HB 260-PFD: 50/50 POMV SPLIT  12:26:56 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 260, "An Act relating to use of income of the Alaska permanent fund; relating to the amount of the permanent fund dividend; relating to the duties of the commissioner of revenue; and providing for an effective date." 12:27:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE LIZ SNYDER, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of HB 260, provided a review of the bill's provisions. She stated that HB 260 is designed to reflect the diverse priorities that are heard when talking about the PFD and the budget as a whole. She said the bill is also designed to meet, or be consistent with, all the bullet points that came out of the Fiscal [Policy] Working Group. She specified that HB 260 would require the 5 percent POMV draw, would begin with flat funding the budget based on a five-year moving average, and the remaining funds would be directed towards a PFD with a 50 percent split as the attainable target. So, she continued, it could be called a conditional PFD 50/50 split or an aspirational 50/50 split. Representative Snyder advised that nothing in the bill would direct issues around revenue generation or cuts, but if the legislature decided to do either of those, it would affect the resulting calculations and affect the five-year moving average. She related that using the moving five-year average would reduce the ability for the PFD to be weaponized because any change in the PFD in a given year is not reflected in the resulting budget until the following year when it is incorporated into the five-year moving average. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opened public testimony on HB 260. 12:29:43 PM ED MARTIN testified in opposition to HB 260. He stated that something is wrong when the only growing revenue to the State of Alaska is from the permanent fund and its investments. He maintained that the state would be much farther ahead had traditional revenue instead been coming in, plus there would then not be the contentious issue of whether the legislature should or should not follow the law and pay the full statutory formula. He said the state has failed miserably by not selecting the lands still owed to it and passing those lands on for settlement. He urged that HB 260 not be passed and to pay the permanent fund dividend [according to] original statute. 12:33:10 PM ADAM HYKES testified in opposition to HB 260. He said whenever he sees a new bill about the permanent fund dividend that changes the statutory words "corporation shall transfer" to the words "legislature shall appropriate" he knows the bill follows the agenda of reducing the people's PFD in favor of filling the budget gaps where legislators have failed to do so. He said he disagrees with the assumption that the holes in the state budget require taking money out of the pockets of Alaskans. Fund education as the constitution demands, he stated, but the PFD is falsely roped into this conversation time and time again. He argued that right now there is even less of a reason to conflate these two issues given the recent spike in oil prices and therefore less of a budget gap to fill. He maintained it is the legislature's job to figure out how to fill the gaps in the budget while preserving the traditional PFD. 12:35:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ closed public testimony on HB 260 after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. [HB 260 was held over.]