Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
05/14/2019 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Vote at Home/vote by Mail by Dennis Wheeler. | |
| SB100 | |
| HB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 14, 2019
4:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sarah Vance
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: VOTE AT HOME/VOTE BY MAIL
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 100
"An Act naming the Willard E. Dunham Residence Hall."
- MOVED SB 100 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to the Alaska permanent fund; relating to the
earnings reserve account; relating to the permanent fund
dividend; relating to deposits into the permanent fund; relating
to appropriations to the dividend fund and general fund; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 132(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 100
SHORT TITLE: NAMING WILLARD E. DUNHAM RESIDENCE HALL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
03/27/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/19 (S) STA
04/10/19 (S) STA WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
04/11/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/19 (S) Moved SB 100 Out of Committee
04/11/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/19 (S) STA RPT 4DP 1NR
04/12/19 (S) DP: SHOWER, REINBOLD, MICCICHE, COGHILL
04/12/19 (S) NR: KAWASAKI
04/17/19 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/17/19 (S) VERSION: SB 100
04/22/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/19 (H) STA
05/14/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 132
SHORT TITLE: PERM. FUND:DEPOSITS;DIVIDEND;EARNINGS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WOOL
04/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/19 (H) STA, FIN
04/25/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/25/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/11/19 (H) STA AT 11:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/11/19 (H) Heard & Held
05/11/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/14/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DENNIS WHEELER
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Vote at Home/Vote by Mail.
AMBER MCREYNOLDS, Executive Director
National Vote At Home Institute and Coalition
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Vote at Home/Vote by Mail with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff
Senator Peter Micciche
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 100 on behalf of Senator
Micciche, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
4:23:20 PM
CO-CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 4:23 p.m.
Representatives Hopkins, Story, Wool, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representative Shaw arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Vote at Home/Vote by Mail by Dennis Wheeler.
PRESENTATION: Vote at Home/Vote by Mail
4:24:03 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of
business would be a presentation by Dennis Wheeler and Amber
McReynolds.
4:24:10 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:24 p.m.
4:24:23 PM
DENNIS WHEELER, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), stated that he
works for Resource Data, Inc., which was contracted by MOA to
assist with initiating and conducting its Vote by Mail (VBM)
project. He maintained that VBM has been very successful in
creating more voter engagement, simplifying the process for the
administration of elections, and providing voters with a variety
of ways to return ballots. He stated that he considers the
system to be more "universal return" rather than just VBM; votes
may be returned by mail, there are six vote centers, and drop
boxes are placed throughout the city.
MR. WHEELER said that the basic concept of the voting system is
as follows: MOA receives voter data from the State of Alaska;
voter data is matched with MOA's Geographic Information System
(GIS) to pinpoint a voter's location to ensure he/she gets the
appropriate ballot; the ballot packages are printed; and the
ballot packages - over 200,000 - are mailed out. In each
package is a ballot, a secrecy sleeve, voter instructions, and a
specially coded return envelope for each voter. The voting
instructions may be customized depending on additional
requirements to be met for registration. The packages are
mailed three weeks before the election and returned by Election
Day via the various methods mentioned.
4:28:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked about ballot security.
MR. WHEELER answered that each voter is assigned a bar code
number for each election; when the envelopes are returned, the
voter system can recognize the identifying code and the voter
associated with that code. The system can determine whether
that identifying code has already been used or if a voter has
voted more than once. In that case the packet is sorted out
mechanically and reviewed by election officials. He stated that
there have been instances in which a voter gets a ballot package
in the mail, votes the package, but also votes at a vote center.
He explained that because election data is not exposed across
the internet, the isolated vote centers do not have real-time
updated data; however, the system at the election center will
catch that double voting. If fraud is suspected, the incident
will be referred to the municipal attorney's office or Anchorage
Police Department (APD) for follow-up.
MR. WHEELER continued by relaying another level of security:
the voter must sign the return the envelope; the signatures are
matched to election signatures from previous elections - both
state and local; MOA is helping the state build up its database
of signatures provided by the voters from the poll books and
absentee applications. The election officials have been trained
to verify signatures; each envelope undergoes two signature
reviews.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that every signature
is verified manually.
MR. WHEELER replied yes. He added that the election software
lines up the signatures for review; the process goes quickly;
and the signatures are verified as they come into the election
center.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the signature on the voting
register at the polling station is used for verification.
MR. WHEELER responded that those signatures gathered at the
polling station during the previous poll-based elections could
have been used for verification if needed but were not used
routinely. What MOA did for its project was to scan the polling
station signatures from the last three municipal elections and
added them to the state signature database.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested there might be software in the
future to verify signatures.
MR. WHEELER agreed. He said that the software exists; however,
MOA decided not to spend the additional money on it because of
the understanding that every system that used computer
verification also used human verification. He explained that to
use computer verification, the computer must be "told" how many
different points of reference that the user is willing to accept
before flagging it for review. The municipality determined that
it could save the money; since human review would be necessary
anyway, it would be faster and more efficient to use only human
review. The software could always be added later.
4:34:51 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked about the cost of VBM. He
acknowledged the one-time upfront costs of setting up the system
and asked whether Mr. Wheeler could comment on the long-term
operational cost of the system compared with the previous
traditional polling station system.
MR. WHEELER answered that the municipal clerk's report stated
that in the 2017 Anchorage Assembly race, the election turnout
was 23 percent, and the cost was $670,000. In the last election
[4/2/19] the turnout was 28.7 percent, and the cost was
$646,000. He offered that there has been a reduction in cost
and a reduction in cost per vote. He mentioned that in the
first roll-out of the new system, the clerk took a conservative
approach in terms of overstaffing and over-supplying; the cost
of that election was $944,000. He expressed his belief that the
operational costs will decline with experience. He said that
the new election system uses fewer personnel, but the printing
costs have increased with the use of envelopes and secrecy
sleeves.
4:37:28 PM
AMBER MCREYNOLDS, Executive Director, National Vote At Home
Institute and Coalition, relayed her experience with policies
and implementation of voting systems, administering elections,
and leading Colorado's transition to a full ballot-delivery
system as Colorado's Director of Elections. She mentioned that
Colorado has led the states in voter registration rates through
improved registration processes. In the transition to full VBM
with vote centers, Colorado was able to reduce costs by about 40
percent on average across the state; the greatest cost savings
was in capital expenditures on voting machines - an 80-90
percent reduction in cost.
MS. MCREYNOLDS referred to her PowerPoint presentation, entitled
"Vote at Home." She turned to slide 2, which read: "Voting is
about Customer Service....Operational Efficiency...and
Innovation."
MS. MCREYNOLDS moved on to slide 3 to review a flowchart, which
indicated that a pro-voter policy, a voter-centric process, and
effective technology all contribute to an improved voting
experience. She referred to the automatic signature
verification software and maintained that the software was
deployed in Denver and has worked effectively over time; many
Colorado counties use the software. She explained that the
software can be set to a high-match setting, which matches about
35-40 percent of the signatures; and the remaining signatures
are reviewed by bipartisan teams of election judges.
4:42:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether Colorado offers electronic
voting.
MS. MCREYNOLDS answered that Colorado has that option for
military voters and voters with special circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for confirmation that electronic
voting is not available for the general public and asked what
voter security measures Colorado uses to insure electronic
transmissions.
MS. MCREYNOLDS replied that military voters use a secure file
transfer protocol (FTP) site, which includes a login with a key
identifier. The military member votes on the computer, prints
out the ballot, and sends it in both by mail and electronically.
If the paper ballot cannot be mailed in, the electronic ballot
is tabulated. She added that the electronic ballot is
encrypted, sent to a secure server, downloaded, printed, and
processed as a paper record.
4:45:01 PM
MS. MCREYNOLDS turned to slide 4, entitled "The Case for
Expanding Vote at Home Systems," which read:
checkbld Improves the Voting Experience
checkbld Enhances Security
checkbld Provides Options & Choice
checkbld Empowers the Voter
checkbld Improves Efficiency in Election Administration, for
Campaigns, & for Voters
checkbld Increases Engagement & Turnout
MS. MCREYNOLDS explained that security is enhanced because most
of the votes are on hand-marked paper ballots and centrally
counted. She described another level of security: There are
four VBM states; Hawaii just became a VBM state last week. The
other three VBM states -Washington, Oregon, and Colorado - have
the most accurate address lists in the country; they are all
members of the Electronic Registration Information System (ERIC)
- a sharing network among states; they all do proactive list
maintenance, address updates through the post office, and
automatic registration. She explained the verification
processes: Mailed ballots are not forwardable; therefore, a
ballot that is returned "undeliverable" requires action by the
voter. The voter must update his/her address in person or
online to have a new ballot sent. The second verification step
is the signature verification. If the signature does not match,
as determined by two election judges, the Elections Division
mails a discrepancy letter requesting a copy of identification
(ID) and an affidavit. The discrepancy may be resolved in
person or by electronic means.
MS. MCREYNOLDS offered that Vote at Home (VAH) gives voters
three weeks to research issues and candidates, make their
choices, and return ballots at their convenience. Consequently,
there is increased engagement, more complete voting, and less
errors.
MS. MCREYNOLDS maintained that VAH has produced significant cost
reductions both in capital expenditures and operational
efficiencies. She said that just like any business, if you
streamline operations and make the customer process easier, less
time and money is spent on responding to complaints and dealing
with issues.
MS. MCREYNOLDS relayed that VAH improves efficiency in
campaigns, allowing them to refocus efforts as Election Day
approaches.
4:50:06 PM
MS. MCREYNOLDS moved to slide 5, entitled "Who Do We Support,"
and explained that National Vote At Home Institute and Coalition
is a non-partisan, non-profit organization designed to support
voters; it has educational materials on its website discussing
processes, policy, best practices, research, and implementation
of VAH.
MS. MCREYNOLDS turned to the map on slide 7, entitled "2018 Mid-
term Election Turnout," to point out election engagement by
state during the 2018 mid-term election; all three VAH states
were in the top seven states for engagement; all three had lower
costs for the election.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked why the other four states in the top
seven, which do not have VAH, have such high levels of
engagement. He asked whether they have other improved election
practices.
MS. MCREYNOLDS responded that there are a couple reasons:
Minnesota consistently ranks high; in 2018 it had two
competitive Senate races; and voter outreach was extensive.
Colorado did not have any Senate races that year. Minnesota
does not require a voter to affiliate with a party upon
registration. Both Minnesota and Wisconsin have same-day
registration and other election reforms that have enhanced
engagement. She added that three of the states from the top
seven list - Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin - have VAH as an
option, but are not full VAH states.
MS. MCREYNOLDS referred to slide 8, "Down Ballot Positive Impact
of VAH," to discuss the benefits of voters having more time to
research issues. She cited the results of two studies: A 2016
study in Utah found a 5.5 percent increase in votes "down
ballot" in VAH counties versus polling place counties. An Emory
University professor found that the VBM and VAH elections cause
an increase in turnout in municipal elections and a decrease in
ballot "roll-off" on statewide ballot measures in presidential
election years; the researcher also found that voters who are
getting their ballots at home are more informed because they
have more time to research issues.
4:55:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether there are statistics on the
number of people who do not vote down ballot.
MS. MCREYNOLDS responded that the [Utah] study found that VBM
voters were voting 6 percent farther down the ballot; she
maintained that similar outcomes were seen in Colorado. She
explained that the ballot can be quite lengthy and time
consuming to read thoroughly.
MS. MCREYNOLDS moved to the map on slide 9, entitled "Current
Vote at Home Status by State," to demonstrate the VAH status of
each state. Washington, Oregon, and Colorado are at step 5,
which is full VAH; California and Utah are transitioning to full
VAH; states at step 4 are those having a permanent mail ballot
option with the voter needing no excuse for choosing the mail
option; states at step 3 allow a mail ballot with no excuse, but
the mail ballot must be requested each time; states at step 2,
such as Texas, Louisiana, and Tennessee, require an excuse for
requesting a VBM ballot with an age waiver - that is, anyone age
65 or over may request a VBM ballot, but anyone under 65 must
provide a doctor's note or proof of a legitimate excuse for not
being able to vote at a voting place on Election Day; states at
step 1, such as Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania, require anyone requesting a VBM ballot to have an
excuse supported by a doctor's note or other documentation
verifying that he/she is physically unable to be present at the
polling place, and the proof must be submitted each time a VBM
is requested.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his surprise that some states
require an excuse for an absentee ballot. He asked whether in
the states that adopted the no-excuse permanent mail absentee
ballot option, the number of people choosing that option
increased over time.
MS. MCREYNOLDS answered that it depends. Montana and Arizona
have been at step 4 for several years; both are over 74 percent
VBM usage. She expressed her belief that these states would be
better off transitioning to step 5 - full VAH - because the
election process under step 4 is the most expensive. They send
out most of the ballots by mail and most of the voters use VBM;
however, the states still utilize early voting, polling places,
and the equipment and allocation. She maintained that on the
positive side, it is a system in which voters can choose, and
over time, use of VBM grows. She said that under the permanent
option, knowing the number of ballots that will be mailed helps
a state allocate resources for in-person voting.
5:02:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS mentioned that VBM voting in Alaska is
called "absentee voting." He asked about the terminology -
absentee voting, VBM, and VAH - and whether it makes a
difference in the understanding of the process.
MS. MCREYNOLDS replied that she would like to ban the word
"absentee" in voting, because it does not have meaning for most
voters; it implies being absent rather than using a different
method of voting. She maintained that people understand voting
methods - returning the ballot by mail or putting it into a drop
box - and the terminology used should make it easier for voters
to understand. She said that "absentee" does not describe the
process.
MS. MCREYNOLDS relayed that different states have different
needs, and no one solution will serve every state. She turned
to slide 10, "Elements of an Effective Vote at Home Model,"
which read:
• Ballot Delivery
• Proactive Address Updates
• NCOA
• AVR
• Effective Cure Process
• In-person voting experience at Vote Centers
• Ballot drop-off options including 24 hour ballot
boxes
• Electronic Delivery for UOCAVA voters & Accessible
needs
• Audits
• Pre-paid postage
• Ballot TRACE
• Civic Design
• Appropriate penalties to protect voters
• Adjust processing & counting deadlines
MS. MCREYNOLDS pointed out that the United States Postal Service
(USPS) is the only entity in the U.S. that serves every election
office and every citizen in one way or another. She explained
that when addresses are updated through USPS, states may use
that data to initiate automatic voter registration and to keep
its election addresses current. She emphasized the importance
of an "effective cure process" for voters whose signatures don't
match - one that is transparent and provides accountability
throughout. She maintained that in-person voting options should
be available.
5:07:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether Oregon offers in-person
voting.
MS. MCREYNOLDS responded that it is offered at limited
locations. She added that Washington and Colorado offer it as
well; California and Colorado offer greater options for in-
person voting.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether every voter in a VBM or VAH
state automatically gets a ballot in the mail; however, they may
vote in-person if they choose.
MS. MCREYNOLDS answered yes. She continued reviewing the
remaining elements on slide 10: ballot drop-off options by
mail, ballot boxes, or drive-up drop-off; military voters;
audits pre-election and post-election; pre-paid postage; ballot
tracking systems; design of ballot and clear instructions;
appropriate penalties to discourage nefarious activity; and
establishing appropriate processing and counting deadlines to
allow election officials to complete the tally timely.
5:11:40 PM
MS. MCREYNOLDS referred to slide 12 to point out the resources
available on the National Vote At Home Institute and Coalition
website which read:
checkbld Policy & Research Guide: www.voteathome.org/guide
checkbld Research Library: www.voteathome.org/library
checkbld Latest news: www.voteathome.org/latest
checkbld Twitter: @voteathome
checkbld Facebook: NationalVoteAtHome
MS. MCREYNOLDS gave her contact information:
[email protected].
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the 80-90 percent cost
savings associated with VAH and asked whether it represents the
ongoing operational cost of administering a VAH election system
versus a traditional polling place election system.
MS. MCREYNOLDS answered that the cost savings cited was specific
to capital equipment expenditures. She said that if Colorado
had not transitioned to VAH, Denver would have spent about $15-
17 million on a new voting system; instead it spent $1.5
million. The State of Colorado spent $17-20 million for all 64
counties; if it had not transitioned to VAH, the cost would have
been $150-200 million to outfit all the polling places with the
necessary equipment to process voters and count ballots. She
stated that the second largest saving for Colorado was in the
cost of poll workers; there was about a 60-70 percent reduction
in the number of poll workers required to staff the election.
Other reductions in cost involved the operational costs of an
election; Pew Research Center conducted a post-implementation
study of Colorado in 2014, which demonstrated that there was
about a 40 percent reduction in operational costs for most of
the counties across the state.
5:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the election equipment that
did not have to be replaced were ones that processed paper
ballots or were electronic voting machines.
MS. MCREYNOLDS answered that some counties had electronic voting
with a paper option; Denver offered voters a choice of a paper
ballot or a machine; it varied by county. She stated that at
the point of transitioning to full VAH, about 70-75 percent of
voters were requesting VBM ballots; the Elections Division was
getting many calls from the remaining 20-25 percent of voters
wanting a mailed ballot; this encouraged the division to go to
full VAH to make the process easy and understandable for all
voters.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that in Alaska, the ballots are all
paper ballots and the voting machines count the ballots. He
asked whether under a VBM system, fewer machines would be needed
because the ballot would be counted as they are received.
MS. MCREYNOLDS concurred that less equipment would be needed.
She mentioned that in Colorado the ballots are centrally counted
and tallied; therefore, less equipment is needed. She
acknowledged that Alaska may not see the same level of savings
as Colorado because Colorado was using many electronic machines.
SB 100-NAMING WILLARD E. DUNHAM RESIDENCE HALL
5:17:56 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be SENATE BILL NO. 100, "An Act naming the
Willard E. Dunham Residence Hall."
5:18:22 PM
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche, on behalf of
Senator Micciche, prime sponsor of SB 100, relayed that the
proposed legislation would rename the Alaska Vocational
Technical Center dormitory to be the Willard E. Dunham Residence
Hall. She paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read:
Senate Bill 100 names the Alaska Vocational Technical
Center (AVTEC) dormitory located at 516 Third Avenue
in Seward, Alaska as the "Willard E. Dunham
Residential Hall".
The naming of the dormitory honors Willard Eugene
Dunham who recently passed away on March 1, 2019.
After Willard's years of service to the state of
Alaska and specifically his advocacy for the AVTEC
Facility in Seward, it is appropriate that the
vocational training residence hall be named for this
icon of pioneering Alaskans who has forever left his
mark on this great state.
This bill honors the work and memory of the much
beloved and respected community member of Seward, who
was a champion of the community and was instrumental
in working to diversify the economy of the town after
the 1964 earthquake destroyed much of Seward.
Willard Dunham worked for the Alaska Department of
Labor when AVTEC was founded in 1969. His passionate
advocacy of Seward convinced the committee founding
AVTEC to be established on the Kenai Peninsula. As a
direct result, the decision was made to establish the
state-supported vocational training center, the Alaska
Skills Center, in Seward where he served as the
founding director from 1969 to 2019.
Aside from his work with AVTEC, Dunham served time in
the US Army as a medic stationed at the Eielson Air
Force Base, worked with the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, and served the City of Seward
to help to create an impressive record of community
service and employment projects. Some of these
projects included the Spring Creek Correctional Center
and the Seward Library and Museum. He was a founding
member of the Alaska SeaLife Center's Board of
Directors, was elected to serve six years on the
Seward City Council, and spent two years as Seward's
mayor. Willard also spent time as the president of the
Seward General Hospital board, served as the Chamber
of Commerce President twice, served on Fish & Game
Advisory groups and longshore union boards, and sat on
nearly every city task force, commission, and
committee over a 60-year period.
Renaming the Third Avenue AVTEC dormitory the Willard
E. Dunham Residence Hall will stand as a reminder of
the inspirational dedication and the vision Willard
demonstrated for Seward, and an acknowledgement of
Dunham's achievements, honorable works, and service to
Alaska for over half of a century.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked about the community's response to SB
100 and renaming the residence hall.
MS. MORLEDGE referred to three letters of support, [included in
the committee packet], from: Jacob Collins, President of the
Rotary Club of Seward; Shawn A. Aspelund, who served with Mr.
Dunham on the AVTEC Statewide Advisory Board; and John V. Crews,
AVTEC Statewide Advisory Board Chair.
5:21:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report SB 100 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 100 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 132-PERM. FUND:DEPOSITS;DIVIDEND;EARNINGS
5:21:35 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to the
Alaska permanent fund; relating to the earnings reserve account;
relating to the permanent fund dividend; relating to deposits
into the permanent fund; relating to appropriations to the
dividend fund and general fund; and providing for an effective
date."
5:21:53 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 31-
LS0799\U.1, Nauman, 5/13/19], which read:
Page 5, line 21:
Delete "33"
Insert "40"
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that Amendment 1 would change the
percentage used to calculate the permanent fund dividend (PFD)
from 33 percent to 40 percent. This would ensure that the PFD
provided under HB 132 would be about $1,400; he maintained that
this amount would be "imminently reasonable and defensible" and
comparatively substantial.
5:22:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that he supports the amendment.
He stated that based on 2018 revenues, 33 percent would yield a
$1,142 PFD; 40 percent would yield a $1,384 PFD. He added that
based on 2019 revenues, [40 percent] would yield a $1,435 PFD.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained that a PFD formula is needed,
which was his motivation for introducing HB 132. He gave an
analogy: A group of investors own a restaurant. At the end of
the year, they each get a percentage of the profit based on the
performance of the restaurant. If the restaurant has a good
year, the investors get more money. If the restaurant loses
money, the investors get less or no money. He maintained that
no one would suggest that the investors get a percentage of
profit based on the value of the building. Real estate values
may be escalating every year, but the percentage of profit that
the investors get as stakeholders in the restaurant would be
based on the performance of the restaurant. Some day the
investors may sell the building; but in this analogy, the
building is the permanent fund, and Alaska would not sell it.
He reiterated that the dividend should be based on the
performance of oil and other mineral resources.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed that he has some reservations,
but the conversation about the PFD formula is important.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that many constituents mention
"running the state like a business" and finding efficiencies;
when a business does well, it pays dividends based on its
profitability. He recalled in 2008, Governor Sarah Palin
approved an energy rebate in addition to that year's PFD. Even
though the state's economy was healthy, Alaskans felt the
negative impacts of higher heating fuel costs. He maintained
that HB 132 would alleviate the adverse consequences of this
inverse relationship. He encouraged further dialogue about the
percentage to be appropriated for the dividend, but maintained
that linking that percentage to oil revenues more accurately
gives Alaskans their share of the resource wealth and does mote
to helps assist with the cost of living than does linking the
PFD amount to the performance of "Wall Street." He reminded the
committee that in the late 2000s, when the price of oil was
increasing, the stock market was crashing, and the PFDs were
smaller; under HB 132, the dividends would reflect the oil
revenues.
5:29:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HB 132, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 132(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
5:30:13 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:30
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB100 ver A 4.22.19.PDF |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB100 Sponsor Statement 4.22.19.pdf |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB100 Fiscal Note DOA-FAC-4-11-19.pdf |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB100 Supporting Document - Letter of Support (Collins) 4.22.19.pdf |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB100 Supporting Document - Letter of Support (Crews) 4.22.19.pdf |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB100 Supporting Document - Letter of Support (Aspelund) 4.22.19.pdf |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| HB132 Amendment #1 Fields 5.13.19.pdf |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| PresentationH STA VAH.pptx |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
Vote at Home |
| HB132 Fiscal Note DOR-APFC 5.14.19.pdf |
HSTA 5/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |