04/10/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR41 | |
| HB409 | |
| SB204 | |
| HJR30 | |
| SB196 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 409 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2018
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 41
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the Alaska permanent fund, establishing the earnings
reserve account, and relating to appropriations from the Alaska
permanent fund.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act relating to identification cards; relating to vehicle
registration fee rates; relating to changes of address; relating
to driver's license fees; and relating to financial
responsibility for motor vehicles."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 204
"An Act relating to special registration plates for vehicles
owned by veterans with disabilities."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Urging the United States Congress to reaffirm the commitment of
the United States to promote the safety, health, and well-being
of refugees and displaced persons; urging the United States
government to uphold its international leadership role in
responding to displacement crises with humanitarian assistance
and to work with the international community and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to find solutions to
conflicts and protect refugees; and urging the President of the
United States to continue to mitigate the burden placed on
frontline refugee host countries.
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 196(FIN)(EFD FLD)
"An Act relating to an appropriation limit; and relating to the
budget responsibilities of the governor."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 41
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV;EARNINGS
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
04/06/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/06/18 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 409
SHORT TITLE: DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
04/05/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/18 (H) STA, FIN
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 204
SHORT TITLE: DISABLED VET PLATES:CHIROPRACTORS CERTIFY
SPONSOR(s): EGAN
02/19/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/18 (S) STA
02/27/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/18 (S) Moved SB 204 Out of Committee
02/27/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/18 (S) STA RPT 4DP 1NR
02/28/18 (S) DP: MEYER, GIESSEL, COGHILL, EGAN
02/28/18 (S) NR: WILSON
03/07/18 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/07/18 (S) VERSION: SB 204
03/09/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/18 (H) STA
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 30
SHORT TITLE: URGE U.S. SUPPORT OF REFUGEES
SPONSOR(s): JOSEPHSON
01/24/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/18 (H) CRA, STA
02/13/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/13/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/18 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/22/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/22/18 (H) Moved HJR 30 Out of Committee
02/22/18 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/27/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/27/18 (H) Adopted Fiscal Note
02/28/18 (H) CRA RPT 3DP 1DNP 2NR
02/28/18 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, PARISH
02/28/18 (H) DNP: TALERICO
02/28/18 (H) NR: LINCOLN, SADDLER
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 196
SHORT TITLE: APPROPRIATION LIMIT; BUDGET RESERVE FUND
SPONSOR(s): FINANCE
02/19/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/18 (S) FIN
02/28/18 (S) STA REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE FIN
03/06/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/06/18 (S) Moved SB 196 Out of Committee
03/06/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/18 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR
03/07/18 (S) DP: MEYER, GIESSEL, WILSON
03/07/18 (S) DNP: EGAN
03/07/18 (S) NR: COGHILL
03/15/18 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/18 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/18 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/18 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE
03/16/18 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, MACKINNON, BISHOP, VON
IMHOF, STEVENS, MICCICHE
03/16/18 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/16/18 (S) Moved CSSB 196(FIN) Out of Committee
03/16/18 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y13 N5 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y11 N7 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y11 N7 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y11 N7 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) ENGROSSED
03/28/18 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/28/18 (S) VERSION: CSSB 196(FIN)(EFD FLD)
03/29/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/18 (H) STA, FIN
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REID MAGDANZ, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HJR 41, co-presented
the legislation and answered questions.
ROBERT ERVINE, Staff
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HJR 41, co-presented
the legislation and answered questions.
ANGELA RODELL, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HJR 41, answered
questions.
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 409, presented the
legislation and answered questions.
MARLA THOMPSON, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 409, answered a
question.
MICHAEL STANKER, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Labor & State Affairs Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 409, answered a
question.
PETER NAOROZ, Staff
Senator Dennis Egan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 204, presented the
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HJR 30, presented the
legislation.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 196, co-presented
the legislation and answered questions.
SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 196 co-presented
the legislation and answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:20:52 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Birch, Johnson, Knopp,
and Wool were present at the call to order.
HJR 41-CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV;EARNINGS
3:22:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 41, Proposing amendments to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the Alaska
permanent fund, establishing the earnings reserve account, and
relating to appropriations from the Alaska permanent fund.
3:23:03 PM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, advised that this amendment for the
Constitution of the State of Alaska caps the draws on the
Permanent Fund (PF) to a sustainable 4.75 percent of market
value and it prevents ad hoc draws on the earnings reserve
account (ERA), thereby, preventing any draws above that 4.75
percent threshold. The amendment maintains the principal and
the ERA as separate accounts and prevents any spending from the
principal account.
3:23:50 PM
ROBERT ERVINE, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston, Alaska
State Legislature, added that HJR 41 represents the consensus
point discussed around the legislature as a whole, and it is the
beginning of a conversation. It appears, he offered, that many
legislators believe ad hoc draws are a bad idea because it
changes the way in which the fund is managed, and the state
needs some type of sustainable draw.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether there is a reason this
resolution cannot take place in statute, noting the hurdle it is
to get anything through the whole constitutional amendment
process. Basically, he said, at this point the $40 billion in
the fund is fully fenced off and is constitutionally protected
via the 1976 public vote for the PF. He further asked whether
there is any reason the legislature could not set up something
similar if it had the same net result, and then work to put it
into statute.
3:25:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Mr. Ervine's statement regarding
a consensus amongst the legislators and asked whether those were
anecdotal water cooler discussions and whether that was "just
your vibe."
MR. ERVINE answered that Representative Wool was correct.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added that another iteration of this idea
is where a percent goes to the dividends and a percent is
available for appropriation for public services. He noted that
it could be 50/50, or 25/75, or many different versions, "and
just not even going there and just starting with the most basic
notion, which is, What is a sustainable draw of the PF?"
3:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the statement that this
legislation would prevent ad hoc draws out of the ERA
constitutionally, but yet there would still be an ERA and a PF
corpus. He asked the reason for not merging it all into one if
there are no ad hoc draws out of the ERA.
MR. MAGDANZ responded that the main effect for not merging the
accounts is that under this amendment, the $40 billion in the
principal that Representative Birch mentioned would remain
untouchable and un-spendable. For example, he said, if the
market suffered a significant downturn immediately after passing
this amendment, that $40 billion would remain protected and
would still be unavailable for spending under any scenario.
3:27:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed to the statement that this
legislation would prevent ad hoc draws out of the ERA, and
therefore the ERA would simply be the entity from which the 4.75
percent is drawn. He surmised that one is a checking account
and the other is a savings account, but if there are no draws
from it, it could ostensibly be looked at the same. He then
clarified that when he said, "no draws," he meant other than the
4.75 percent.
MR. MAGDANZ offered a hypothetical wherein for the next eight
years the PF earned zero returns, and if 5 percent a year was
being drawn, the ERA could potentially be drawn down to zero by
maintaining a separate principal and no money would be available
to draw. Whereas, if the 2 funds were combined, it would be
possible to draw 5 percent forever, he offered.
3:28:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that under that scenario, if the corpus
was separate from the principal and the ERA was used up for
"your draw of 4.75 percent" and the earnings was zero for 8
years, the ERA would go to zero and "we couldn't tap into the
principal. Then you'd be the dilemma of, what do we do now?"
MR. MAGDANZ replied that Representative Wool was correct, the
state would have to find the money to fund its budget from the
different sources.
3:29:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether that is similar to what the
state has today wherein the ERA is separate from the principal
amount, and the corpus is already protected under the Alaska
State Constitution. Other than the structured draw at 4.75
percent, he said that he does not see a whole lot of difference
in what is being proposed here, other than to protect it under
the Alaska State Constitution. He asked whether he was on track
with his statement.
MR. ERVINE answered that Representative Knopp's statement was
correct.
3:29:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP noted that it had been stated that the ERA
is subject to appropriation, yet Title 34 lays out the
structured draw and inflation-proofing. He remarked that
members of the public have argued that the legislature is
breaking its own laws by not following its laws and he somewhat
agrees in that sense. Mr. Magdanz said that everything in the
ERA is subject to appropriation, and he asked whether that
statement evolved from a legal opinion or authority.
MR. MAGDANZ responded that that statement means, for instance,
this year the legislature could, with 21 votes, choose to take
all of the $16 billion in the ERA, put it in the constitutional
budget reserve (CBR), and choose to spend it all in a single
year. This constitutional amendment would prevent that scenario
from taking place, and "it would say, really, truly, the
legislature can only spend 4.75 percent of market value."
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked that if the legislature was following
its own statutes right now, it wouldn't have that option. He
asked where it read that it is all subject to appropriation
because the legislature does not appear to be following the laws
it created a few years ago.
MR. MAGDANZ responded that the problem is that the legislature
does not have to follow its statutes when it comes to the budget
process.
3:32:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted that a couple of different terms have
been used for the PF, and the sponsor statement indicates that
the goal is to prevent un-sustainable spending that threatens
the future value of the fund. He opined that the $40 billion in
the corpus is pretty well fenced off without some sort of
constitutional question for the voters. He said he does
understand the earnings for the 1976 amendment that basically
moved those dollars into the general fund (GF) and asked whether
the corpus is threatened in any manner.
MR. MAGDANZ answered that Representative Birch is correct that
the $40 billion attributed to the principal is currently
untouchable. The question to be had with this amendment is that
the total fund value, including the ERA, is roughly $66 billion.
The difference between those 2 numbers, $26 billion, is not
currently constitutionally protected. This amendment would
protect all $66 billion currently in the PF, he explained.
3:34:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL remarked that he has been hearing that the
legislature has not been following the statute, breaking the law
with zero repercussions, and that within the last two years the
statutory formula for the PFD has not been followed. He noted
that the governor vetoed it a few years ago, then the
legislature passed a less than statutory formula, and this year
it appears the legislature is on track to do it again. He asked
whether this is a common occurrence.
MR. ERVINE offered the current pertinent example of the "90-day
limit" wherein the voters of 2006 passed an initiative limiting
the legislature to a 90-day session, and the legislature has
"blown by it 8 of the last 10 years," he opined.
3:35:44 PM
ANGELA RODELL, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation (APFC), Department of Revenue (DOR), responded to
Representative Knopp's question, and advised that the Alaska
State Constitution creating the PF is "very clear" that the
amounts on deposit in the fund will be used for income-producing
investments only, the income of which shall go to the GF, and
the legislature has been given the power of appropriation over
the GF. That, she explained, is the mechanism by which the
legislature has the ability to fully appropriate the ERA because
the ERA became the repository rather than going directly to the
GF. The legislature, through statute, created a sub-fund of the
GF that is the ERA, she further explained.
3:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that there is also "another sub-
account of that, we required to put in 50 percent of the
projected dividend payments out of the ERA." In the event that
is the case, he asked why the legislature put that formula in
statute, whether it was "almost recommended language" but not
mandatory as far as the formula for the PFD payouts.
MS. RODELL noted that she was not here at the time of the debate
as to how the PF would be used or how that income would be used.
She offered that it is her understanding, through the materials
she has read, that part of it was to "bifurcate that debate and
leave that debate for days like today, which is why the
constitutional language for the PF is actually very clean and
very simple." This, she explained, was the compromise achieved
through statute and was in place up until 2016. Interestingly,
one of the historical observations she said that she would make
is that the statutory language reads that, "50 percent of the
income available for distribution shall be transferred for the
PFD fund program." Except, she pointed out, there was no
discussion regarding what was to be done with the other 50
percent of the amount available for distribution was to be used
for, and at times that was used for inflation-proofing.
Inflation-proofing is another example of a statute that has not
been fulfilled since 2016, and/or it was appropriated back into
the principal of the fund. There is almost $7 billion of
additional appropriations outside of inflation-proofing and
royalty deposits that comprise the $40 billion of the corpus of
the fund. Therefore, she noted, one might argue that 50 percent
is the amount that was available for state services that
previous legislatures chose not to appropriate, but rather leave
behind the buildup of the balance in the ERA.
3:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP opined that he had read a legal memorandum
in the past which discussed the powers of appropriation and that
is how "we got around that." He said that he was pretty sure he
did not support this, but he would support the inflation-
proofing in the Alaska State Constitution. He noted that when
he asked why the legislature was not inflation-proofing this
year, he was advised that the fund made 12 percent, "we think
that's more than enough to offset inflation-proofing." He asked
Ms. Rodell's opinion on that advice.
MS. RODELL answered that she strongly disagrees with that
advice. The principal of the account only gets what the
legislature chooses to appropriate back in, outside of the
mandatory 25 percent. Therefore, she explained, all of those
earnings are available for appropriation, and none of it - "not
one penny of it" - is available to the principal of the account.
In response to Representative Kopp's earlier comment, under
Wielechowski v. State of Alaska, [403 P.3d 1141 (Alaska 2017)],
there was a great deal of discussion as to the powers of
appropriation on the ERA and the requirement of an appropriation
for both a dividend and inflation-proofing, she offered. She
said the decision had been made in 2017 by the Alaska Supreme
Court.
3:40:48 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether in the House of
Representative and Senate's operating budgets, either body is
inflation-proofing this year.
MS. RODELL responded that the budget passed by the House of
Representatives and sent to the Senate includes inflation-
proofing of $942 million for fiscal year (FY)19, it does not
include restoring the inflation proofing amounts totaling $1.4
billion from FY16 through FY18. The Senate Finance Committee is
discussing the current committee substitute (CS) in which
inflation-proofing is not addressed, she said.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that within three of the last four
years, the legislature has not inflation-proofed but this year
there is inflation-proofing within the operating budget that
passed the House of Representatives.
3:41:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that the Senate Finance Committee
moved the budget out of committee today without inflation-
proofing, and that was his concern.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented, "Mine as well."
3:42:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented, "Mine as well." He noted that
the PF board has long suggested that a percentage of market
value (POMV) might be a reasonable approach to provide a
predictable and sustainable level of revenue to the state for
whatever purpose. There had been some discussion around how to
structure a POMV draw on a reliable basis, on an annual basis,
and asked whether Ms. Rodell had experience in other large
funds. He said he supports the idea of a POMV but worries about
the entanglement of trying to get a constitutional amendment
[passed], and how to get there without going through this
exercise.
MS. RODELL opined that it absolutely can be accomplished through
statute. A number of statutes have been proposed since 2015,
and HB 26 progressed the farthest in the legislative process.
The challenge legislators face on the statutory front is that
statutes were followed completely for 35 years and were not open
for debate. Even though, she offered, legislators had been told
that "this money" was available for appropriation, they could
cut the dividend, they could cut inflation-proofing, that "this
is your power under the constitution," it was done as a matter
of course and there was no questioning about that, she said.
She opined that the concerns being heard about a statutory
solution versus a constitutional solution, is the recognition of
the legislature's power of appropriation and what that means.
It means, she explained, not appropriating for anything that is
subject to appropriation and instituting that sort of political
dynamic into those things that, which in the past were not
viewed as political. From the standpoint of the APFC, it would
appreciate a solution of any kind at this point because this
"sort of ongoing year after year, not knowing, is very
troubling." In the event there was consensus around a statute,
she said that she personally believes legislators would follow
the newly created statute. Having said that, she offered, a
constitutional amendment provides a level of comfort that a
statute "just can't get us there."
3:45:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP reiterated that he believes putting the PFD
or the ERA in the Alaska State Constitution is poor public
policy. He described the Alaska State Constitution as a
framework of guiding principle, not to enshrine everything "that
you think needs to be in there." Although, he said, he does
support a constitutional amendment with regard to inflation
proofing. He noted that SB 26 does provide a structured draw,
he likes that it has a three-year component, and since the
future is unknown, he would like Ms. Rodell's opinion.
MS. RODELL responded that she found HJR 41 interesting because
it is very simple, it is a draw, and how the legislature spends
that draw is entirely still open for debate. The amount being
drawn out of what the state has historically referred to as the
PF, is set at 4.5 percent. The three-year lookback is key to SB
26 being successful because it will provide the necessary
information as to whether it is being overdrawn and if it needs
to be reset, she advised. She acknowledged that the committee
is not speaking to SB 26, but it has a mechanism for inflation-
proofing with a recognition of the need for some inflation-
proofing on the principle of the fund. She referred to the
hypothetical offered by Mr. Magdanz regarding eight years of
zero percent and spent down the ERA, "you still wouldn't touch
the $40 billion." Ms. Rodell argued that that is possibly why
there is a need to have a mechanism to move some of the ERA
periodically over into the principal, some of those earnings to
boost that up. She explained if the goal is to truly try to
keep that limiter in there, then that is how to continue
maintaining its purchasing power. In any event, she explained,
this constitutional amendment makes a simple straight-forward
4.75 percent draw, and it limits it to the amounts in the ERA.
The APFC can support this type of constitutional amendment, she
said.
3:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reminded the committee that it recently saw
a version of this bill that had a 5 percent draw and now it is
at 4.75 percent, he asked whether something had taken place
within the last 10 days and what will happen in the next 10
days.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the version was a work draft
and was not put on the record because there are different
schools of thought as to what constitutes a sustainable draw.
MS. RODELL replied that the board has had a long-standing
resolution in place supporting 5 percent. Obviously, 4.75
percent is more sustainable than 5 percent because less is being
removed, but that percentage amount is a call for the policy
makers, she said.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added a comment to the question of
sustainability and advised that he and his staff recently spoke
with Greg Erickson, former publisher of the Budget Report, who
is a staunch advocate of a 4 percent draw.
3:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that the presenters initially said
this was a 4.75 percent sustainable draw. However, he pointed
out, when presented with the hypothetical of 8 years with zero
returns, suddenly the 4.75 percent may not be sustainable so
possibly it should not be placed in the Alaska State
Constitution. He offered that no one expects zero returns for
eight years, yet that is why there is a barrier between the ERA
and the principal.
MS. RODELL answered that it is important to talk about doomsday
scenarios in order to create an awareness that the future is
unknown in terms of investing and markets. In terms of the
stress analyses that APFC ran, it believes that 4.75 percent and
5 percent are reasonably sustainable numbers for draws. She
opined that the three year look back becomes an interesting
question and she suspects that if this happened, there will come
a time when she is sitting in front of the committee discussing
the balance in the ERA, the performance of the investments, and
whether overdraws will potentially occur at some point.
Therefore, she advised, part of what is helpful in this
constitutional amendment is smoothing it out, "out of 5 of the
last 6, so you're really creating a long time period, and the
effective draws then end up being significantly less than the
nominal draw of 4.75 percent or 5 percent."
3:53:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that Ms. Rodell commented that the
APFC would like to see some type of structure "like this,"
thereby removing the uncertainty that APFC has faced during the
last few years. He asked whether it is simply the anticipation
of a draw that puts the corporation on edge.
MS. RODELL referred to her testimony a few weeks prior when she
discussed what it means to be prudent investors and advised that
it means following a formal portfolio theory that takes into
account distributions. When the board assembles its asset
allocation and determines how to invest the fund, it should also
take into account the distribution requirement except,
currently, it does not have a distribution requirement, so it is
anything between zero and 100 percent. Therefore, she pointed
out, the board tries to successfully manage through that in
order to deliver maximum returns to the state while also
recognizing that the principal must be protected and "not go all
in on black, as they say." She explained that having this
structure in place will provide the sideboards through which the
board can then make very real determinations as to how much can
be put into illiquid investments like real estate, like private
equity that generates the big returns.
3:55:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that Ms. Rodell stated that she
preferred a constitutional formula like this, as opposed to
statutory because statutes can be ignored to some extent. As
far as the structure of the fund itself, (audio difficulties)
constitutional draw of up to 4.75 percent, and he would like to
see "it just one super fund," a true endowment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that "super funds" are something
else.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL (audio difficulties) consistent draw of 4.75
percent, what remains in the fund essentially counts as
inflation-proofing. He continued, "And, if you took too much,
then it wasn't inflation-proofing, well then you've taken too
much. And so, you have a set fund with a set draw and that's
it. And, I know the answer but I'm going to ask anyway, would
that be your preference in the hierarchy of options here?"
MS. RODELL answered that that would absolutely be "our
preference."
[HJR 41 was held over.]
HB 409-DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
3:57:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act relating to identification
cards; relating to vehicle registration fee rates; relating to
changes of address; relating to driver's license fees; and
relating to financial responsibility for motor vehicles."
3:58:00 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, advised that HB 409 was
drafted at the request of the Department of Administration,
Legislative Finance Sub-committee. The legislation updates and
streamlines the statutes for greater efficiency at the Division
of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and addresses some of the identified
indirect expenditures in the division. He referred to the
fiscal note [disbursed to the members at the beginning of this
hearing] which estimates that the legislation would generate
revenue of approximately $815,000 per year.
3:58:30 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE presented the sectional analysis and advised
that Section 1 was specifically recommended by the Department of
Administration, Legislative Finance Sub-committee. Section 1
standardizes the age for senior citizen fee waivers by changing
the age for a senior citizen identification card from 60 to 65.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 2 allows a person to
authorize the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to update their
address based on the United States Postal Service (USPS)
database. Currently, even when the DMV realizes that an address
was set up and updated at the post office, it must mail to what
it knows is the wrong address, the mail then bounces back, and
the DMV then reaches out to the person. This section allows the
DMV to mail to the correct current address.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 3 removes the vehicle
registration fee exemption for amateur radio operators, which is
approximately 44 beneficiaries per year.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 4 is a statutory
recommendation, it is an indirect expenditure of approximately
$498,000 per year. Section 4 eliminates the exemption for
municipalities and gives partial exemption to charitable
organizations. Therefore, she explained, it would be a partial
recovery of the indirect costs.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 5 sets the fee for DMV
Knowledge Tests at $5 and raises the fee for DMV Road Tests from
$15 to $25. She explained that this would both raise revenue
for the state and increase efficiency at DMV by hopefully
reducing the "no share rates," which is approximately 20 percent
for the driving test. The current fail rate for the Knowledge
Test, which has unlimited free attempts, is approximately 60
percent.
4:00:03 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 6 is statutory cleanup, it
is various (indisc.) and accident reporting thresholds. The
thresholds were originally set the same for DMV and the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF), that
the report must be set when it is $501. The DOTPF has been
updated and it is now a $2,000 threshold, but the DMV limit has
not been updated or adjusted for inflation in 33 years. The
threshold is currently set at $501 and this would raise the
threshold to $2,000.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE explained that that amount is also in Sections
7-10, and 13, which is updating that threshold.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 11 adjusts the SR-22
requirement, vehicle liability insurance document for a high-
risk insurance policy. People are required to carry SR-22
insurance after an accident or traffic offense, and this section
requires the person to carry SR-22 insurance for 10 years rather
than for a lifetime as that is an undue financial hardship.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 12 allows for a new
installment payment plan, rather than automatic suspension of a
license when the license is suspended due to an outstanding
financial judgment.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Section 14 is cleanup for Section
2, allows updating DMV with address changes if the person has
given permission to DMV to update addresses from the USPS
database.
4:01:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that this legislation is merely a
starting point, it is an amalgam of indirect expenditure
recommendations from the Legislative Finance Sub-committee and
the DMV recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Section 11 regarding SR-22s, and
said he assumes it has little to do with the DMV and is rather a
policy call because buying SR-22 insurance is between the driver
and the insurance company, and not the DMV.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered that the DMV statutes require proof of
financial responsibility and the driver must submit a form to
the DMV showing the SR-22 insurance was purchased. After ten
years, this section would eliminate the requirement to submit
that form to the DMV.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL advised that he had to buy SR-22 insurance
at one point, but it was for a shorter period of time than 10
years. He asked whether it is currently that if a person has an
accident, they must buy SR-22 insurance for life.
4:02:50 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), responded that SR-22
insurance is not required, for most judgements, for more than a
few years, but some judgements are for a lifetime and the DMV
wanted to change it to ten years. She explained that it is "not
for a normal DUI SR-22 because that is normally five years."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL requested a description of the level of
infractions that would require lifetime SR-22 insurance.
MS. THOMPSON deferred to Michael Stanker, Department of Law.
4:03:57 PM
MICHAEL STANKER, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Labor & State Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), advised
that he would have to conduct additional research and get back
to the committee as to all of the instances where SR-22
insurance is required, and for the length of time for those
different conditions.
[HB 409 was held over.]
SB 204-DISABLED VET PLATES:CHIROPRACTORS CERTIFY
4:05:31 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be SENATE BILL NO. 204, "An Act relating to special
registration plates for vehicles owned by veterans with
disabilities."
4:05:52 PM
PETER NAOROZ, Staff, Senator Dennis Egan, Alaska State
Legislature, advised that SB 204 was drafted to return
chiropractors to the list of people who can authorize qualified
individuals with disabilities to receive handicap parking
placards and license plates. The Alaska Division of Motor
Vehicles offers several types of disability parking placards and
license plates, temporary and permanent, which are depicted on
the license itself. Until 2016, the DMV's process allowed for
chiropractors to be among those who qualified individuals for
those plates and permits. In 2016, the attorney general, after
reviewing the statutes and authorizations, determined that
chiropractors were not specifically mentioned. This legislation
rectifies that issue in Section 1, [AS 28.10.181(d)] which
specifies the types of chiropractors listed in accordance with
AS 08.20. The sponsor believes this is a good bill for the
public-at-large, he advised, and individuals with disabilities
who are already under treatment by a chiropractor, should not
have to pay for an additional visit to a medical doctor.
[SB 204 was held over.]
4:09:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:09 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.
HJR 30-URGE U.S. SUPPORT OF REFUGEES
4:10:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30, Urging the United States
Congress to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to
promote the safety, health, and well-being of refugees and
displaced persons; urging the United States government to uphold
its international leadership role in responding to displacement
crises with humanitarian assistance and to work with the
international community and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees to find solutions to conflicts and protect
refugees; and urging the President of the United States to
continue to mitigate the burden placed on frontline refugee host
countries.
4:10:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, advised
that HJR 30 was inspired by a Colony Middle School student who
flew to Juneau during the January-February timeframe of this
year, and they presented this legislation to the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. This resolution
expresses concern, sympathy, and compassion for refugees and
displaced persons. Originally, the sponsor focused on Syrian
refugees, except this resolution is broader and is designed to
reflect this historical moment, the compassion of the Alaska
Legislature, and Alaska's concern for folks who are displaced
based upon civil strife. For example, he offered, their fear of
sexual violence, human trafficking, forced conscription,
genocide, and other horrible situations that they may confront.
The resolution is fairly self-explanatory and given the
circumstances in Syria this week, it is unfortunately topical,
he opined.
4:12:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that 65,600,000 people are displaced
worldwide and asked Representative Josephson's sense of
obligation the United States should attempt to absorb.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that this subject came up in
the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
Some people believe that the United States is not fully doing
its fair share given its resources and capacity, and the burden
is held more by Western Europe, for example, than America. He
explained that the intent of this resolution was not so much as
to get into that issue, as to simply mark this moment in history
and note that the people of Alaska and their legislators are
compassionate people, that they are aware of the crisis, and if
called upon "we would certainly lend a hand." He said, "Beyond
being called upon, that we would individually, if not
collectively, that we would assert ourselves and do whatever we
can do."
4:14:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Representative Josephson what
exactly he wanted to see with respect to this resolution, what
"are we not doing that you think we should do?"
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that the resolution directs
that the United States government do what it can in partnership
with the international community, that it work with non-
governmental organizations, that it mitigate the harm, that it
use its resources the best it can, and that those sorts of
things should continue and be re-enforced.
[HJR 30 was held over.]
4:15:33 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:15 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.
SB 196-APPROPRIATION LIMIT; BUDGET RESERVE FUND
4:16:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 196(FIN)(efd fld), "An Act
relating to an appropriation limit; and relating to the budget
responsibilities of the governor."
4:16:39 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out
that the sponsors conducted some statewide polling and he found
it interesting the percentage of people who support a spending
limit. He noted that the high level of support was not specific
to party, region, or demographic, and every region was above 75
percent [of the people polled]. The state relies on a single
commodity to fund more than 85 percent of the state's
governmental services, and although the operating capital
budgets have been cut by over $3 billion in the last four fiscal
years, the state continues to draw from its savings accounts to
fill the gap between revenue and expenditures. He advised that
this legislation sets an appropriation limit and referred to a
chart titled "SB 196 Appropriation Limit" demonstrating the
spending limit plotted in a couple of different ways. He
explained that the top purple line is the existing statutory
appropriation limit, the red line is the actual spend. There
are two parallel lines, the blue line is deflating from the
current spend back to around 1999, and the green line is
inflating at this appropriation limit trend through today.
SENATOR MICCICHE advised that the chart demonstrates why this is
important, "we've gotten back into this band and had we avoided
getting out of this band, we would have approximately $15
billion more in saving right now. We wouldn't have reduced
dividends, we wouldn't have been talking about broad-based
taxes, and we have would have been delivering quality
constitutionally protected services in the meantime." This bill
requires the legislature to prioritize state spending going
forward so it does not find itself in the same situation, he
remarked.
4:19:51 PM
SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, Alaska State Legislature, described
that Alaskans are living in a "feast or famine" environment with
the primary single source of revenue being oil. Alaskans can
effectively live in that environment if there is control over
spending whereby the state's spending does not necessarily match
the revenue that may jump or fall over the course of time. She
noted that history has revealed that the state had huge jumps in
revenue between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, that there have been
feasts and famines in the past. Over the last 25 years, she
pointed out, the state put money into the constitutional budget
reserve (CBR) and borrowed from the CBR during the times it was
necessary to fund the deficit. She acknowledged that between
the years 2010 and 2014, the state did not control its spending
and the state matched its spending to revenue; and when revenue
started falling in 2015 and the state could not contract its
spending fast enough. As a result, she offered, to what Senator
Micciche stated, approximately $15 billion was left on the table
by money that was not put into savings during the good years,
and additional money was removed to cover large deficits because
the state had large budgets during the falling revenue years.
This legislation, she related, helps future growth in spending
in order to avoid the big jumps and big falls in spending, which
creates much anxiety and uncertainty in the state. She
explained that the bill grows spending over time in a
predictable rate based on what most other states use, which is
usually the consumer price index (CPI) for their state. It is
an agreed upon set of principles that the entire bodies of the
legislature agree to set their budgets on each year, she
commented. A spending cap brings predictability and
sustainability to Alaska's budget process and is a key
ingredient in a bi-annual budget, which is a two-year budget.
She opined that that will avoid this type of conversation with
pink slips for educators, and so forth. This legislation is
meant to ease the anxiety and provide predictability and
sustainability, she described.
4:22:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that she supports the concept of a
spending limit and asked why Senator Micciche believes the
legislature will adhere to a spending limit because it is in
statute, any more than it has adhered to paying out the
permanent fund dividend (PFD) according to the formula set in
statute, for example. The legislature's track record in
following the statutes is sometimes not 100 percent, she
commented.
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that the Senate Majority discussed
the fact that this is a test and the real objective is that this
translates into a constitutional spending limit. He stressed
that the goal is to make sure it is right, so it has a look back
and he is hesitant to change the Alaska State Constitution until
it is somewhat time tested. He commented that, "If we find that
we are successful ... so soon after we pass statutory items that
the legislature weighs in on heavily and heavily supports, we
have a tendency to stay very close to that." In time, as the
new legislators come in, they are not particularly married to
that past statutory structure. Although, he opined, the
legislature has time to determine within the next two years
whether this proves to be the right trend of spend going
forward, and subsequently, hopefully there would be a
constitutional amendment the people of Alaska would support.
4:24:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he thinks "this is great,"
and at the municipal level there are tax caps with some sort of
institutional limits or boundaries on spending. He reiterated
that this is good, it could possibly be modified over time, but
it is helpful to have a road map on spending.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP noted that he agrees with the sponsor
statement in creating exemptions for the payment of permanent
funds, capitol projects, state debt obligations, but he is
concerned about the receipt supported services. He pointed out
that the state does not have diversified growth funds (DGF) and
every department now has receipt supported services. This
legislation does not appear to cap receipt supported services,
and over the last couple of years, almost every department has
raised fees in one form or another. He asked whether that issue
should have "fallen under unrestricted general fund (UGF). You
know we've really strayed I think, from what we said is not
general fund (GGF), but we're calling it GGF."
SENATOR VON IMHOF responded that there were discussions about
what a spending cap might include, such as, UGF only or all
state funds including DGF and other state funds. The decision
was UGF because it is important to provide the departments and
the university with flexibility to raise fees and what they
believe the market will bear. President Jim Johnsen, University
of Alaska, stated on the record that the University of Alaska is
subsidized by the state more than any other Western university.
In the event the university decides to raise tuition, the state
should allow them to do so and not necessarily be stymied by a
spending cap, the same goes for hunting fees and fishing
regulations. There is a point where market equilibrium will
dictate whether a price is too high, and it is more appropriate
for the departments to retain that autonomy and flexibility.
4:27:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the previously described chart,
and when Senate Micciche said "we've left the band" he assumed
that is between the parallel green line and the parallel blue
line, and the red line is state spending. He commented that it
looks like "we're actually back in the band the last couple of
years."
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that Representative Wool was correct,
the $15 billion that disappeared is the difference between the
blue line and the red line when the red line is outside of the
two parallel lines.
4:28:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the statement that 85 percent of
Alaska's governmental services rely upon a single commodity and
advised that that statement is probably no longer valid "and may
not be for some time in the foreseeable future." He asked how
Senator Micciche would adjust that statement.
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that he did not know that he would
because if a percent of market value (POMV) passes, or any other
arrangement that will pay the state's bills, it is still a
single commodity generated with the escalation from earnings.
He related that Representative Wool was converting production
from the past into funding for the future, so "I don't know that
you've moved outside of that band. I think you picked up a
higher proportion of that band and likely will in perpetuity.
Particularly, if we can get an agreement on what our spending
should look like today and how it should escalate in the
future." The primary point of the chart is, "with relatively
little discomfort we are back in that band." Obviously, he
advised, it is doable because "as a team we've done it together
with UGF spending. If we can maintain being within that band in
the future, we can avoid those spikes in spending with some
outlets for things that when we do have high revenues, we have
the ability to catch up on things like deferred maintenance and
other projects that may be lagging at the moment."
4:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised that this legislation proposes that
the $4.1 billion will not include capital projects and asked
whether the red line of spending also follows that same
exclusion of capital projects. He opined that that is a big
part of the deduction from FY14 through FY18, for example.
SENATOR MICCICHE described that this discussion is apples to
apples on operating.
4:30:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there have been any
discussions about extending the spending cap to the capital
budget.
SENATOR VON IMHOF answered that there have been some discussions
about a potential waterfall if oil revenues or other revenues
exceed the spending cap. For example, she advised, what has
priority on a certain percentage, or a certain dollar amount
when there are competing interests, such as PERS and TERS, debt
payments, repayment to the constitutional budget reserve (CBR),
capital, possibly school education, building, matching funds,
and things of that nature. Those discussions have taken place
and "we have not necessarily landed on anything at this point,
and we are open to feedback."
SENATOR VON IMHOF, in response to Representative Wool's
question, advised that he is correct that past oil revenues have
been a much higher percentage of revenue, absent of a POMV, and
it still remains the highest or dominate revenue force. She
commented that one would argue that even with a POMV, in its own
way it is from oil revenue in its origin. Moving forward, it is
believed that starting with a "4.1 UGF" is realistic based in
the world market of what the state can afford with the current
oil revenue, production, and opportunities through SB 21, the
oil tax legislation. She related that this is realistic and
makes sense based upon current information, but as Senator
Micciche advised, this is a trial period with a three-year
lookback, and at that time there will be a determination as to
whether the rate makes sense. The rate in the Alaska State
Constitution currently "is a little high," it is both population
and CPI and it is too big of a growth rate, it does not work.
This should have probably been reviewed 20 years ago, she
offered.
4:33:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered appreciation for the statement that
the source of revenue originally was oil, the revenue went into
a fund, the fund is invested, and the state uses that as its
number one source of revenue. He surmised that it is not direct
oil revenue, but that oil is on the fund. He asked whether the
CPI takes into account surging healthcare costs that are higher
than inflation.
SENATOR VON IMHOF advised that that CPI is everything and the
Anchorage CPI is, in essence, the statewide CPI. Alaska is one
of the few states that has the dominant city representing the
state. She said that she has a 30-year lookback available, and
advised that in 2016, the CPI range was negative point one, all
the way to approximately 4.6 in one given year. The CPI does
fluxuate when the price of oil and the price of housing and
healthcare rises, but then it goes down, and when looking at it
over time it is "pretty level and our numbers work," she
advised.
4:34:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there is any other sort of
idiosyncrasy in the CPI where there could be a CPI calculated
for Anchorage that in any way has a large delta from what the
sort of de facto statewide CPI would be.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered as follows:
So, a very direct example of that was right went the
price of oil went from $107 a barrel down to $29. You
are going to see an offset, you are going to see a
state that is used to a very high level of revenue,
many more high-paying jobs, rents were up, renting a
storefront, many materials were at a much higher price
and suddenly you had a revenue drop. There are times
when there is a lag, but considering it is the actual
costs of the primary drivers due to the cost of living
in Anchorage, it generally catches up in a relatively
short order. The reason that capital is excluded, is
because you can shut it off like a faucet, like we
did. That is not our problem in spending. It can be
a problem in spending when you are building community
centers in the middle of nowhere that, unfortunately,
have operating dollars attached to them. That can be
a problem. But, as you saw in 2014 and 2015, we were
able to make that immediate reduction. You don't have
bodies attached to it, you don't have employees and
their families attached to it, you don't have their
healthcare and their retirement, and all that other
burden that's so difficult to reduce. So, UGF spend
in our operating budget is the key exposure and that
is what made this so uncomfortable over the last
couple of years. And where, in my view, we are still
not spending at the place where we should be spending
for a state of 740,000 people.
4:37:19 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed to the sectional analysis [contained
within the committee packet] and offered to answer questions
prior to the next hearing.
[SB 196 was held over.]
4:37:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:37
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 409 Sponsor Statement 4.10.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| HB409 Sectional Analysis 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| HB409 ver D 4.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| SB204 Sponsor Statement 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 ver A 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 Fiscal Note ADM 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 Letters of Support 1 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 Letters of Support 2 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB196 Sponsor Statement v. O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB196 Sectional Analysis v. O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 v. O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB196 Summary of Changes v.O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB196 Fiscal Note OMB 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 - NFIB Support 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 Graph 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| HJR030 Sponsor Statement 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR030 ver D 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Fiscal Note LEG 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR41 Sponsor Statement 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 41 |
| HJR41 Sectional Analysis 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 41 |
| HJR41 ver J 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 41 |
| HJR41 Fiscal note-LEG- 04.09.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 41 |