Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
09/01/2021 01:00 PM House WAYS & MEANS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB3002 | |
| Presentation(s): Overview: Permanent Fund Formula Changes and Percent of Market Value | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB3002 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
September 1, 2021
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Andi Story
Representative Mike Prax
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Adam Wool
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 3002
"An Act relating to the earnings of the Alaska permanent fund
and the earnings reserve account; relating to the mental health
trust fund; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): OVERVIEW: PERMANENT FUND FORMULA CHANGES AND
PERCENT OF MARKET VALUE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB3002
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND: INCOME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EASTMAN
08/20/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
08/20/21 (H) W&M, STA, FIN
09/01/21 (H) W&M AT 1:00 PM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 3002, as the prime sponsor,
and provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled "HB 3002 Repeal
of SB 26 Permanent Fund: Income."
ALEXEI PAINTER, Director
Legislative Finance Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
PFD and POMV Legislation.
ANGELA RODELL, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Alaska Permanent Fund," dated 9/1/21.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:34 PM
CHAIR IVY SPOHNHOLZ called the House Special Committee on Ways
and Means meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives
Josephson, Prax, Eastman, and Spohnholz were present at the call
to order. Representatives Story and Schrage (via
teleconference) arrived as the meeting was in progress. Also
present was Representative Ortiz (via teleconference).
HB3002-PERMANENT FUND: INCOME
1:02:33 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 3002, "An Act relating to the earnings of the
Alaska permanent fund and the earnings reserve account; relating
to the mental health trust fund; and providing for an effective
date."
1:03:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 3002. He stated that the purpose of the
legislation was to repeal Senate Bill 26.
1:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "HB 3002 Repeal of SB 26 Permanent Fund:
Income" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He began
on slide 2, which highlighted several metrics for FY 2019:
statutory net income (SNI) at 43.82 billion; percent of market
value (POMV) at $2.72 billion; and "appropriated from ERA" at
42.72 billion. The graph on the right displayed total spending
(excluding dividends) from FY 19 to FY 22.
1:07:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN continued to slide 3, which highlighted
the same three metrics for FY 20: SNI at $3.77 billion; POMV at
$2.93 billion; and "Appropriated from ERA" at $6.93 billion,
which included an ad hoc appropriation of $4 billion.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether Representative Eastman was of the
position that the legislature should not be able to transfer
funds from the earnings reserve account (ERA) to the corpus pf
the Alaska Permanent Fund (the fund) for the purpose of
inflation proofing.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that that, per
statute, inflation proofing took place automatically.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ sought to confirm that Representative Eastman
believed that the legislature should not be able to inflation
proof the corpus.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked, "If we were going to be doing
that, then we didn't need SB 26, because SB 26 came in and said,
'we shouldn't be doing that.'" He maintained his position that
Senate Bill 26 should be repealed because the legislature was
violating the provisions within two years of its enactment.
1:09:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his understanding that Senate
Bill 26 limited expenditures from the total of the fund at 5.25
percent. He clarified that, contrary to Representative
Eastman's understanding, Senate Bill did not prohibit the
legislature from inflation proofing. He asked the bill sponsor
to cite a statute that suggested otherwise.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN jumped forward to slide 6, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
AS 37.13.140 (2018 - SB26)
Amount Available for Appropriation
(b) The corporation shall determine the amount
available for appropriation each year. The amount
available for appropriation is five percent of the
average market value of the fund for the first five of
the preceding six fiscal years, including the fiscal
year just ended, computed annually for each fiscal
year in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
AS 37.13.145 (1992)
Amount to be Transferred
(b) At the end of each fiscal year, the corporation
shall transfer from the earnings reserve account to
the dividend fund established under AS 43.23.045, 50
percent of the income available for distribution under
AS 37.13.140.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interpreted AS 37.13.140(b) to mean that
more than 5 percent of the average market value of the fund
could not be appropriated from the ERA. He added, "SB 26 was
only speaking to being able to withdraw money from the earnings
reserve account."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON disagreed, noting that he did not
interpret the statute in that way. Nonetheless, he considered a
scenario in which Representative Eastman was correct in that the
legislature could not withdraw from the corpus. He proceeded to
point out that the governor approved the transfer of $4 billion
in FY 20. He asked what the remedy would be.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recommended repealing Senate Bill 26 and
replacing it with something better because the legislature was
not following the statute as written.
1:13:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX believed that the point Representative
Eastman was trying to make was that the law was not being
followed. He opined that it wasn't an argument of whether the
$4 billion-dollar transfer was a good idea.
1:14:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN resumed the presentation on slide 4,
highlighting the graph on the right that displayed total
spending (excluding dividends) from FY 19 to FY 22. He pointed
out that total spending (excluding dividends) increased from
FY 19 to FY 20 despite the passage of Senate Bill 26 and its
limit on appropriations. He turned to slide 4, which provided
the same three metrics for FY 21: SNI at $5.02 billion; POMV at
$3.09 billion; and "Appropriated from the ERA" at $3.09 billion.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ sought to confirm that "total spending
(excluding dividends)" included federal receipts and designated
general funds (DGF).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed that all appropriations were
included in that metric except for the permanent fund dividend
(PFD).
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ replied, "That's an interesting definition" [of
total spending].
1:15:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned to slide 5, which highlighted the
same three metrics in FY 22: SNI at $5.02 billion; POMV at $3.07
billion; and "Appropriated from the ERA" at $7.07 billion, which
included an ad hoc appropriation of $4 billion. He emphasized,
per the graph on the right, that total spending (excluding
dividends) had increased from FY 21 to FY 22.
1:16:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled that Representative Eastman
had stated that the POMV failed to curtail spending. He asked
whether the bill sponsor preferred that the legislature opt out
of any federal COVID-19 spending.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said his argument was that the
legislature's spending did follow statute. He urged the
legislature to either change the law or follow it; however, his
preference, he said, was to change the statute.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether Representative Eastman was
suggesting that the legislature should have enough revenue to
cover all the federal programs, such as road building, which is
a 90/10 match, and Medicaid.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the appropriations should be
based on income received, as opposed to an arbitrary number. He
explained that total spending was highlighted in the
presentation to suggest that increased spending was impacting
the economy by setting a precedent.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ argued that it didn't make sense to include
federal receipts in the consideration of funding from state
sources. She likened it to comparing a banana to an artichoke,
as the sponsor was using completely different numbers with
different definitions for his rhetorical purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that this method was
intentional to highlight the impact of Senate Bill 26 on total
spending.
1:19:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said it would have been helpful if
undesignated state spending had been included on the slides.
She pointed out that although federal funding had increased,
undesignated spending had not increased, which was an important
point to highlight for the public.
1:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to confirm that Representative
Eastman believed that the POMV was not controlled spending and
that the legislature should spend more.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN contended that the legislature should
follow the law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON argued that Representative Eastman
wanted to spend more.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that he wanted to spend
differently.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked the bill sponsor to confirm that
his amendments on the floor called for spending billions of
dollars more.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated, "my amendments yesterday called
for spending billions of dollars to follow the law and to send a
dividend to people."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that HB 3002 would create a deficit
of roughly $2 billion to $3 billion in each of the next 10 years
moving forward. She asked whether the bill sponsor had a
revenue proposal to offset the spending.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN contended that HB 3002 did not call for a
specific appropriation amount, it just called for following the
statute. He claimed that SB 26 was passed in a "less than ideal
manner," as certain portions were taken out leaving less than a
full package.
1:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed confusion about the presentation
and sought to clarify whether HB 3002 was trying to address the
amount available for appropriation within the earnings of the
permanent fund. He added, "that will change that source of
funding for the general fund (GF), but it doesn't really control
what's available from the feds or any other source
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN nodded in the affirmative. He resumed
the presentation on slide 6, noting that AS 37.13.145(b), which
provided that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) shall
make a transfer from the earnings reserve account to the
dividend fund at the end of each fiscal year, was not being
followed.
1:23:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN continued to slide 7, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB69 Enrolled
Section 55. ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
(f) The sum of $4,000,000,000 is appropriated from the
earnings reserve account (AS 37.13.145) to the
principal of the Alaska permanent fund.
REPRSENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that the legislature chose to
appropriate $4 billion from the ERA despite the confirmation by
APFC that the amount available for appropriation was less than
that amount.
1:23:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to clarify why Representative
Eastman hadn't sued the state to clarify the law like Senator
Wielechowski in Wielechowski v. Alaska, 406 P.3d 1141 (Alaska
2017).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would prefer that the legislature
do some housekeeping to clean up its statutes.
1:25:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN resumed the presentation on slide 8,
which reviewed the amount of the dividend since passage of
Senate Bill 26. He indicated that while "total state spending
(excluding dividends)" had steadily increased since FY 19, the
dividend amount had decreased.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that given the power cost equalization
(PCE) lawsuit, Alaska Federation of Natives, et al. v. Governor
Michael Dunleavy, et al., the Legislative Finance Division (LFD)
advised that the statutory budget reserve (SBR) was not a
sweepable account and could therefore be accessible for funding
the PFD. She acknowledged that there were competing opinions
about the dividend; however, she wanted to emphasize that the
legislature was not supportive of a dividend totaling $619, as
suggested on slide 8.
1:26:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed his dislike of the "total
spending (excluding dividends)" metric, as it was not
transparent. He opined that although the slide may be factually
accurate, it was intended to excite the public. He addressed
Representative Eastman's reference to Wielechowski v. Alaska and
stated, "you're illustrating that we didn't fully appropriate a
statute, but we're in a world where we're told we don't have
to." He said the bill sponsor was essentially asking him to
comply with something that he didn't need to comply with.
Ultimately, he said he didn't understand the bill sponsor's
position.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his belief that compliance could
be achieved by two options: follow the law as written or change
it.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that there were other pieces of
legislation that had been introduced during the current
legislative session that could also help to address that issue.
1:28:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN resumed his presentation on slide 8,
explaining that the dividend amounts shown for FY 22 illustrated
the opposing views on the SBR.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ reminded the public that in the "total spending
(excluding dividends)" metric, Representative Eastman had
included federal pandemic relief, Medicaid, capital funding from
the federal government, designated funds, program receipts, as
well as fees paid to the state.
1:29:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned to slide 9, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
AS 37.13.145 (2018 - SB26)
Amount Available for Appropriation to General Fund
(3) The legislature may not appropriate from the
earnings reserve account to the general fund a total
amount that exceeds the amount available for
appropriation under AS 37.13.140(b) in a fiscal year.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked, "when you read this statute
from SB 26 in light of that [PCE] decision, you find that this
limit is not actually having an effect on money going to the
dividend fund. So, the appropriation limit would relate to
money going to the GF, but if it went directly to the dividend
fund, per the automatic transfer, for example, in statute, it
would be wholly escaping that limit and I don't think that was
the intent of the legislature."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ said she did not follow Representative Eastman's
logic.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the next slide would
clarify that. He turned to slide 10, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
AFN v. Dunleavy (August 11, 2021)
Separate Funds Not Part of The General Fund
"Because the term "general fund" was not a term of
constitutional significance when the Alaska
Constitution was established, the Legislature had
authority to establish, by statute, funds outside and
separate from the general fund. This authority was
circumscribed only by the dedicated funds clause. And
the Legislature did establish "separate funds."
"In 1984, the Legislature established the Power Cost
Equalization Fund as a "separate fund" of the
authority."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN continued to slide 11, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
AS 43.23.045
Dividend Fund
(a) The dividend fund is established as a separate
fund in the state treasury. The dividend fund shall be
administered by the commissioner and shall be invested
by the commissioner in the same manner as provided in
AS 37.10.070.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the dividend fund was
established as a separate fund in the same way that the PCE fund
was separate from the GF. He reasoned that the limit in Senate
Bill 26 only applied to funds being transferred to the GF,
adding, It was not that is being specifically put towards funds
being transferred to the dividend fund." He believed that if
the intent was to limit funds going to the dividend fund, the
current construction of Senate Bill 26 did not establish that
goal.
1:32:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he wasn't following Representative
Eastman's argument. He shared his understanding that money
could be transferred from the ERA to the permanent fund or the
dividend fund, as long as the transfer didn't go the GF.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded, "those transfers that you're
talking about to something other than the general fund, under
the statute as written, still would have to fall under that
amount calculated as available for appropriation from the
Earnings Reserve Account? We're not necessarily following that
to a T though. So, yes, there is a limit in statute currently
on funds that can go to things other than the general fund ? in
AS 37.13.145." He asked if that answered Representative Prax's
question.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX answered no.
1:34:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON believed that Representative Eastman
was reading the statutes in a "technical way" and suggesting
that the legislature could appropriate beyond 5 percent as long
as it's not to the GF. He asked what was in the dividend fund
right now.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded, "Not much."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to confirm that Representative
Eastman's view was that the amount in the dividend fund could
not be swept because it's not in the GF.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said, "if we we're going to follow the
interpretation of AFN, I think that's a compelling argument."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that it wasn't likely that the
legislature would not want to appropriate funds that had been
appropriated to the dividend fund. She shared her belief that
this was a hypothetical scenario that would never occur in real
life.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ suggested that the bill sponsor was trying to
fix a nonexistent problem.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked, "I'm not considering that
particular scenario at that the moment."
1:36:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN concluded his presentation by pointing
out that there was a growing gap between the SNI calculation and
the POMV that was established in Senate Bill 26. He believed
that those appropriations were being saved for a future purpose
at the expense of the current economy.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that Representative Eastman
had characterized the 5 percent POMV as "arbitrary." He asked
whether the bill sponsor was aware of all the expert testimony
that had established and supported that number.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was aware of the expert
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether Representative Eastman
was aware that 5 percent resembles the typical POMV number seen
nationwide.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that he had characterized it as
arbitrary because the average income" [SNI] received by the
state over the last 5 years is in excess of $5 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked why a 50/50 split of the POMV is
not arbitrary.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that a 50/50 approach would
account for the state's income.
1:40:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE took exception to the 5 percent POMV rate
being characterized as arbitrary. He explained that even if the
POMV were tied to income, it would still be a five-year rolling
average; consequently, he believed that such a scenario could
create issues if the market were to collapse, and the five-year
average indicated that the state was supposed to pay out more
than it actually had in the account. He said in some ways it
could be an arbitrary decision to base the formula on income
rather than on the amount in the account and the ability to pay.
Furthermore, he pointed out that during the discussion,
Representative Eastman had made reference to repealing the
statute and fixing the statute. He said in reading HB 3002, the
bill seemed to be repealing the statute. He opined that Senate
Bill 26 essentially created a spending cap and asked why the
bill sponsor wanted to repeal it instead of amending it.
1:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that he was not an advocate of
Senate Bill 26 and opined that it had been shown not to work.
He believed that the law should be written in a way that the
legislature could follow it carefully.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ thanked Representative Eastman and clarified for
the public that over the last seven years, the legislature had
reduced the state's contribution to spending by about $500
million while inflation had simultaneously eroded those dollars
by about 5 percent. She stressed that there had been cuts made
to the budget, pointing out that most of the budget growth had
come from federal funds.
^PRESENTATION(S): Overview: Permanent Fund Formula Changes and
Percent of Market Value
PRESENTATION(S): Overview: Permanent Fund Formula Changes and
Percent of Market Value
1:44:58 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the final order of business would
be a presentation by Alexei Painter, LFD, on current PFD- and
POMV-related legislation followed by a presentation from Ms.
Rodell. She explained that the presentation was intended to be
an overview of all the legislation that was currently before the
legislature to help people understand what the bills' financial
impact would be to the state.
1:46:17 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, Director, Legislative Finance Division,
introduced a PowerPoint presentation, titled "PFD and POMV
Legislation" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He
began on slide 2 with a disclaimer that read, "Scenarios and
adjustments in this presentation reflect individual pieces of
legislation. Sponsors may intend these bills to be part of a
larger package of changes." He continued to slide 3, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Review of Modeling Baselines
• Legislative Finance's fiscal model is designed to
show policy makers the longer-term impact of fiscal
policy decisions.
• The baseline assumptions are essentially that
current budget levels are maintained, adjusted for
inflation. Policy changes are then applied against
that baseline.
• Our default is to assume that statutory formulas
will be followed.
1:47:43 PM
MR. PAINTER proceeded to slide 4, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Review of Modeling Baselines (cont.)
Revenue Assumptions
• LFD's baseline revenue assumptions are the
Department of Revenue's Spring Revenue Forecast.
This assumes $61 oil in FY22, growing with inflation
in future years.
DNR oil production forecast projects that Alaska
North Slope production will increase from 459.7
thousand barrels per day in FY22 to 565.5 thousand
barrels per day in FY30.
• For the Permanent Fund, we assume actual FY21
returns and Callan's return assumption, which is 5.86%
for FY22 and 6.20% for FY23 and beyond.
1:48:11 PM
MR. PAINTER advanced to slide 5, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Review of Modeling Baselines (cont.)
Spending Assumptions
• For agency operations, these scenarios assume 50% of
vetoes are restored to the FY22 enacted budget.
Budgets grow with inflation starting in FY23 (2.0% per
Callan).
• For statewide items, the baseline assumes that all
items are funded to their statutory levels beyond
FY22.
This includes School Debt Reimbursement, the REAA
Fund, Community Assistance, oil and gas tax credits.
We assume oil and gas tax credits are unfunded in FY22
but statutorily funded beginning FY23 until the credit
balance is eliminated.
For retirement funding, we are using draft numbers
presented by DOR to the Fiscal Plan Working Group in
July.
We also include a baseline Fund Transfers amount
that represents the ongoing cost of DEC's Spill
Prevention and Response program.
• For the capital budget, we assume the enacted FY22
capital budget, growing with inflation.
• For supplementals we assume $50.0 million per year.
This is based on the average amount of supplemental
appropriations minus lapsing funds each year.
1:49:38 PM
MR. PAINTER reviewed the list of PFD- and POMV-related
legislation on slide 6, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
PFD and POMV Bills In the 32nd Legislature
Constitutional Amendments
• HJR 1 (Rep. Kreiss-Tomkins)
• HJR 7 (Governor Dunleavy)
• HJR 10 (Rep. Tuck)
• SJR 1 (Sen. Wielechoski) (sic)
• SJR 18 (Sen. von Imhof)
Statutory Changes
• HB 37 (Rep. Wool)
• HB 73 (Governor Dunleavy)
• HB 202 (Rep. Merrick)
• HB 3002 (Rep. Eastman)
• HB 3008 (House Ways and Means)
1:50:13 PM
MR. PAINTER proceeded to review each bill beginning with HJR 1
on slide 7, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HJR 1 (Rep. Kreiss-Tomkins)
• Constitutional amendment combining Permanent Fund
principal and earnings reserve into a single account
• Establishes limit of draws from Permanent Fund of 5%
POMV
• Does not deal with PFD
1:50:51 PM
MR. PAINTER summarized the governor's bills on slide 8, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HJR 7/HB 73 (Governor)
• HJR 7 is a constitutional amendment combining
Permanent Fund principal and earnings reserve into a
single account
• HJR7 establishes limit of draws from Permanent Fund
of 5% POMV
• As originally drafted, required that a PFD be paid
according to a statute that was approved by the voters
(as provided in HB 73)
• Governor revised his proposal, which was introduced
as a CS to SJR 6 (the Senate companion). This version
provides:
Constitutional single Permanent Fund account
Limits draws to 5% POMV
Sets PFD as 50% of the POMV draw
Transfers the PCE fund to the Permanent Fund and
adds PCE program as constitutional requirement
1:52:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX sought to clarify whether HJR 7 included
what Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was attempting to accomplish
with HJR 1 with several additional provisions.
MR. PAINTER answered yes.
1:52:55 PM
MR. PAINTER turned to slide 9, which modeled the governor's
constitutional amendment (CSSJR 6). He pointed out that meeting
the dividends contemplated by the governor's plan would require
ERA draws above the POMV in the first two years, after which
would not be allowed under the constitutional amendment. He
characterized it as a "broken plan." He added that under this
plan, the size of the deficits was noteworthy with a baseline
deficit of over $1 billion in FY 23 and FY 24. He further noted
that most plans contemplated by the fiscal policy working group
aimed to solve the budget deficit somewhere between FY 25 and FY
27 by proposing a range of $700 million to $800 million in
policy changes against the baseline, whether that be spending
reductions or revenue increases.
1:55:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his belief that more recently,
the governor would make the argument that new revenue would not
be needed to replace the deficits (represented in red). He
asked Mr. Painter to explain why the governor would make that
argument.
MR. PAINTER conveyed that the governor's 10-year spending plan
included budget reductions over the next several years;
therefore, in addition to the budget not increasing with
inflation, there would be reductions of $100 million each year,
as well as 50 percent funding of the school bond debt
reimbursement program, which would reduce spending below the
baseline. The governor also referenced an additional $300
million of either spending or revenue; however, the source it
was not specified.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that the fiscal policy
working group's conclusion was different than the governor's
regarding the need for new revenue. He asked whether that was a
fair interpretation.
MR. PAINTER declined to speak for the members of the working
group. He acknowledged that the group was a proponent of more
revenue and less budget reductions compared to the governor.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the working group's recommendations
included $25 million to $200 million in cuts implemented over
several years, in addition to $500 million to $775 million in
new revenue.
1:58:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said that's roughly correct.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ highlighted the controversy regarding the term,
"bridge funding," which was used by the governor. She shared
her understanding that bridge funding was essentially an
overdraw of the Alaska Permanent Fund that would require 200
percent of the sustainable draw. Further, it would be drawing
from a fund that was projected to earn 6.2 percent in the
constitutional budget reserve (CBR) over the long term. She
noted that such a move would require an increase in taxes or
further cuts to the budget. She expressed her interest in
seeing specific revenue proposals from the administration to
make progress on the fiscal plan.
2:00:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that under the governor's
plan, the PCE fund would be transferred to the permanent fund
whereas under the fiscal policy working group's plan, it would
remain. Additionally, she asked whether the PCE fund included
energy assistance in addition to community assistance.
MR. PAINTER explained that if there were additional earnings
available in the PCE fund beyond what was needed for the PCE
program, the extra money would go to community assistance and
renewable energy projects. He added that the governor's
proposal, as currently drafted, did not provide for community
assistance to be funded as a constitutional mandate;
accordingly, the entire balance of the fund would be transferred
to the principal of the Alaska Permanent Fund. He added that
under the governor's plan, UGF funds would cover the cost of
community assistance.
2:02:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the renewable energy projects
would be funded under the governor's plan.
MR. PAINTER had not heard any comments from the administration
on the continued funding of those projects.
2:02:20 PM
MR. PAINTER resumed the presentation on slide 10, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HJR 10 (Rep. Tuck)
• Constitutional amendment retaining two- account
structure
• Draws limited to 4% of market value of the fund (no
averaging) but may not exceed net income from the fund
in the previous fiscal year
• Splits draw 50/50 between PFD and general fund
MR. PAINTER continued to slide 11, which provided a 10-year
model of HJR 10. He noted that the deficit figures were
slightly larger than the governor's due to lower draws from the
fund.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ surmised that, unless combined with another
proposal, this plan would not meet the stress test that was
discussed in the fiscal policy working group. She speculated
that HJR 10 could potentially result in the loss of the dividend
if earnings dropped significantly.
MR. PAINTER confirmed that Representative Spohnholz was correct.
2:05:02 PM
MR. PAINTER resumed the presentation on slide 12, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
SJR 1 (Sen. Wielechowski)
• Constitutional amendment combining Permanent Fund
principal and earnings reserve into a single account
• Establishes limit of draws from Permanent Fund of 5%
POMV
• Sets PFD as higher of: (1) current statutory
formula; or (2) 50% of the POMV draw
2:06:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked him to repeat his explanation of
SJR 1.
MR. PAINTER explained that the PFD formula would be the higher
than either 50 percent of SNI or 50 percent of the POMV draw.
Under the scenario of a flat 6.2 percent earnings, the current
statutory formula always paid more than 50 percent of the POMV
draw; however, when volatility is added to the scenario, 50
percent of the POMV draw could be higher than the statutory
formula, as SNI is more volatile than the POMV. He added tat
SJR 1 would essentially set a floor, so that 50 percent of the
POMV would still go out as the dividend in the negative
volatility scenarios.
2:07:05 PM
MR. PAINTER directed attention to slide 13, which provided a 10-
year model of SJR 1. He explained that the larger deficits were
due to the statutory dividend payments.
2:07:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired about the red bars in FY 22
and FY 23.
MR. PAINTER explained that the red bars represented the
assumption that the deficit would be filled by an ERA draw. He
noted that such a decision would be a policy call.
2:08:17 PM
MR. PAINTER advanced to slide 14, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
SJR 18 (Sen. von Imhof)
• Constitutional amendment splitting Permanent Fund
into two accounts: Permanent Fund and Alaska Resource
Ownership Revenue Account (ARORA)
• ARORA established with a transfer equal to the PFDs
paid below the statutory level (about $6.77 billion)
• Royalties currently directed to the Permanent Fund
will be split equally between the Permanent Fund and
ARORA
• 5% POMV from each fund. Permanent Fund POMV goes to
the general fund, ARORA to the PFD fund
MR. PAINTER turned to slide 15, which provided a 10-year model
of SJR 18. He noted that aside from a slight deficit in FY 22,
this proposal would result surpluses beginning at $100 million
in FY 23 that would grow to over $1 billion by FY 28.
2:10:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX sought to confirm that under SJR 18, the
dividend would be paid out of a one-time contribution to the
ARORA fund of $6.77 billion.
MR. PAINTER answered yes, that would constitute the starting
balance for the ARORA account, from which a POMV draw would pay
the dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether it would be separate from the
GF funding of the POMV.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ said, "Correct."
2:11:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to verify that the dividend
portion would have a "life of its own" and grow over time as
royalties came in. Further, he asked whether the dividends were
small under SJR 18.
MR. PAINTER answered yes. He estimated that in FY 24, the
dividend would be under $500.
2:12:17 PM
MR. PAINTER resumed the presentation on slide 16, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 37 (Rep. Wool)
• Retains statutory 5% POMV
• Directs 10% of POMV and 30% of total royalties to
the PFD
• Repeals additional statutory 25% of royalties to the
Permanent Fund
• Repeals Amerada Hess account (funding source for
Alaska Capital Income Fund)
• Establishes a flat income tax of 2.5% Estimated to
raise $580 Million in FY23
2:14:24 PM
MR. PAINTER turned to the 10-year model of HB 37 on slide 17,
highlighting the deficit on FY 22 followed by surpluses
beginning in FY 24 due to the implementation of the income tax.
2:14:53 PM
MR. PAINTER advanced to slide 18, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 202 (Rep. Merrick)
• Retains statutory 5% POMV
• Directs 30% of total royalties to the PFD
MR PAINTER continued to the 10-year model of HB 202 on slide 19,
noting that surpluses would begin immediately in FY 22 growing
to $100 million going forward.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that SJR 18, HB 37, and HB 2002 all
balanced the budget and would produce a surplus based on LFD
assumptions.
2:16:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify how HB 202 would impact
the 25 percent of royalties required to go to the permanent
fund.
MR. PAINTER said it would not affect that statute; thus, 25
percent of royalties would continue going to the permanent fund.
2:16:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to confirm that under HB 37, 25
percent of royalties would still be required to go to the corpus
while 90 percent of the remaining 75 percent would go to the
PFD.
MR. PAINTER said that was his understanding.
2:17:30 PM
MR. PAINTER resumed the presentation on slide 21, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 3002 (Rep. Eastman)
• Repeals statutory POMV draw
• Retains statutory PFD formula
MR. PAINTER continued to slide 21, which provided a 10-year
model of HB 3002.
2:18:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the balance of earnings would
be available for appropriation even though it was not
illustrated on the model shown on slide 21.
MR. PAINTER assumed that the intent of the bill was not to draw
to the GF, as HB 3002 repealed the current draw to the general
fund and did not replace it with another draw. He said if that
was not the bill sponsor's intent, LFD would happily remodel it
with different assumptions.
2:18:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the legislation did not intend to
take a position on how much would be appropriated from the ERA
in any given year. He indicated that the legislature should
determine that in separate legislation.
MR. PAINTER responded that LFD would gladly remodel it showing
the deficits being filled from the ERA.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opined that it had been modeled in a manner that
makes sense and remained consistent with the other modeling.
2:19:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON observed that to filling the deficit
created by HB 3002 would require $3.1 billion.
MR. PAINTER said with or without Senate Bill 26, the ERA could
be drawn from to fill the deficit.
2:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested illustrating that the ERA was
available to draw from.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that if that were to happen, the ERA would
be drained to nothing within several years.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX agreed.
2:21:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said another option would be for the
legislature to appropriate prudently from that account.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ said, "That is true;" however, HB 3002 would
require massive new revenue or massive cuts. Given that the
state UGF budget was just over $4 billion, she pointed out that
it would essentially cut the budget by half to two-thirds.
2:22:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX shared his understanding that a "deficit"
would not accurately describe the scenario, as there would be
money available to cover the gap in spending. He asked Mr.
Painter to elaborate.
MR. PAINTER explained that LFD typically categorized any draws
from a savings account that were not according to a statutory
structure as "deficit spending." He added that whether it was
from the CB, SBR, or ERA, a draw needed balance the budget would
be defined as deficit spending. Alternatively, if there was a
structure in place, such as the POMV or another formula, the
draw would be considered "revenue" rather than deficit spending.
He reiterated that in absence of a statutory plan, LFD would
consider a draw to be deficit spending.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, referring to slide 21, acknowledged that
without appropriating from the ERA, the legislature would have a
deficit of about $2.9 billion in FY 23 under HB 3002. She
pointed out that the delta between the dotted line (representing
the budget) and the revenue would require either cuts, new
revenue, or a combination of the two totaling $2.5 to $3
billion.
2:25:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether LFD could provide modeling
that accounted for "the wealth being generated by our permanent
fund in such a way that better reflects a definition of deficit
spending that would reflect the state on the whole coming out
with less resources after deficit spending has taken place over
a given year."
MR. PAINTER said LFD would consider the income that's available
for appropriation by statute, which was currently the POMV draw,
to be the amount that's revenue and counted towards identifying
a deficit. He opined that whether the state's net position had
increased or decreased was a separate question. He further
noted that adopting the POMV moved the state closer to syncing
its actual cashflow to the statutory structure.
2:29:11 PM
MR. PAINTER resumed the presentation on slide 22, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 3008 (House Ways and Means)
• Retains 5% POMV draw
• Directs 25% of POMV draw to the PFD
MR. PAINTER continued to slide 23, which provided a 10-year
model of HB 3008. He highlighted the deficits in FY 22 through
FY 24 followed by surpluses beginning in FY 25, noting that
there would need to be a funding source or policy changes to
avoid the unstructured draws in the first several years.
2:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to confirm that HB 3008 would
balance the budget, pay a dividend, and require no new revenue.
MR. PAINTER answered yes, beyond the unstructured draws in FY 22
through FY 24.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ added that beginning in FY 25, the state would
be net positive.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said, theoretically, if the people
wanted a constitutionally protected dividend, the services
they've enjoyed, and a dividend starting at $1,300, HB 3008
would appear provide all those deliverables.
2:32:31 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ introduced Ms. Rodell, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation (APFC).
2:32:54 PM
ANGELA RODELL, Chief Executive Officer, introduced a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Alaska Permanent Fund," [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She began on slide 2, which
illustrated the structure of the fund. She noted that if the
legislature were to repeal the creation of the ERA, all the
income being generated from the Alaska Permanent fund would flow
to the GF. She emphasized that APFC ("the corporation") was
responsible for investing and managing the funds entrusted to
its care.
2:35:27 PM
MS. RODELL examined the POMV on slide 4, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Resolutions 03-05 , 04-09
Percent of Market Value
club Supporting a constitutional amendment to limit the
annual Fund payout to not more than a 5% POMV averaged
over a period of 5 years
club A constitutional POMV spending limit, has the
accompanying benefit of assuring permanent inflation
proofing of the entire Fund
2:36:12 PM
MS. RODELL highlighted the Board of Trustees recommitment to a
POMV structure in 2018 on slide 5, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Resolution 18-04
Sustainable Rules- Based Legal Framework for Fund
Transfers
Affirms the importance of formulaic management of
transfers into and out of the ERA to ensure
sustainability and long-term growth of the Fund, by
identifying four key principles:
club Adherence
club Sustainability
club Inflation Proofing
club Real Growth
2:37:12 PM
MS. RODELL detailed Resolution 20-01 on slide 6, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Resolution 20-01
The Board recognizes the essential step taken to
codify an annual, value-based draw from the Fund
through the enactment of SB 26, Chapter 16 SLA 18.
This resolution brings forth additional measures to
enhance the sustainable use of Fund earnings for the
benefit of all generations of Alaskans, including:
club Transform, by constitutional or statutory amendment,
the Alaska Permanent Fund and Earnings Reserve Account
into a single fund and limit the annual draw to the
Fund's long-term real return
club Consider adjustments to the existing rules-based
system governing Fund transfers, if the ERA and
Principal are not combined:
club Periodic Review of Fund Return Assumptions
club ERA Balance Buffer (4x the annual draw)
2:38:12 PM
MS. RODELL turned to slide 7, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Trustees' Paper Volume 9
Successful SWFs operate within a rules-based system
that allows them to perform a combination of saving,
stabilization, and income-generation functions.
This paper proposes a number of reforms that will
strengthen the stability and sustainability of
Alaska's Permanent Fund:
LESSON #1: MISSION CLARITY
LESSON #2: THE IMPORTANCE OF RULES
LESSON #3: SUCCESSFUL ENFORCEMENT OF SAVING RULES
LESSON #4: DESIGNING A POMV SPENDING RULE
LESSON #5: REFORMING THE ERA
2:38:42 PM
MS. RODELL addressed statutory distribution calculations on
slide 9, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Income Based
Sec. 37.13.140. Income.
(a) ? Income available for distribution equals 21
percent of the net income of the fund for the last
five fiscal years, including the fiscal year just
ended,
Sec. 37.13.145. Disposition of income.
(b) ... 50 percent of the income available for
distribution under AS 37.13.140.
Value Based
Sec 37.13.140. Income.
(b) ?The amount available for appropriation is 5.00
percent of the average market value of the fund for
the first five of the preceding six fiscal years,
including the fiscal year just ended
Sec. 37.13.145. Disposition of income.
(e) The legislature may not appropriate from the
earnings reserve account to the general fund a total
amount that exceeds the amount available for
appropriation under AS 37.13.140(b) in a fiscal year.
(f) The combined total of the transfer under (b) of
this section and an appropriation under (e) of this
section may not exceed the amount available for
appropriation under AS 37.13.140(b).
2:43:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked asked whether inflation proofing
covered itself if the draws were calculated on POMV and a five-
year average.
MS. RODELL stated that inflation proofing would be accounted for
if the fund was not a two-account structure. She noted that the
Board of Trustees supported constitutionalizing the POMV to
create a mechanism that naturally inflation proofs itself;
therefore, the fund would no longer rely on appropriation
mechanisms to continue to grow.
2:45:27 PM
MS. RODELL resumed the presentation on slide 10 and highlighted
the distribution calculations that were subject to
appropriation.
2:47:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether theoretically, the statutory
dividend fund transfer calculation under AS 37.13.145(b) could
exceed the POMV calculation under AS 37.13.140(b).
MS. RODELL answered yes, it could be a possibility if there was
a market draw down that substantially lowered the calculation of
the POMV.
MS. RODELL, in response to an additional question from
Representative Prax, directed attention to slide 12. She
pointed out that as of June 30, 2021, the total fund value was
$81,098,900,000 with the principal comprising $60.1 billion and
the ERA comprising $21 billion.
2:51:09 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ returned to slide 9 and highlighted AS
37.13.145(f). She pointed out that during the hearing on HB
3002, Representative Eastman identified the tension in the laws
as it related to the dividend formula. She recalled that the
original version of Senate Bill 26 included a 75/25 split, which
would have resolved the dividend situation at that point in
time. She said, "Hindsight is often 20/20."
2:53:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked how a catastrophic event would affect
the legislature's ability to access the funds if the ERA and the
principal were combined into one account.
MS. RODELL emphasized the importance of having reserves
available for every eventuality, as opposed to a prudent spend
on the permanent fund. She pointed out that if both the ERA and
the principal were rolled into one account, the legislature
would be limited by the constitution on the draw. She said if
there was a catastrophe, there would be various avenues that the
legislature could take to address that issue.
2:55:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX sought to confirm that in theory, $9 billion
was available whereas if the two accounts were combined, only $3
billion or $4 billion would be available.
MS. RODELL pointed out that the hypothetical posed by
Representative Prax assumed that the accounts were rolled up at
their current balances; further, that a portion of the ERA was
not appropriated into one of the other budget reserves in
anticipation of the passage of the constitutional amendment.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, in response to Representative Prax, noted that
several of the proposed constitutional amendments addressed the
permanent fund, none of which had passed. She agreed that all
proposals need to be stress tested and emphasized the importance
of diversifying the revenue stream.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX believed that there may be a liquidity issue
if there were a catastrophic event.
2:57:25 PM
MS. RODELL, in response to Representative Eastman, indicated
that APFC had not identified a target amount for the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the corporation's goal was
for the fund to grow in perpetuity.
MS. RODELL believed the answer was yes.
2:59:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether APFC had discussed a
minimum balance at which point there shouldn't be more taken
from the fund.
MS. RODELL answered no; however, she pointed out that if the
constitutional limit was 5 percent, that would in and of itself
protect the fund by creating a natural spending limit on the
fund.
3:01:08 PM
MS. RODELL, in response to Representative Story, confirmed that
the amount of $12.2 billion in the ERA (as shown on slide 12)
was an adequate buffer to withstand market movements while
maintaining POMV commitments. Additionally, she emphasized the
corporation's commitment to following a rules-based system and
staying within the established spending rules.
3:02:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON addressed the court decision that
identified PCE as a separate fund held by a corporation. From
that decision, he inferred that the state was allowed to create
separate funds outside the GF. He recalled the argument made by
Representative Eastman that the state could effectively evade
the 5 percent rule by appropriating beyond that to things not in
the GF. He asked whether that sounded like a sustainable plan
that could produce the necessary income to provide for the
government.
MS. RODELL indicated that the only way the POMV would continue
to "kick off" the level of income that the state had come to
rely on, was to ensure that the balances under that calculation
continue to be robust. She added that while the legislature was
perfectly within its purview to appropriate the ERA down to
zero, long-term impacts would be realized on the budget going
forward, as the amount of revenue available to the state for
essential purposes would decrease.
3:06:11 PM
MS. RODELL resumed the presentation on slide 13 to contextualize
the importance of the fund to Alaska's economy. She reported
that since inception, realized earnings totaled $76.6 billion.
She proceeded to analyze the distribution of those realized
earnings from FY 17 to FY 21. She pointed out that the POMV
demonstrated that the discipline of spending rules had allowed
for prudent spending while saving enough to generate a healthy
fund that could continue to provide for Alaskans well into the
future.
3:09:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether APFC had performed an
independent analysis on the likelihood of higher inflation;
additionally, he asked whether there had been any discussion on
adjusting the 5 percent to account for potential high inflation.
MS. RODELL stated that the Board of Trustees had not discussed
recommending an adjustment to the spending rule of 5 percent to
account for inflation. However, the board had considered the
impact that high inflation scenarios could have on the
investment performance of the fund and how that could affect
growth going forward.
3:10:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether APFC had the resources to
conduct an independent analysis on the potential of high
inflation in the future.
MS. RODELL said high level analyses had been performed by a risk
group.
3:11:51 PM
MS. RODELL, in response to Representative Eastman, explained
that the goal of the risk scenarios was to ensure that the Board
of Trustees understands the potential risks that could be
incurred under certain conditions with the asset allocation that
had been directed to invest through. She added that the risk
presentations provide likelihoods, or "tail risks," which were
ongoing measurements that the board looks at to ensure prudent
risks are being taken.
3:13:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what concerns APFC would have if
HJR 1 were to pass in its current form with the addition of the
language "there shall be a PFD.
MS. RODELL said her only concern would be the lack of a cap on
the distribution.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that the cap in HJR 1 was currently 5
percent.
3:15:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked for APFC's opinion on an excess
draw and whether the context for an excess draw mattered.
MS. RODELL stated that knowing how much would be taken out of
the fund was very beneficial to APFC. She indicated that the
corporation would like that to continue.
3:18:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether APFC viewed the transfer
of money from the ERA to the corpus as a violation of the 5
percent rule.
MS. RODELL answered no because it was not leaving the fund.
3:19:09 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether the numbers on slide 14, which
showed state revenues and ERA draws from 1969 to 2030, had been
adjusted for inflation and/or population.
MS. RODELL said the data was taken from the state Revenue
Resources book, she offered to follow up with the requested
information.
3:19:43 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ encouraged members to read the Board of
Trustee papers, the latest of which reiterated their
commitment to spending rules.
3:21:32 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was adjourned at
3:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| APFC Presentation 9.1.21.pdf |
HW&M 9/1/2021 1:00:00 PM |
APFC |
| Leg Finance POMV and PFD bills 9.1.21.pdf |
HW&M 9/1/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| POMV-PFD bills comparison table.pdf |
HW&M 9/1/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 3002 Presentation 9.1.21.pdf |
HW&M 9/1/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB3002 |
| Leg Finance POMV and PFD bills CORRECTED 9.1.21.pdf |
HW&M 9/1/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| POMV-PFD bills comparison table CORRECTED.pdf |
HW&M 9/1/2021 1:00:00 PM |