education.  He  referenced  her statement  that                                                                    
funds  [generated by  the proposed  tax] would  be deposited                                                                    
into   the  Public   School  Trust   Fund.   He  asked   for                                                                    
verification the  funds would  be designated  not dedicated.                                                                    
He  was  trying   to  understand  if  the   funds  would  be                                                                    
Representative Spohnholz responded  it was her understanding                                                                    
it would be a designated  fund. She deferred the question to                                                                    
Legislative Legal Services.                                                                                                     
Representative Rasmussen  asked why  the bill used  the word                                                                    
"workers" instead of "household."                                                                                               
Representative  Spohnholz answered  that the  point was  for                                                                    
every worker to  be able to contribute. She  noted that some                                                                    
households had more than one worker.                                                                                            
Vice-Chair Ortiz  stated that AS 43.450.301  stipulated that                                                                    
a  self-employed individual  would remit  the tax.  He asked                                                                    
how  it would  look in  the real  world. He  asked what  the                                                                    
process  would be  for a  self-employed  individual to  make                                                                    
their contribution.                                                                                                             
Representative  Spohnholz  deferred   the  question  to  the                                                                    
Department of Revenue (DOR).                                                                                                    
DAN STICKEL,  CHIEF ECONOMIST, ECONOMIC RESEARCH  GROUP, TAX                                                                    
DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT   OF  REVENUE   (via  teleconference),                                                                    
answered that DOR had a  tax revenue management system where                                                                    
individuals could register and pay  the tax. He stated there                                                                    
was  also   an  opportunity  where  DOR   would  potentially                                                                    
coordinate  with  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Workforce                                                                    
Development  (DLWD)  to  work   through  the  existing  DLWD                                                                    
1:42:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wool referenced  Mr. Stickel's statement that                                                                    
people  could register  to pay  through DOR.  He stated  the                                                                    
payroll  tax would  come out  of paychecks.  He assumed  the                                                                    
employer had  some responsibility for filing  for employees.                                                                    
He  thought  the tax  would  be  deducted annually  from  an                                                                    
employee's paycheck. He asked  if Mr. Stickel was indicating                                                                    
employers could pay the tax through the DOR system.                                                                             
Mr.  Stickel answered  that  the bill  would  tax wages  and                                                                    
salaries  in   addition  to  self-employment   earnings.  He                                                                    
explained that  for an employee  earning wages  and salaries                                                                    
through an employer, the employer  would withhold the wages,                                                                    
similar  to how  it  worked for  federal  income tax,  state                                                                    
unemployment tax,  or Medicare  tax. He elaborated  that the                                                                    
employer would be responsible for  remitting the tax to DOR.                                                                    
The tax  would be fairly  hassle-free for many  workers; the                                                                    
bill  specified the  tax would  be  taken out  of third  and                                                                    
fourth  paychecks of  the year  to  be remitted  to DOR.  He                                                                    
explained   that   self-employed    individuals   would   be                                                                    
responsible  for remitting  the tax  directly to  DOR. There                                                                    
would also be  an opportunity for an  individual to register                                                                    
with the  department for refunds  if they had  multiple jobs                                                                    
and  ended up  paying more  tax  than they  would under  the                                                                    
bracketed structure.                                                                                                            
Representative Wool provided an  example of a person working                                                                    
at a  restaurant and also  driving for Uber. He  thought the                                                                    
funds would  likely come out of  the individual's restaurant                                                                    
employee  check   instead  of  from   their  self-employment                                                                    
income. He  asked if people would  pay the tax based  on the                                                                    
honor system if they were only self-employed.                                                                                   
Mr. Stickel  responded that the  tax would be  withheld from                                                                    
wages and  salaries by the  employer. He stated that  if the                                                                    
second income source pushed the  individual into another tax                                                                    
bracket, they  would be responsible  for paying tax  on that                                                                    
portion. He  added that DOR  would have the powers  of audit                                                                    
and enforcement of the tax as it did with any other taxes.                                                                      
1:46:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wool  referenced   Mr.  Stickel's  statement                                                                    
about  DOR's auditing  powers. He  reasoned  that without  a                                                                    
state income  tax it  was not possible  to know  what people                                                                    
earned in  the State  of Alaska  other than  through federal                                                                    
income  tax, which  he  did not  believe  was disclosed.  He                                                                    
thought  the state  would  not really  know  if someone  had                                                                    
another job other  than through the honor  system unless DOR                                                                    
had some reason to audit the person.                                                                                            
Mr. Stickel answered that the  department had the ability to                                                                    
access  confidential information  submitted through  DLWD or                                                                    
through  federal  income  tax   for  audit  and  enforcement                                                                    
purposes. He  stated it was  something the  department could                                                                    
and would likely use to implement the tax.                                                                                      
Representative Rasmussen  asked if the decision  to take the                                                                    
tax in  the third and  fourth paychecks, which  she believed                                                                    
could  fall   into  the  same   month,  was  based   on  the                                                                    
department's request. She asked for detail.                                                                                     
Representative Spohnholz answered that  the third and fourth                                                                    
paychecks  had   been  selected   because  they   [the  bill                                                                    
sponsors] did not want the funds  to come from the first and                                                                    
second  paychecks  of  the year  immediately  following  the                                                                    
holidays when many  people tended to be  cash-poor. The idea                                                                    
was delaying to  the third and fourth  paychecks gave people                                                                    
more opportunity to catch up on their cash flow.                                                                                
Representative  Rasmussen asked  if there  was an  increased                                                                    
cost if  the funds  were taken  out of  employees' paychecks                                                                    
monthly. She stated that for  an individual earning $120,000                                                                    
per year, $600 coming out of  a paycheck in one month may be                                                                    
a  substantial portion  of  their mortgage  and  may have  a                                                                    
bigger financial impact.                                                                                                        
Representative Spohnholz deferred to the department.                                                                            
Mr. Stickel  replied that from an  administrative standpoint                                                                    
there would  be slightly more  burden to having  12 payments                                                                    
per employee rather than 2.  He thought the difference would                                                                    
be fairly minor. He noted it  would change the timing of the                                                                    
revenue impact  for the first  year of  implementation given                                                                    
that the first  year assumed the state would  receive all of                                                                    
the withholdings in  FY 22. He explained  that spreading the                                                                    
withholdings  out over  12  months meant  the  FY 22  number                                                                    
would be a bit lower.                                                                                                           
Representative  Rasmussen asked  if it  would be  any easier                                                                    
for  DOR  if   it  was  a  flat  tax   where  every  Alaskan                                                                    
contributed the same  amount of money, more like  a user fee                                                                    
instead of a progressive income tax proposal.                                                                                   
Mr. Stickel  that it started  to get into a  policy question                                                                    
that he  was not  comfortable speaking  to. He  stated there                                                                    
would likely  be some administrative efficiencies  to having                                                                    
a set rate per individual.                                                                                                      
1:50:59 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Spohnholz  replied  to  the  questions  from                                                                    
Representative   Rasmussen.  She   explained  the   tax  had                                                                    
initially  been modeled  on the  original 1919  legislation.                                                                    
She explained  that in  1919, the  tax had  been a  flat and                                                                    
taxpayers had  all paid  the same  amount. She  believed the                                                                    
tax had  come out of  individuals' first paycheck.  The bill                                                                    
modified the  timing of the  payment to give  people respite                                                                    
in January.  She stated she  was agnostic on  the particular                                                                    
issue, and she  was amenable if it was  the committee's will                                                                    
to spread  the payments  out over  12 months.  She addressed                                                                    
the question about  the progressivity of the  tax and stated                                                                    
it  was quite  modest. She  detailed that  the 1919  tax had                                                                    
been $50 per person. She  reiterated that the bill contained                                                                    
modest  progressivity. She  remarked that  it was  certainly                                                                    
not equal  when considering the percentage  of income coming                                                                    
from  a  person  earning  $30,000 per  year  versus  someone                                                                    
earning $120,000  per year; it  had been a policy  call made                                                                    
in the House Ways and Means Committee.                                                                                          
Representative Rasmussen  asked if  the bill  considered net                                                                    
or gross  tax. She  stated someone  making $30,000  per year                                                                    
paid substantially less in federal  income tax than a person                                                                    
making $120,000  per year. She  added that a  person earning                                                                    
$120,000  per year  was likely  paying substantially  higher                                                                    
property taxes,  which funded a  large portion  of education                                                                    
in Anchorage. She  thought it seemed to be  a growing burden                                                                    
on the upper  and middle class Alaskans where  there were no                                                                    
additional services and help available.                                                                                         
Representative Spohnholz  replied that the bill  contained a                                                                    
gross  tax. She  clarified  it  was a  payroll  tax, not  an                                                                    
income tax. She  stated a payroll tax was  different than an                                                                    
income tax that tended to  be offset based on deductions and                                                                    
other expenses.                                                                                                                 
Ms.  Foley added  that the  bill  contained a  tax on  wages                                                                    
under  the federal  definition in  26 USC  34.01. She  noted                                                                    
that Alaska  had a highly  seasonal workforce  and spreading                                                                    
the payment out over 12  months could create difficulties in                                                                    
collection  for  seasonal  employees  who may  not  work  12                                                                    
months a year.                                                                                                                  
Representative    Josephson     referenced    Representative                                                                    
Spohnholz's earlier  testimony about how the  tax could help                                                                    
with  the overall  bigger picture.  He relayed  that he  had                                                                    
proposed a motor  fuel tax, which he knew  would offset some                                                                    
general funds;  however, he had  not thought of it  in terms                                                                    
of the need  for a big fiscal reform  package. He referenced                                                                    
a  50/50  plan [where  the  POMV  draw was  divided  between                                                                    
government services  and the dividend] and  highlighted that                                                                    
the legislative  Fiscal Policy Working Group  talked about a                                                                    
minimum of $500  million in revenue. He remarked  that if it                                                                    
were a sales  tax, the state could get by  with $440 million                                                                    
in sales tax and  use HB 189 to compliment it  [as part of a                                                                    
larger  fiscal plan].  He  asked  how in  a  75/25 plan,  in                                                                    
combination  with  other revenue,  the  bill  could be  used                                                                    
without the need for a larger tax.                                                                                              
Representative  Spohnholz replied  that on  September 1  the                                                                    
House  Ways   and  Means  Committee   had  heard   from  the                                                                    
Legislative Finance Division that with  a 50/50 split of the                                                                    
POMV, there would  be a fiscal gap of about  $1.2 billion in                                                                    
FY 23.  She detailed that  reducing the dividend  portion to                                                                    
33 percent would result in a  gap of about $614 million. She                                                                    
elaborated  that  allocating  25  percent  of  the  POMV  to                                                                    
dividends would result in a  fiscal gap of $346.7 million in                                                                    
FY 23.  Under a 75/25  split the  budget began to  move into                                                                    
the black  by FY 25. She  shared that on September  9 in the                                                                    
House  Ways   and  Means  Committee,  she   had  proposed  a                                                                    
comprehensive  fiscal plan  that included  an update  to the                                                                    
dividend  formula using  a 75/25  split, the  employment tax                                                                    
for education in the form of  HB 189, oil and gas per barrel                                                                    
tax credit  reform in the form  of the House Ways  and Means                                                                    
Committee bill  HB 3007,  and Representative  Josephson's HB
104 [motor fuel  tax]. She reported that  combining the four                                                                    
measures would  result in  a surplus of  $322 million  in FY                                                                    
24, which  would enable  the state  to start  addressing its                                                                    
capital deferred maintenance backlog.                                                                                           
1:56:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  for verification  that  under  the                                                                    
75/25 scenario  the state  would have  a balanced  budget in                                                                    
the black by FY 24.                                                                                                             
Representative  Spohnholz replied  that by  FY 25  the state                                                                    
would be generating surpluses.                                                                                                  
Vice-Chair   Ortiz  asked   if   under   the  scenario   the                                                                    
legislature  could put  a termination  date on  some revenue                                                                    
measures  to get  through. He  surmised the  taxes could  go                                                                    
away  and  the state  could  move  forward with  a  balanced                                                                    
Representative Spohnholz  agreed that the  legislature could                                                                    
put  a sunset  date on  some  of the  revenue measures.  For                                                                    
example, there  could be a  two-year sunset date on  the oil                                                                    
and gas per  barrel tax credit bill. The state  would have a                                                                    
balanced  budget   in  FY  24  and   would  functionally  be                                                                    
producing surpluses after that  time. She explained it would                                                                    
allow  the state  to make  strategic  investments in  things                                                                    
like  universal  optional  Pre-K, the  capital  budget,  and                                                                    
Representative  LeBon  asked  how  the $64  million  to  $65                                                                    
million  broke   down  into  the  different   groupings.  He                                                                    
believed he  found the answer on  page 2 of the  fiscal note                                                                    
analysis.  He referenced  the number  of  taxpayers in  each                                                                    
group and the dollar amount. He was working out the math.                                                                       
Co-Chair  Merrick noted  that DOR  would  review the  fiscal                                                                    
note after the committee had finished with questions.                                                                           
1:59:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Thompson  provided an  example of  a military                                                                    
person  living  in  the  dorms  on base.  He  asked  if  the                                                                    
individual would  be taxed. He how  military personnel would                                                                    
be impacted.                                                                                                                    
Mr. Stickel answered that DOR  had assumed federal employees                                                                    
would be  subject to the tax  similar to the way  they would                                                                    
be subject to an income tax.                                                                                                    
Ms.  Foley added  that  the federal  definition  for tax  on                                                                    
wages specified  "that term  shall not  include renumeration                                                                    
paid for active service performed  in a month for which such                                                                    
employee  is  entitled  to  the   benefits  of  Section  112                                                                    
relating to  certain combat zone compensation  of members of                                                                    
the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  to  the  extent                                                                    
renumeration  for  such  service is  excludable  from  gross                                                                    
income under such section."                                                                                                     
Representative Wool  stated that pre-1980 the  state had the                                                                    
head tax and  an income tax. He asked how  much revenue each                                                                    
of the  taxes had  raised. He observed  that the  bill would                                                                    
raise $64 million. He recognized  the number was much higher                                                                    
than the  head tax in  1979. He thought  it had been  a flat                                                                    
rate  of $10  per  worker.  He noted  there  had been  fewer                                                                    
workers and a  low fee. He did not know  what the income tax                                                                    
had generated at the time.                                                                                                      
Representative Spohnholz  answered that she would  follow up                                                                    
with the information.                                                                                                           
Representative  Wool asked  what oil  price assumptions  had                                                                    
been  used  in  the   legislation,  especially  relative  to                                                                    
revenue  to  the state.  He  remarked  that the  per  barrel                                                                    
credit  numbers  were  very   dependent  on  oil  price.  He                                                                    
referenced  an oil  glut  and price  drop  during COVID.  He                                                                    
highlighted that no  one was saying the  situation would not                                                                    
occur again. He noted the volatility of the oil market.                                                                         
Representative Spohnholz  replied that  the bill  used DOR's                                                                    
assumptions;  the assumption  for the  current year  was $71                                                                    
per  barrel. She  believed the  House Finance  Committee had                                                                    
heard presentations from DOR on oil price projections.                                                                          
2:02:57 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Merrick asked  Mr. Stickel  to  review the  fiscal                                                                    
Mr. Stickel shared  that the fiscal note  had been published                                                                    
on  May 6,  2021  for the  prior version  of  the bill.  The                                                                    
department had  an updated fiscal  note in progress  for the                                                                    
current bill  version. He reported  the revenue  impact from                                                                    
the new bill  version would be very similar  to the previous                                                                    
estimate. The department had anticipated  $65 million to $66                                                                    
million  in annual  revenue from  the legislation  upon full                                                                    
implementation.  The  estimate  assumed about  406,000  wage                                                                    
earners and  self-employed workers as the  resident taxpayer                                                                    
base. The assumption  included a 20 percent  increase to the                                                                    
number or  about 81,000 nonresidents  in the  taxpayer base.                                                                    
The department had  coordinated with DLWD to  refine some of                                                                    
the  assumptions used  for the  original  bill. The  current                                                                    
assumption   was  that   nonresidents  would   increase  the                                                                    
taxpayer  base by  about  15 percent  or  about 60,900.  The                                                                    
slightly reduced  number of taxpayers combined  with the new                                                                    
bracket  structure gave  a preliminary  revenue estimate  of                                                                    
$64 million to $65 million for the current bill version.                                                                        
Mr. Stickel stated the department  assumed there would be 75                                                                    
percent of  a full year's  worth of  revenue in FY  22 given                                                                    
that the  tax would  take effect  midway through  the fiscal                                                                    
year.  He explained  that most  employees with  salaries and                                                                    
wage  income  would end  up  paying  their full  annual  tax                                                                    
within  FY 22  (likely in  February  or March  of 2022).  He                                                                    
noted there were  some seasonal employees who  would not pay                                                                    
taxes until FY 23 for  the 2022 calendar year. Additionally,                                                                    
some self-employed individuals would  not pay until later in                                                                    
the  year.  The fiscal  note  showed  a $6  million  capital                                                                    
request  reflecting an  estimate  for  contracting with  the                                                                    
department's contractor  FAST Enterprises  for a  new module                                                                    
to DOR's  tax revenue management system.  The department was                                                                    
requesting five  new ongoing positions  with a  funding cost                                                                    
of  about  $572,600  per  year.   The  new  positions  would                                                                    
implement  and  audit the  new  tax.  He reported  that  the                                                                    
implementation costs had not changed  for the new version of                                                                    
the bill.                                                                                                                       
Representative  Spohnholz  thanked  the  committee  for  the                                                                    
questions during the  meeting. She stated that  the bill was                                                                    
not a  standalone comprehensive  fiscal plan,  but it  was a                                                                    
piece  of the  larger puzzle  as the  legislature worked  to                                                                    
find ways  to fund  its constitutional  obligations, balance                                                                    
the budget, and create fiscal certainty for Alaskans.                                                                           
HB  189  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
2:07:47 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 189 Sectional Analysis version W.pdf HFIN 9/13/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 189
HB 189 Sponsor Statement version W.pdf HFIN 9/13/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 189
HB 189 Summary of Changes version I to version W.pdf HFIN 9/13/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 189
HB 189 Education Payroll Tax Presentation HFin 9-13-21.pdf HFIN 9/13/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 189