Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
07/08/2019 09:00 AM Senate BICAMERAL PERMANENT FUND WORKING GROUP
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 | |
| Presentations from Working Group Teams | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
BICAMERAL PERMANENT FUND WORKING GROUP
July 8, 2019
9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes (via teleconference)
Senator Bert Stedman
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Kelly Merrick (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donald Olson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Harriet Drummond
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATIONS FROM WORKING GROUP TEAMS
- "Statutory $3,000 Dividend"
- "Alaska with a $1,600 dividend"
- "A Surplus Permanent Fund Dividend for 2019"
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SORCHA HAZELTON, Staff
Representative Kelly Merrick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a white paper for a surplus
dividend on behalf of Representative Kelly Merrick.
RANDY RUARO, Staff
Senator Bert Stedman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a white paper on the surplus
dividend amount report on behalf of Senator Stedman.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:04:48 AM
CO-CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Bicameral Permanent Fund
Working Group meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Senate members
present at the call to order were Senators Stedman, Hughes (via
teleconference), and Co-Chair Bishop.
Senators Wielechowski and Gray-Jackson were also present.
9:06:43 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSTON announced House Bicameral Permanent Fund
Working Group members present were Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, Wool, and Merrick (via teleconference). Representatives
Hannan and Drummond were also present.
9:06:58 AM
CO-CHAIR STEDMAN commented that he was out of state when the
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group previously met on
6/28/19.
^Presentations from Working Group Teams
Presentations from Working Group Teams
9:07:43 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the only item on the agenda would be
presentations from the working group teams. He said that he
would start with the full statutory permanent fund dividend
presentation by Senator Hughes and Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins.
9:08:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS presented the white paper on the
statutory $3,000 permanent fund dividend on behalf of the team.
He asked his co-author, Senator Hughes, to weigh in with
comments or corrections.
He referred to the work product titled "Statutory Permanent Fund
Dividend" dated July 7, 2019. He said the co-authors, Senator
Hughes and himself, wanted to emphasize several points, some of
which were not in the work product but merit emphasis. He
characterized this working group team as having a constructive
working relationship and a healthy tension that led to
discussions. Some statements in the document may have more
equity for one co-author than the other, but they ultimately
approached this task with a consensus and concurrence mindset.
He related that a huge amount of material was cut [from Senator
Hughes' report titled "Statutory Permanent Fund Dividend,
Permanent Fund Working Group Assignment," dated June 27, 2019]
because they could not reach agreement, but it was done so in a
respectful manner. He commented that if the footnotes were
eliminated, their co-authored white paper might reach the two-
page limit. He recognized Buddy Whitt, staff to Senator Hughes,
and his staff, Kevin McGowan, for their assistance.
9:09:44 AM
SENATOR HUGHES also recognized Sonja Kawasaki, staff to Senator
Wielechowski, for her efforts to assist the team by providing
background and citations. Although the appendix is not part of
the report, she said that it was attached to her original report
[dated June 27, 2019] and is relevant to the July 7, 2019
report. She said she would also make it available to members.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to page 3 that has a list
of appendices. He said he would make certain these items are
made available [online as PFG meeting documents at
www.akleg.gov/basis].
9:11:13 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said considerable time was spent on the white
paper, including that the co-authors spent about five hours and
made numerous calls to finalize the report.
9:11:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS began with a broad summary
statement. As co-authors of the white paper for the statutory
permanent fund dividend, he and Senator Hughes considered the
socio-economic impacts of the statutory $3,000 dividend in
isolation, independent of other budget decisions. Most members
would agree that the permanent fund dividend (PFD) is a positive
and powerful institution in Alaska. Some bullet points in the
white paper speak to the nuances and complexities of the PFD but
all things being equal, Alaskans having $3,000 extra dollars is
seen as generally positive. The co-authors also reviewed
research, primarily from the UAA Institute of Social and
Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage that
quantifies or evaluates the effects of the PFD as an institution
in the State of Alaska.
He said that the fund sources probably reflect the trajectory of
this working group, the legislature, and the state as a whole.
[The Division of Legislative Finance], the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Commonwealth North, and many others have
evaluated this topic. A basic tension exists between the size of
the permanent fund dividend, the size of the operating budget,
and the amount of overall state revenue. The co-authors did not
discover a fourth missing variable. They agreed that of all of
the available fund sources for a statutory $3,000 PFD,
overdrawing or overspending the permanent fund in excess of the
Percent of Market Value (POMV) was the least desirable or the
worst possible option. The co-authors have different
perspectives on the balance of fund sources, but they did agree
on that point, he said.
9:14:47 AM
SENATOR HUGHES directed attention to the appendix list at the
top of page 3. In addition to the figures and analysis provided,
the co-authors applied the same items to the short-term
financials for a full statutory PFD based on the budget before
the legislature. In addition, they analyzed estimated figures
based on OMB's right-sized budget for FY2020. It was based on
the data from the National Council of State Legislatures' (NCSL)
national average of state and federal funding plus 50 percent.
Further, they did additional runs using OMB's "50/50 POMV based
on the current FY 2020 budget" and the "50/50 POMV based on the
FY2021 (Barnhill) right-sized budget."
9:15:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned that the co-authors also
discussed potential revenue sources to pay a full permanent fund
dividend versus the sustainability of the permanent fund. The
team was tasked with the necessity of a grand compromise that
would reflect the existence and validity of each of the three
major perspectives in Alaska: 1) pay the full statutory PFD
funded through operating budget reductions; 2) pay the full PFD
funded by raising revenues; and 3) reduce the size of the PFD to
reflect a balance between the operating budget and revenues.
Although he and Senator Hughes were not necessarily in the same
camp, they agreed that to work, a grand compromise must reflect
the validity of the perspectives and equity from all three
groups. Furthermore, the co-authors believe there is a
mathematical imperative and an unsustainability with existing
fund sources. This means that the state does not have the funds
from existing fund sources to continue on an interim basis, so
it is important that the grand compromise happens this year.
9:18:13 AM
SENATOR HUGHES pointed out that she and Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins had a slight difference in their perspectives. She
suggested that unsustainability from Representative Kreiss-
Tomkin's perspective meant that the state cannot continue to pay
the current PFD. However, she would frame it from the point of
view that it was due to an unsustainable budget. She offered her
belief that the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA) was sufficient to
continue to pay the PFD. However, she agreed that it must all be
considered together.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that this also speaks to the
three viewpoints stated in the report [on pages 3-4.
(1) the budget itself is unsustainable and needs to be
reduced to exist within the current level of revenues
thereby allowing payment of a statutory PFD;
(2) the size of the PFD is unsustainable and must be
changed in order to fund services; and
(3) Alaska needs to enact more revenue to pay a
statutory PFD and to fund services.
He said that as Senator Hughes pointed out, a political process
consideration for Alaskans and the legislature would ideally
mean passing a proposal this year to allow a full year of
review, deliberation, and dialogue with Alaskans prior to the
2020 election cycle. This would be preferable to trying to
introduce something in 2020. The co-authors agreed that any
proposal should have an element of unbreakability to settle the
question and avoid the year-to-year tug of war that occurs with
the PFD. A constitutional amendment or statutory change should
be a tool employed as part of the compromise to provide that
unbreakability and generational certainty for the permanent fund
dividend. Therefore, legislators should forward the solution
this year. Constitutional amendments must be ratified by the
voters so passing a proposal this year would provide a full
year's time for dialogue and deliberation with Alaskans.
Otherwise, the legislature could pass something in May 2020 and
have a bum-rush through the summer up to the fall election cycle
to hold that conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that he and Senator Hughes
would like the record to reflect something else not in the
report, which is PFG eligibility. Although this matter is not
core to any of the questions, the PFG should consider PFD
eligibility and make recommendations since eligibility is
interrelated to the broader and bigger questions. He commented
that was a side point of concurrence.
9:21:41 AM
SENATOR HUGHES emphasized the importance of reviewing
eligibility requirements particularly if any changes are made to
current statutes. If the historic formula were to be adjusted
downward and fewer people were eligible, it would help increase
the PFD and make it more palatable for the public. She
highlighted some positives in the report's bullet points that
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins did not specifically point out.
She encouraged members and the public to read the specific
points, no matter where individual legislators are on the scale.
She said that the co-authors strived to make [the white paper]
readable.
9:23:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS and Senator Hughes acknowledged
the excellent process and working relationship.
9:23:34 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSTON said she appreciated the well thought out
white paper and was grateful that the team reached agreement on
a number of issues. She offered her belief that this report
would be helpful for the finance committees as the legislature
moves forward on this issue.
9:24:10 AM
SENATOR HUGHES added that she mentioned at the last meeting that
she submitted a longer document under the SJR 5 document and
appendices were available online.
9:24:56 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP echoed Co-Chair Johnston's comments.
CHAIR BISHOP announced the next presentation would be a white
paper on a surplus permanent fund dividend by Senator Stedman
and Representative Merrick.
9:25:22 AM
SENATOR STEDMAN deferred to his staff, Randy Ruaro, and
Representative Merrick's staff, Sorcha Hazelton to deliver the
report.
9:26:05 AM
SORCHA HAZELTON, Staff, Representative Kelly Merrick, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, said the team comprised of Senator
Stedman and Representative Merrick was tasked with analyzing the
impacts of a surplus dividend. In doing so, they assumed that
the POMV draw would first fund state government and legislation,
the operating budget, and the capital budget. Anything left in
the general fund would be divided among Alaskans. The permanent
fund dividend amount would be based on a number of calculations.
The Legislative Finance Division proposed scenarios such that
the PFD would range from $865 to nearly $3,000. The white paper
did not consider a [$1,600 or $3,000] PFD since those were
assigned to other working group teams. They also assumed a goal
of no deficit. If this proposal became a policy of the
legislature, it would be sustainable since the permanent fund
dividends would always be paid after funding state government.
The co-authors did not necessarily view the surplus dividend as
the best option, but it would result in budgetary
sustainability.
She said the economic impacts included in the white paper were
not necessarily tied to a specific dividend amount. She reviewed
the social impacts, which she said were less than those
highlighted in other papers. An ISER report suggests that a
lower PFD amount would result in lower substance abuse crime.
That was the only impact that was different than the other white
papers, she said.
9:28:31 AM
RANDY RUARO, Staff, Senator Bert Stedman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, added that the surplus dividend model
suggests a higher priority should be placed on funding state
government, with the permanent fund dividend being paid with any
remaining revenue. However, all state government spending is not
optional since some court cases mandate funding. This includes
funding education [Moore v. State of Alaska] and the Kasayulie
case. Since some level of funding is required by Article VII of
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, there is not a pure
option between state spending and paying a dividend. He agreed
that the surplus dividend option was a sustainable choice and
the legislature had a policy choice to determine what to fund
first.
9:30:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK added that unless the legislature also
has a conversation about a spending cap, the size of government
will grow, and nothing will be left for a permanent fund
dividend.
9:30:45 AM
SENATOR STEDMAN pointed out that the legislature has a spending
limit and it has not erased the dividend for the last 30 years.
He said the concept of using surplus revenue in any given year
for a dividend is part of the puzzle or one of the building
blocks. He suggested that the legislature could go north from
there as it continues to look to the longevity of the permanent
fund to ensure it remains in place for future generations. He
said he did not think that the legislature would ever eliminate
the permanent fund dividend.
9:31:56 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSTON said she was impressed with all three white
papers and that the $3,000 PFD report suggests that the
existence of the permanent fund dividend had given the permanent
fund life. It has protected the fund from being used for other
purposes, which would otherwise dissipate the fund. She
characterized it as a good check and balance.
She asked whether the proposal for a net dividend had the same
type of check and balance and if it presented the legislature
with the stress level needed to restrain government spending.
For example, she asked whether legislators would be inclined to
cut the budget in order to pay a higher permanent fund dividend
under that proposal.
SENATOR STEDMAN answered that the permanent fund dividend is
funded via the earnings reserve account of the permanent fund,
which was not how it was initially structured. This created the
intent to have the public pay attention and encourage the
legislature not to spend the permanent fund.
He cautioned members not to forget that the permanent fund was
created to help the state with its financial challenges after
the oil basin was depleted or gone. It has done that, he said.
He acknowledged that some tension exists between the dividend
and the operating budget. He personally prefers a predictable
and robotic structured process, in which the permanent fund
dividend would be paid out regardless of the fiscal situation in
any given year. He said that could be created by restructuring
the formula. He said that the legislature was on the right track
for many years and he hoped that once the legislature
restructured the dividend formula it would stand for another
thirty or forty years. He urged the legislature and the PFG to
have that as a goal.
9:34:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK said that what Co-Chair Johnston alluded
to does give Alaskans an incentive to be involved in the
process. However, she respectfully disagreed with Senator
Stedman. She reiterated her earlier point that unless current
government spending changed, the cost of government would slowly
eat away at the funds and nothing would be left. She offered her
belief that this viewpoint was shared by many House minority
members.
9:35:53 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP recognized that Senator von Imhof joined the
meeting earlier. He advised members that Senator Olson was
enroute Juneau via Alaska Airlines and would arrive sometime
soon.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced that the final presentation by Senator
Olson and Representative Wool was to consider an option based on
a $1,600 dividend. He asked Representative Wool to present the
white paper based on a $1,600 dividend.
9:36:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he would read the white paper report
since many people did not have a copy. He explained that he and
Senator Olson were tasked with considering the $1,600 PFD,
including reviewing the economic impact, social impact, and
funding sources. He acknowledged that others have identified the
value of having a permanent fund dividend, including that it can
lift people out of poverty. The first presentation indicated
some disagreement about the ancillary impact on the budget if
the legislature were to pay a full permanent fund dividend [of
$3,000 in 2019]. He emphasized the other report pointed out the
effect the PFD has on crime. When the permanent fund dividend is
initially paid out property crime decreases, but substance abuse
increases. He said he was unsure what to make of that except
that perhaps when the dividend is paid people do not need to
steal to obtain their substances for a period of time.
9:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL read the working group report, "Alaska with
a $1,600 dividend."
Introduction:
The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC, or APF)
began disbursing dividends in 1982. Since that time
the Permanent Fund has become a fixture in Alaska
society. This Working Group has convened because
points of view differ greatly on what the future of
the Permanent Fund should look like. Regardless of
one's stance most agree that the Permanent Fund has
changed the way Alaskans perceive the role of their
government over the years since its establishment.
Notably, Alaska does not have any kind of a broad-
based tax, such as an income or sales tax as a source
of revenue, and the Permanent Fund is the only fund of
its kind that delivers dividend payments directly to
its citizens. The Permanent Fund dividend program
wasn't created as a needs-based program to inject cash
into the hands of low income families, nor was it
created with a percentage of overall income as a
parameter, it was created as a way to keep citizens
more involved in the workings of the Permanent Fund
and to incentivize them to prevent the government from
reckless spending down of the fund that is meant to
provide for generations to come.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that the dividend was unique to
Alaska. However, he wondered how other sovereign wealth funds
stay in existence without a dividend. He recalled that Norway
was often cited as a country with a sovereign fund that was
doing quite well. He remarked that the 5.25 POMV or 5.00 POMV
was another way to keep Alaska's permanent fund going.
9:39:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that when the legislature talks about
reducing the permanent fund, the percentage of income is often
cited since a low-income person losing $1,000 would be more
significantly impacted. However, when the permanent fund
dividend was created, it was not billed as a certain percentage
of anyone's income. Instead, it was built on longevity. However,
basing it on longevity was ruled unconstitutional, so it became
a flat dividend. The first dividend was approximately $300, he
said.
9:40:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL continued with "Economic Impacts.
Economic impacts: A 1984 paper published by UAA's
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
titled "The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program:
Economic Effects and Public Attitudes" outlines many
positive economic impacts of the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) program and described general support
among Alaskans for the program. The report finds that
lower-income households are more greatly impacted by
the dividend program than higher income households.
Adjusted for inflation, the average payout of the
dividend has been about $1100 since its inception.
Actual payment amounts range from about $300 in the
beginning to a high of just over $2000 in 2015. The
amount of $1600 was the amount paid out in 2018 and is
higher than the average of the dividend payment amount
over the last 10 years. Although there are certainly
positive economic impacts of putting $1.5B into the
economy there are also negative outcomes. Anecdotally,
we know in recent times many more purchases are done
online and go to companies headquartered outside of
Alaska, so the money often does not stay in Alaska to
help local businesses. Even purchases of airline
tickets and box-store purchases have little effect on
the local economy.
He corrected an error, noting that the report says the figures
were "adjusted for inflation." However, the permanent fund
dividend figures in his report were not adjusted for inflation.
If so, the average amount would be $1,600 to 1,700, he said.
When the dividend is paid, there is likely a short-term bump in
some employment, but most of the PFD is spent on box-store
purchases or airline tickets, he said.
9:41:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL continued with "Social Impacts."
Social impacts: As a sovereign wealth fund the Alaska
Permanent Fund is something of an anomaly, being the
only one to disperse dividends. This has created a
unique perspective about the purpose of the fund among
Alaskan residents, which has been noted by Angela L.
Cummine of The University of Oxford. In a research
article published in Basic Income Studies, Volume 6,
issue 1 "Overcoming Dividend Skepticism: Why the
World's Sovereign Wealth Funds Are Not Paying Basic
Income Dividends," general support of universal income
is offered: "The PFD program runs irrespective of
whether the State of Alaska is in surplus or deficit.
Also, Universal Income programs are generally needs-
based so that they help those that need the income and
don't go out to every man, woman and child as the PFD
does."
Every year, at least 25% of mineral resource royalties
must be put into the corpus or principal of the
Permanent Fund, regardless of whether Alaska can
balance its budget. During several years over the past
decade, the APF has grown while the state budget of
Alaska has faced deficits. Despite a deficit in 2000,
the Legislature appropriated an extra $250 million for
the Permanent Fund principal from the earnings
reserve. From the Norwegian perspective, such an
arrangement means the APF is not achieving its purpose
of being a savings fund. The savings are built on a
fiscal illusion of surplus where the obligation to pay
dividends becomes detrimental to the long-term
financial health of the state. The Legislature becomes
constrained, as the dividend becomes an expected
component of an individual's income. An October 2003
poll by Dittman Research Corp. found that 64% of
Alaskans believed that they were entitled to their
dividend, even if Alaska has a budget deficit (Lewis,
2004, P. 81)".
Middle ground can be found in this debate; there are
options to provide funding for adequate state services
such as K12 education, public safety, infrastructure,
Alaska Marine Highway System, and Pioneer Homes, and
still provide funding for a reasonable, sustainable
Permanent Fund dividend program to disburse checks to
eligible Alaskans to spend as they desire.
He added that he has since learned that not all universal income
programs were needs-based.
9:43:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL turned to the funding sources. He stated
that at the time this white paper was written, the budget
contained enough for about a $900 permanent fund dividend.
Funding sources: What funding sources are needed to
get to a $1600 PFD? With the operating budget that the
House and Senate passed to the Governor, there exists
a $600 million surplus, which would allow for a $1000
PFD. To reach $1600, we'd need an additional $400
million
Where available funding sources are to get the needed
$400 million?
1. Permanent Fund earnings reserve account
2. General Fund
3. CBR
4. Instituting a school head tax
5. Abolishment of oil tax credits
6. Instituting Income Tax
Given the above sources, it seems the CBR is the only
one that can be achieved. Tapping into the earnings
reserve goes against [Senate Bill] 26 and also will
overdraw the fund and put it at risk. Tapping into the
general fund will cut programs beyond a reasonable
level. Any type of tax increase is very difficult
politically and likely will be vetoed by the Governor.
9:44:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that [Governor Dunleavy's vetoes
to the operating budget were just released] and they were
approximately $400 million. Many legislators have heard these
cuts have created a bit of a backlash, he said.
9:45:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL turned to opportunity costs. He pointed out
a typo and read, "It is NOT obtainable without making cuts to
state operations ?." He continued.
Opportunity cost or gains with that level of dividend:
A $1,600 dividend is a negotiated amount and doesn't
directly correlate to any specific equation. It
matches the dividend disbursed in 2018. It is [not]
obtainable without making cuts to state operations
because we don't foresee having a surplus of $1
billion for PFD checks given our current
revenue/budget situation.
9:45:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL turned to the last section, "New equation
proposal from Rep. Wool." He clarified that this proposal did
not reflect Senator Olson's viewpoint.
New equation proposal from Rep. Wool:
If an equation is needed for a $1600 PFD, I may have
something that strikes a good compromise.
[House Bill] 132 is a bill I introduced that would use
oil revenue for the basis of the PFD and not use the
earnings of the fund itself. This would allow the PFD
to fluctuate as the price and production of oil does
and would only allow large checks to be paid out as
long as large revenue was coming into the state from
the resources that we export. This would prevent the
state from being obligated to pay a large PFD in the
event that oil revenue is low, similar to the
situation we are in now.
I understand that many people are reluctant to make
such a large change in how we calculate the PFD and
feel that the PFD should be more of a guaranteed
disbursement regardless of state resource revenue.
This answers the question: "Should we pay out a PFD
check if oil revenue goes to zero?" Some would answer
no and in that case a PFD based on oil revenue is
appropriate. HB132 uses the value of 40% of oil
revenue, which would generate a PFD of about $1400
based on this year's oil revenue.
If people feel that a PFD check should be disbursed
even if oil revenue is zero, then I suggest the "20:20
Plan." The 20:20 plan would use a value of 20% of oil
revenue and 20% of POMV draw to both contribute to the
PFD check. The POMV draw value is very stable and
predictable and isn't as volatile as oil revenue and
would provide a guaranteed base for the PFD. The oil
component would add to the POMV portion depending on
how the state's #1 industry is performing that year.
People equate the PFD to oil revenue and creating a
more substantial link to oil and possibly gas
production is a good way to keep the public involved.
The 20:20 plan would yield a $1600 PFD using current
revenue and POMV values.
9:48:15 AM
At-ease.
9:49:23 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP reconvened the meeting. He made closing remarks,
noting some common themes and threads throughout the three
[white papers]. He thanked the working group teams for their
work.
9:50:25 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSTON made closing remarks, expressing gratitude for
the time and effort that went into each of these papers.
9:51:07 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP adjourned the Bicameral Permanent Fund Working
Group meeting at 9:51 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 - Surplus PFD - Permanent Fund Working Group Assignment, 8 July 2019.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 01A - What do we know about the effects of the Alaska PFD, Mouhcine Guettabi, 20 May 2019.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 02 - $1,600 PFD - Permanent Fund Working Group Assignment, 8 July 2019.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03 - $3,000 PFD - Permanent Fund Working Group Assignment, 8 July 2019.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03A1 - Appendix A - ISER 2016 Economic Impacts Study (Cover Page Only - Report on File).pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03A2 - Appendix A Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03B1 - Appendix B - Berman 2018 Resource Rents, etc. Among Alaskas Indigenous Peoples.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03B2 - Appendix B Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03C1 - Appendix C - ISER 2017 Families Study Research Summary.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03C2 - Appendix C Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03D1 - Appendix D - ITEP 2017 Revenue Study.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03D2 - Appendix D Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03E1 - Appendix E - ISER 2019 Summary of PFD Effects on Socio-Economic Well-Being.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03E2 - Appendix E Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03F1 - Appendix F - PFD Values Adjusted for Inflation 2018.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03F2 - Appendix F Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03J1 - Appendix J - Hammond Letter to House Finance Chair Al Adams (April 1, 2982).pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03J2 - Appendix J Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03K1 - Appendix K - House Finance Committee Chair Al Adams Committee Letter of Intent (May 14, 1982).pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03K2 - Appendix K Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03L1 - Appendix L Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03L2 - Appendix L- Long-term Projections - Full Statutory PFD_Current FY20 Budget.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03M1 - Appendix M - Long-term Projections - Full Statutory PFD_(Barnhill) Right-sized Budget ($1.3 Billion Cut).pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03M2 - Appendix M Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03N1 - Appendix N - Long-term Projections - 50% POMV PFD_Current FY20 Budget.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03N2 - Appendix N Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03O1 - Appendix O - Long-term Projections - 50% POMV PFD_(Barnhill) Right-sized Budget ($1.3 Billion Cut).pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03O2 - Appendix O Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03P1 - Appendix P - Hammond 1980 PFD Application Statement to Alaskans.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03P2 - Appendix P Cover Sheet.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03Q - Appendix Q - Financials Current Budget - 50-50 POMV PFD.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03R - Appendix R - Financials Current Budget - Statutory PFD.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03S - Appendix S - Financials Right-Sized Budget - 50-50 POMV PFD.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |
| 03T - Appendix T - Financials Right-Sized Budget - Statutory PFD.pdf |
JPFG 7/8/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Bicameral Permanent Fund Working Group |