Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/31/2017 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Indirect Expenditures Cost and Recommendations | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 31, 2017
9:01 a.m.
9:01:35 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Dan Stickel, Chief Economist, Economic Research Group,
Department of Revenue; Ky Clark, Economist, Economic
Research Group, Department of Revenue; Alexei Painter,
Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: INDIRECT EXPENDITURES COST AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
^PRESENTATION: INDIRECT EXPENDITURES COST and
RECOMMENDATIONS
9:02:20 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
DAN STICKEL, CHIEF ECONOMIST, ECONOMIC RESEARCH GROUP,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced himself.
KY CLARK, ECONOMIST, ECONOMIC RESEARCH GROUP, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, discussed the presentation "Overview of DOR's
Indirect Expenditure Report, Preliminary Report for FY
2011-FY 2015," (copy on file).
Mr. Clark addressed Slide 4, "Indirect Expenditure Report
Overview":
· Passed in 2014 and signed on July 7, 2014 (House
Bill 306)
· Requires DOR to submit a report to the Legislature
biennially on July 1 detailing indirect expenditures
of all agencies in the State (AS 43.05.095)
· Requires the Legislative Finance Division to provide
a report to the Legislature on the indirect
expenditures of certain agencies before the start of
Legislative Session following the release of DOR's
biennial report
· The first DOR Indirect Expenditure Report was
released the day after the bill was signed, July 8,
2014
· The second DOR Indirect Expenditure Report was
released July 1, 2016
9:05:56 AM
Mr. Clark showed Slide 5, "Indirect Expenditures Defined":
Indirect expenditure: Any foregone revenue by the
state designed to encourage an activity to benefit the
public in the form of a credit, exemption, deduction,
deferral, discount, exclusion, or other differential
allowance.
As defined by AS 43.05.095(d):
· An express provision of state law that results in
foregone revenue for the state by providing:
· A tax credit or other credit
· An exemption, but does not include federal tax
exemptions adopted by reference in AS 43.20.021
· A discount
· A deduction, but does not include costs incurred
in the ordinary course of business that are
deducted in the calculation of a tax under this
title or in the calculation of a royalty or net
profit share payment for a lease issued under AS
38
· A differential allowance
9:06:46 AM
AT EASE
9:06:53 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon conveyed that the documents discussed
during the meeting could be found on the Division of
Legislative Finance webpage, as well as BASIS.
Co-Chair MacKinnon whether the foregone revenue noted on
Slide 5, was revenue that the state was not receiving,
based on what was described in state statute.
Mr. Clark answered in the affirmative. He said that an
indirect expenditure would be described as foregone
revenue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified for the public that what this
meant was that the state was not receiving money for a
particular item. She explained that the money was money the
state could be receiving, were it not for the exclusions
written into statute, which are called indirect
expenditures.
9:08:08 AM
Mr. Clark reviewed Slide 6, "DOR Indirect Expenditure
Report":
· Released July 1, 2016 by DOR
· Provides details on 231 indirect expenditures across
11 departments and agencies, including 78 provisions
administered by DOR
· A cooperative effort between 10 departments and
other participating agencies, coordinated by DOR
· Followed process established in 2014, with improved
presentation and some refinements
Mr. Clark indicated that the indirect expenditure report
had been a collaborative effort between state agencies, and
had been facilitated by the Department of Revenue (DOR). He
specified that the report supplied details on 231 indirect
expenditures across 11 state departments and agencies, 78
of the 231 total expenditures were administered by DOR. He
explained that the department had followed the same process
that had been established in 2014 with the first indirect
expenditure report produced by DOR. He said that minor
improvements had been made to the process, including an
improved presentation that included a more expansive
introduction. He stated that the consistency of the
reporting methodology had been improved.
9:09:59 AM
Mr. Clark turned to Slide 8, "Methodology-Internally":
· Surveyed all Tax Division workgroups and all
divisions within DOR to ensure complete list
· Developed tax database reports to generate DOR data
for the Indirect Expenditure Report
· Developed consistent definition for "Fiscal Year"
given that tax types are mostly on a monthly,
quarterly, or calendar year basis
· Necessary because of time lag in receiving
information for certain tax types (corporate,
mining, et cetera)
· Production tax not impacted by this issue, since
we receive detailed monthly data for production
tax.
Mr. Clark said that the development of the tax database had
been helpful to the department internally by securing all
the data in one place.
9:12:32 AM
Mr. Clark reviewed Slide 9, "Methodology-Internally":
· Internally: Addressing Fiscal Year Issue, cont.
o Determined that the Fiscal Year includes any tax
periods beginning during the fiscal year, using
the "tax period beginning" date
ƒFor example: FY* 2015 corporate tax data
will include any returns for periods
beginning July 2014 -June 2015 (primarily 15
calendar-year returns)
ƒSimilar to how federal tax data is reports
by the Internal Revenue Service
o Because of new parameters, some FY 2015 DOR data
is "unavailable"
ƒSome fiscal year filer returns are not
received until spring 2017
ƒFor example, a corporate tax return
beginning June 2015, with extension, would
be due in March 2017
9:14:34 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether revenue foregone inside of
the report was reflected conservatively inside the report,
thus increasing the reporting number for cost savings.
Mr. Stickel responded that the way that FY 15 had been
defined for the indirect expenditure report had resulted in
an amount of revenue impact beyond what was reflected in
the report. He provided education credits as an example;
for FY 15, there had been approximately $5 million in
education credits claimed in the system, which was an
incomplete number and was above and beyond what was shown
in the book.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to Page 51 of the Indirect
Expenditure Report, January 2017, Legislative Finance
Division, www.legfin.akleg.gov. She noted that the page
showed that the Department of Education and Early
Development, Alaska Student Loan Corp, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education WWAMI Graduate Medical Education
Program had nearly $1.6 million in foregone revenue. She
understood that state statute required that students in the
program be encouraged to come back to Alaska to practice
medicine. She relayed that 50 percent of the financial
support provided by the program would have to be paid back
to the state. She asked whether the number was complete, or
whether there could be trailing numbers that could increase
the cost or revenue impact.
Mr. Stickel thought the LFD number was complete. He pointed
to the committee that there were two indirect expenditure
reports, one was created by DOR, the other by LFD. He
shared that the DOR report was posted at
www.tax.alaska.gov.
9:18:05 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the DOR report was
reviewed in the LFD report.
Mr. Stickel answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reiterated that the LFD report offered a
legislative perspective based in the information provided
by DOR.
Mr. Stickel answered in the affirmative. He elaborated that
the administration surveyed all the agencies within state
government and then produced a report in July of every
other year. He said that LFD then would produce a report of
the DOR report, examining in greater detail the indirect
expenditures for a certain set of departments each year,
making recommendations about the indirect expenditures.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that an overview of all
credits would have been posted to the DOR website from
year-to-year.
Mr. Stickel replied in the affirmative.
9:19:11 AM
Mr. Clark discussed Slide 10, "Methodology-Externally":
Externally:
· DOR met with other departments and agencies and sent
out a survey for the report
· Each agency examined their operations to identify
indirect expenditures and report the required
information
· A few departments identified provisions that did not
actually meet the definition of an "indirect
expenditure"
o Submissions from other departments and agencies
are not independently verified
Mr. Clark relayed that the following slide would show items
that could be confused for indirect expenditures that were
in fact not.
9:20:29 AM
Mr. Clark showed Slide 11, "Methodology-Externally cont.":
Examples of provisions not meeting definition of
"Indirect Expenditure":
· Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
o Identified one potential indirect expenditure;
reduced loan rates. But, it was part of their
normal operations and not "required by
statute." Statutorily, AHFC can set the rates.
· Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development (DCCED):
o Has certain licensing fees, which are set by
statute to cover program costs, that were
reduced for residents vs. non-residents. It was
determined not be foregone revenue, because the
fee differential doesn't affect total revenue.
· University of Alaska (UA):
o Addressed tuition waivers to employees and
dependents; they are a part of the employee's
benefit package, so are not considered foregone
revenue.
o Non-resident vs. Resident tuition; UA is not
discounting the resident tuition rate, rather the
out-of-state student is paying a non-resident
surcharge (so no foregone revenue).
9:22:20 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the DOR report provided a
list of the different agencies, including any feedback,
that had not met the definition of foregone revenue.
Mr. Clark answered in the affirmative. He lamented that the
list had not been included in the report. He shared that
the report contained a list of state agencies that the
department had reached out to who had responded to the
survey, and a list of agencies that had completed the
survey but had reported no indirect expenditures.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood there was no definitive list,
only the examples provided in the report.
Mr. Clark answered in the affirmative.
9:23:46 AM
Mr. Clark turned to Slide 12, "Reported Information":
Each department was required to report the following
information:
· The name of the indirect expenditure
· A brief description
· The statutory authority
· The repeal date, if applicable
· The intent of the legislature in enacting the
statute authorizing the indirect expenditure
· The public purpose served by the indirect
expenditure
· The estimated revenue impact of the indirect
expenditure for the previous five fiscal years
(excluding the fiscal year immediately preceding the
date the report is due)
· The estimated cost to administer the indirect
expenditure, if applicable
· The number of beneficiaries of the indirect
expenditure and who benefits
Mr. Clark noted that the above items were required by
statute to be reported; additionally, the department had
required 2 additional items of information including the
year that the indirect expenditure was enacted, and the
type of indirect expenditure. He said that the department
defined direct expenditures differently, whether a credit,
deduction, or discount, based on the information provided
by the departments.
9:25:36 AM
Senator Micciche spoke to Page 117 of the LFD report, which
listed the indirect expenditure for the royalty
modification for Oogururk Unit. He said that although the
costs were substantial, the likely revenue impacts would be
considerable. He wondered whether offsetting benefits to
the state should be considered in future projections.
Mr. Stickel acknowledged that both sides of the equation
should be examined when evaluating indirect expenditures.
He shared that the department had broadly captured the
benefit of the expenditures in the "public purpose" line on
Page 117, which was to "stimulate increased production on
ANS." He thought that delving into deeper detail to
quantify the benefit would be prudent when considering
making changes to the indirect expenditure.
Senator Micciche felt that there should be a line that
listed the offset financial benefit to the state, and
offered to provide DOR with a list of instances. He thought
that this could replace the "public purpose" line, and was
a valuable benefit that had not been captured in the
report.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how the numbers varied under
Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) versus the
Petroleum Production Tax (PPT).
Senator Micciche said that he would have to research the
question.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether statutory change would be
needed to include the revenue offset of each indirect
expenditure. She noted that some of the projects listed
were foregoing revenue in order to produce a product that
generated revenue. She thought that it was fair to say that
if the indirect expenditure were eliminated for the project
on Page 117, the $26 million could be used for government
operations, but then she countered that consequently the
state would lose the revenue that the credit had been
intended to help generate.
9:29:49 AM
Senator Micciche thought that the numbers in the report
could be more nuanced.
Co-Chair MacKinnon concurred that there were specific items
that had been put into place to create a long-term benefit
for the state and should be noted.
Mr. Stickel concurred, and noted that future slides would
discuss future plans. He shared that DOR was actively
soliciting ideas for how the report could be more useful to
the legislature. He said that DOR was planning to meet with
LFD over summer 2017, to work on improvements to the
report.
9:31:12 AM
Mr. Clark moved to Slide 13, "Overview of DOR's Indirect
Expenditure Report":
· Introduction, discussing the purpose of the report,
what is included in the report, and an explanation
of the limitations of the report
· The indirect expenditures are organized by:
o Departments, alphabetically
ƒDivisions, alphabetically
· Grouped by Program Name (if
applicable)
9:32:51 AM
Mr. Clark viewed Slide 14, "Future Plans":
· Reaching out to the Office of Management and Budget
and the Legislative Finance Division concerning the
next Indirect Expenditure Report
· Compiling feedback and suggestions which may be
incorporated into the next report in Summer 2018
· Discussion with agencies of their ability to provide
more information for certain indirect expenditures
9:33:53 AM
Mr. Stickel reviewed Slide 16,"Recommendations and
Considerations:
· DOR was asked to provide the committee with
recommendations regarding indirect expenditures
· DOR identified several areas for the committee to
consider:
o House Bill 155 from 2015-2016
o Largest indirect expenditures overall
o Largest indirect expenditures by department
o Review of recommendations produced by the
Legislative Finance Division
ƒIndirect Expenditures were reviewed in
both January 2015 and January 2017
o Fee Setting Authority
Mr. Stickel reminded the committee that the suggestions
were not formal recommendations to change or repeal any
individual indirect expenditures.
9:34:32 AM
Mr. Stickel looked at Slide 17, "House Bill 155 from 2015-
2016":
· The following indirect expenditures were addressed
in a proposed bill:
o Tobacco Products Tax
ƒGives a four-tenths of one percent
deduction to cover the expense of account
and filing the return for the tobacco tax
ƒFY 2015 revenue impact of $54,053
o Cigarette Tax
ƒGives a discount of up to $50,000 as
compensation for affixing stamps to packs
of cigarettes
ƒFY 2015 revenue impact of $360,326
o Motor Fuel Tax
ƒGives a timely filing credits of 1% of the
total monthly tax due to a maximum of $100
ƒFY 2015 revenue impact of $62,590
o Large Passenger Vessel Gambling Tax Deduction
ƒAllows a deduction of federal and
municipal taxes paid from gambling gross
income
ƒRevenue impact is unknown
9:36:14 AM
Mr. Stickel turned to Slide 18, "Largest Indirect
Expenditures":
· Oil & Gas Tax Credits (FY16 = $598 million)
· Mining License Tax -Depletion Deduction (FY14 = $32
million)
· Insurance: all programs -Lower Tax Rate (DCCED*)
(FY15 = $13 million)
· Insurance: all programs -Deduction from premiums
written for claims paid (DCCED*) (FY15 = $13
million)
· Commercial Passenger Vessel Taxes -Tax Reduction for
Local Levies (FY15 = $13 million)
· Multiple Tax Programs -Film Production Credit (FY15
= $9 million; credit phasing out under current law)
· Motor Fuel Tax -Foreign Flight Exemption (FY15 =
$8.6 million)
· Sport Fishing, Hunting & Trapping Senior Discount
(FY15 = $6.8 million)
Mr. Stickel informed the committee that the Film Production
Credit had been repealed, with credits still working their
way through the system.
9:38:16 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the committee was crafting a
tax credit bill, and asked that Mr. Stickel forward any
ideas to her office.
9:38:45 AM
Mr. Stickel discussed Slide 19, "Recommendations from
Legislative Finance":
· There are recommendations made by Legislative
Finance Division in both their 2015 & 2017 Indirect
Expenditure Reports
· 2015 Report
o Recommended 17 indirect expenditures be
terminated
o Recommended 33 indirect expenditures be
reconsidered
o Recommended 24 indirect expenditures be
reviewed
o Recommended 37 indirect expenditures be
continued
· 2017 Report
o Recommended 2 indirect expenditures be
terminated
o Recommended 13 indirect expenditures be
reconsidered
o Recommended 3 indirect expenditures be reviewed
o Recommended 48 indirect expenditures be
continued
Mr. Stickel expanded that in total, LFD had identified 92
indirect expenditures had been recommended for review in
some capacity.
9:39:33 AM
Senator von Imhof asked whether there was a way to compile
the recommendations into an easily navigable spreadsheet.
Co-Chair MacKinnon indicated that a spreadsheet for some of
the items had already been established, but agreed that it
would be helpful if the department provided an Excel
spreadsheet for easier review of the recommendations.
9:41:34 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop queried how many hours it took the
department to prepare the indirect expenditure report.
Mr. Stickel specified that the task required a couple of
months of dedicated work by one economist, and then a part-
time project for the remainder of the year. He stated that
the report took several hundred employee hours within the
department.
9:42:11 AM
Senator von Imhof lauded the report as easy to navigate and
informative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that all the information
contained in the report was very important. She reiterated
that an Excel spreadsheet could make the book even more
useful.
Mr. Stickel reported that the division had the data in an
Excel spreadsheet, and would be happy to work with the
committee to create a finely tuned document that met
committee specifications.
Co-Chair MacKinnon said that she would request the
spreadsheet from LFD.
9:44:18 AM
Senator Micciche commented that some recommendations were
based on what was currently known. He noted Page 69, which
listed the indirect expenditure of the inspection fee
exemption for hair and nail salon operators. He pointed out
that DOR had recommended charging a fee, he thought that a
policy of self-compliance, and self-inspection, would be
more appropriate.
9:45:10 AM
AT EASE
9:46:03 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Micciche stated that DOR had provided a valuable
report, but that the committee had suggestions for making
it more effective. He said that the legislature could
explore different ways to fund programs that were of less
cost to the state and to licensees.
Mr. Stickel clarified that the division's role at DOR was
to identify the universe of indirect expenditures, while
the LFD drilled down into a certain subset of that universe
for each of their reports and then made recommendations. He
differed conversation to any specific recommendation to
LFD.
9:47:29 AM
Mr. Stickel looked at Slide 20, "Fee Setting Authority":
· Legislature has granted fee setting authority to
certain agencies, for example:
o Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities
ƒAlaska Marine Highway (AMHS): foregone
revenue related to AMHS discounts amounted
to over $4.7 million in FY 2015
o University of Alaska
ƒScholarship awarding authority
ƒWestern Undergraduate Exchange
ƒSenior Citizen Tuition Waiver
o A comprehensive review would likely identify
other examples
· Discounts offered by agencies with fee setting
authority may not qualify as "indirect expenditures"
since they are not an "express provision of state law"
Mr. Stickel relayed that DOR was aware of areas of foregone
revenue in the state that did not meet the statutory
definition of indirect expenditure, one of which was fee
setting authority.
9:49:15 AM
Senator Micciche thought a large area of revenue impact was
discounted loan rates [page 88 - 91 in the 2017 LFD IER].
He thought there was likely a federal program that could
help with to offset the cost of the program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon suggested that the issue could be
discussed with LFD to further the understanding of how the
state's revenue stream was being affected by different
state statutes that had been implemented over time.
9:51:30 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked the testifiers for their
presentation.
9:52:02 AM
AT EASE
10:00:19 AM
RECONVENED
ALEXEI PAINTER, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE
DIVISION, addressed questions that had been raised by the
committee during the previous presentation. He confirmed
that LFD had a sortable Excel document that had been
prepared for the report issue two years prior, which he
could resend to committee members. He said that the same
document could be updated to reflect the most current
report and distributed to members. He noted that the DEC
provisions identified by Senator Micciche were a good
example of provisions that had an offset; the federal
government required the state to have the discount, and
funded it, in order for the state to offer the loan
program. He furthered that it was not revenue that the
state could receive because it was a condition of the
federal program. He felt it should not have been in the
report, but that DEC had included it in an attempt to he
thorough. He added that due to budget cuts DEC no longer
provided inspections for hair and nail salons, which was
why the recommendation had been made to reconsider the
structure that statutorily mandated inspection without
offering a funding source.
10:02:13 AM
Senator Micciche thought that the report could be
"scrubbed" for clarity. He believed that self-certification
would take the cost away from the state and the licensee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that creation of a table that
highlighted the offset funding could be helpful.
10:03:57 AM
Mr. Painter discussed the presentation "Overview of
Legislative Finance Division Indirect Expenditure Reports,"
(copy on file).
Mr. Painter addressed Slide 2, "Agencies in 2015 Report":
• Commerce, Community and Economic Development
• Fish and Game
• Health and Social Services
• Labor and Workforce Development
• Revenue Legislative
Mr. Painter detailed that LFD made their recommendations
for select agencies, every two years, based on the DOR
reports.
10:04:31 AM
Mr. Painter discussed Slide 3, "Summary of 2015
Recommendations":
• Terminate: 17 provisions
- Total known revenue impact of $5 million (in
FY14)
- Three provisions had unknown revenue impact
• Modify or review: 59 provisions
• Continue: 37 provisions
• No recommendation: 25 provisions
Mr. Painter noted that there had been some area of statute
that LFD had felt deserved a closer look od the entire fee
structure, which added to the 59 provisions suggested for
modification or review. He noted that the legislature had
modified the fee schedule since the report was issued. He
added that many of the provisions of the Mining License Tax
dated back to statehood, which made it difficult to
determine whether they met current legislative intent as
the structure as most likely out-of-date. He detailed that
the 25 provisions that had no recommendation were because
LFD did not believe that the item was an actual indirect
expenditure, or because there had been insufficient
information. He noted that, for example, some of the tax
credits with very few recipients, had confidential revenue
impacts.
10:06:40 AM
Mr. Painter turned to Slide 4, "2015 Report Key Points":
• Did not review oil tax credits, which had been
modified a year before
• 1 "terminate" item (obsolete exploration incentive)
repealed in HB 247
• 4 other "terminate" items were in HB 155, which
passed House in 2016 but not Senate
• 6 "terminate" items are in Corporate Income Tax
• 3 "terminate" items are in Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission
Mr. Painter detailed that LFD had prepared the report in
the fall of 2014, at which time the oil tax structure had
been undergoing a referendum, and had recently been
modified by the legislature.
10:07:50 AM
Mr. Painter spoke to Slide 5, "Agencies in 2017 Report":
• Administration
• Education and Early Development (including Alaska
Student Loan Corporation and Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education)
• Natural Resources
• Transportation
• Judiciary
• Plus review of the Education Tax Credit, which is
scheduled to sunset at the end of 2018.
Mr. Painter noted that he had overlooked putting Department
of Environmental Conservation on the list on Slide 5. He
pointed out that the Education Tax Credit had been reviewed
because LFD felt that it was important that a detailed
recommendation be made for the credit which was scheduled
to sunset at the end of 2018. He shared that the credit had
not been reviewed in the first report because it had been
modified by the legislature that year, making it too early
to evaluate the impact.
10:08:27 AM
Mr. Painter showed Slide 6, "Summary of 2017
Recommendations":
• Terminate: 2 provisions
- Unknown revenue impact
• Modify or review: 13 provisions
• Continue: 56 provisions
• No recommendation: 6 provisions
10:08:52 AM
Mr. Painter discussed Slide 7, "2017 Report Key Points":
• Some items do not have revenue generation as a goal
("fix-it" tickets)
• Others have authority to set fee structure (Marine
Highway)
• Remainder are mostly routine (senior discounts, fee
waivers for disabled veterans, etc.)
• Some provisions in DEC and DNR could be reviewed
Mr. Painter explained that some items were not considered
indirect expenditures because their main goal was not to
generate revenue. He said that in 2019, all the remaining
agencies were up for indirect expenditure review; however,
there were no remaining agencies that had identified
indirect expenditures. He announced that LFD would not
produce a 2019 report, but would begin the cycle over again
in 2021 - starting with DOR.
10:11:00 AM
Senator Micciche appreciated the recommendation to review
the Alaska Marine Highway System children's discounted
tariffs, employee and annual passes, and the underage
discounted tariffs. He thought that more cuts should be
made to the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether any of the provisions for
the marine highway were part the employee bargaining unit.
Senator Micciche did not believe that the three he
mentioned were related to a bargaining unit.
10:13:27 AM
AT EASE
10:14:38 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:15:39 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 013117 LFD IE Report Overview SFin.pdf |
SFIN 1/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
Operating Budget FY18 |
| 013117 Senate Finance - DOR IER Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 1/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
Operating Budget FY18 |
| 013117 Alaska Indirect Expenditure Report FY11-FY15.pdf |
SFIN 1/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
Operating Budgt FY18 |
| 013117 2017 Indirect Expenditure Report January 2017.pdf |
SFIN 1/31/2017 9:00:00 AM |
Operating Budget FY18 |