SENATE BILL NO. 1001 "An Act authorizing an advisory vote on a long term financial plan for the state; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair John Torgerson referred to a handout titled "Balanced Budget Plan". (Copy on file.) He discussed the components of the balanced budget plan, saying that the first step is to transfer the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR), earnings reserve and unrealized gains into the Earning Reserve Account. Secondly, he explained the plan stipulates using the market value of total assets approach for inflation proofing the fund, for the calculation of dividends and for payment of government services. He added that this is similar to the approach proposed in the earlier plan described in CS SB 76 (FIN), although the current plan uses different calculations. He explained the updated calculations multiply the market value of total assets by 2.25 percent for inflation proofing the principal of the Alaska permanent fund. The new calculations also multiply the market value by 5.88 percent and distribute that amount with 50 percent going to dividend payments and 50 percent going to payment of government services in lieu of taxes. Co-Chair John Torgerson continued describing the balanced budget plan noting that it calls for mandatory deposits of excess earnings into the constitutionally protected principal of the permanent fund. He explained that anytime the amount contained in the earnings reserve plus the CBR is greater than one-third of the total assets of the combined account of the permanent fund plus CBR plus earnings reserve, the difference is automatically deposited into the permanent fund account. He pointed out that these adjustments would be made annually. Although the particular language is not before the Committee as part of the advisory vote legislation, he qualified that it is his intent that the provision will be part of the statutory element of the balanced budget plan. He expressed that these deposits will be placed into the permanent fund and therefore be constitutionally protected. In addition, he remarked that this practice leaves adequate funds to sustain volatility in the financial market and also survive oil production declines or other difficulties. Co-Chair John Torgerson then detailed the assumptions used in the balanced budget plan as similar to the earlier balanced budget plan. With the passage of HB 156, he told the Committee the allocations to the Permanent Fund Corporation are increased, which allows the fund managers to realize a bigger return on the total assets. The new rate of return is estimated at 8.13 percent, he shared, and noted that assumption is implemented into the plan. Co-Chair John Torgerson said the plan assumes no new revenues for fiscal year 2000, $50 million in new revenues for FY01, an additional $25 million for FY02, another $25 million for FY03 and $25 million for FY10. He also noted that the plan calls for reductions in government spending of $30 million each for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and no overall spending reduction in FY02. He continued describing the funding allocations, saying the plan requires flat funding for all government services except for a 1.45- percent compounded increase each year for K-12 education in FY01, FY02 and FY03. He stated that statistics show historic population growth at the 1.45 percent allocated under this plan for education services. He commented that the legislature has always increased K-12 education funding to provide for population increases. Co-Chair John Torgerson outlined the projected dividend amounts under this plan from 1999 through 2010 using the calculation provisions explained earlier. He noted that the permanent fund managers provided the figures using the assumptions of the plan. He noted that the dividend could actually be $1835 or higher for FY00, but that the spreadsheet shows a conservative figure of $1712. Co-Chair John Torgerson concluded his presentation of this balanced budget plan pointing out that the total assets in 20 years is projected to be $51 billion. PHIL OKESON, Fiscal Analyst, Division of Legislative Finance addressed the spreadsheet provided by the Division of Legislative Finance; one page of graphs dated 5/22/99, 3:51 PM, six pages of figures dated 5/22/99, 2:34 PM and the remaining two pages of figures dated 5/22/99 2:37 PM. (Copy on file.) He began with the graphs, showing that in the first two years of the plan, the dividend will payout at approximately $1700. In FY01, he explained, the dividend will be reduced to about $1399 then grow each year throughout the remainder of the plan. He pointed out that the dividend amounts grow with the market value of the fund. He qualified that there is a possibility that the fund would go down, but that over the long-term, the dividend would average $1500 annually. Senator Dave Donley asked how this compares to the House's version of a balanced budget plan. Phil Okeson answered HB 231 proposes reducing the dividend to $1000 in FY01 and growing from that amount. Co-Chair John Torgerson disclosed that the other body is considering SB 1001. He believed the House Finance Committee would be holding a meeting later in the day to take up a similar proposal. Senator Randy Phillips wanted to know what happens if no action is taken on a balanced budget plan. Phil Okeson repeated testimony he gave in earlier presentations saying that the dividends would be higher for the first years. However, he warned that as the savings account is depleted, the dividend would begin to spike up around 2007 and peak in 2011 but then crash shortly thereafter. At that point, the dividend would only amount to about $100. Senator Randy Phillips asked the witness to explain how the savings account would be depleted. Phil Okeson relayed that under the "do nothing plan", in the early years the CBR would be emptied paying for government services. He explained that this assumption is based on historical use of state assets. The next step under the same assumption is to utilize the earnings reserve, he stated. Phil Okeson continued saying that once the earnings reserve is used up and higher dividends have been paid out for several years, the next assumption is to tap the unrealized gains. He explained that the current method of calculating the dividend uses the proceeds of unrealized gains once they are realized i.e. once assets are sold, a portion of the profits must be paid out as part of the dividends. He warned that although this causes the dividends to increase, the principal of the fund decreases, and by about 2011, the fund is exhausted. At that time, he admonished, the State Of Alaska has no savings account and the only choices are to make drastic cuts to government services, to impose taxes or institute a combination of the two. Before that stage is reached, he predicted the "do nothing plan" would eliminate the dividend program and use the proceeds of the permanent fund to pay for government services. Either way, he asserted, there would be a substantial drop in the dividend. Phil Okeson observed another disadvantage to the "do nothing" approach to the budget situation. He pointed out that if there were four or five consecutive "flat years" in the market, the dividend amount would be very low regardless. He stressed that this is a technical problem and is caused by the calculation of the dividend based on earnings instead of on the market value of the fund. He stated that the current plan before the Committee changes the dividend calculation to a percentage of market value and therefore makes the dividend program stable for all Alaskans. He related the Division of the Permanent Fund agrees that this dividend calculation change is preferable to the status quo. Senator Robin Taylor asked if calculations had been done incorporating a possible constitutional amendment requiring a stipulated allotment of earnings. Phil Okeson said the Division of Legislative Finance had looked at various scenarios of a "40-30-30 split" of earnings and concluded there would be little to gain from this method. The problems associated with using the realized gains to calculate the dividend would still exist, he stressed. He cited advice given by Callan and Associates and the managers of the permanent fund to support this assertion. He granted that if a "40-30-30 split" of a percent of market value of assets were used, the problems related to the unrealized gain usage would be solved. He noted that the current proposed plan is similar to that split with some variances in the ratios. He quoted the calculated split under the balanced budget plan at approximately 28- 36-36. Senator Robin Taylor clarified that under the "do nothing" approach the assumption is that government would deplete all of the income from the permanent fund in about twelve years. He asked if that assumption precludes any income taxes or other form of new revenue sources. Phil Okeson admitted it did not, but noted that in order for new revenue to avert the depletion of the earnings reserve it would have to be very large - over $500 million. Senator Robin Taylor asked if that new revenue would need to be similar to revenues generated from oil production on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Phil Okeson replied he had not seen revenue projections on ANWR, but assumed that if the amount was similar to revenues generated on the North Slope, the income would help the stem the use of the earnings reserve under the "do nothing" plan. Senator Loren Leman challenged the "28-36-36 split" numbers, noting that inflation proofing was not taken into account. He indicated a desire to review the data at a later time. Phil Okeson continued his presentation referring to the graph, Projected Savings Account Balance vs. Inflation Adjusted Balance, showing the intergenerational equity line. This line relates the financial situation of the current generation to that of future generations. If the line is higher, future generations will be better off than the current generation; if the line is lower, future generations will have less than the current generation; equal lines mean both generations will be in the same position. He stated that the proposed balanced budget plan works fairly well at keeping the generations in balance. He compared this plan to previous proposals, which held the intergenerational line above this plan's. He shared advice given to him by a finance professor that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Therefore, Phil Okeson cautioned that in order to achieve a higher dividend, the intergenerational equity line must come down and remove some of the cushion for future generations. He qualified that the median of this plan keeps the purchasing power of the assets maintained at an acceptable level. Senator Sean Parnell clarified that the graph shows that under this plan, future generations would have the same earnings power in the permanent fund as this generation currently has. Phil Okeson affirmed and added this equality applies to all state assets including the permanent fund. Phil Okeson next addressed the graph titled, Alaska's Savings Accounts. He pointed out that the CBR remains in existence even after the year 2000 under the balanced budget plan, because the transfer is not made until 2001. He showed where the CBR, the earnings reserve account and the unrealized gain are located on the graph. He admitted he had not had time to incorporate the shifting of excess earnings provision of the plan into this graph, noting that the figures were currently out of balance. He explained how the unrealized gains and the earnings reserve reach an amount greater than one-third of the total assets in the later years of the plan and that this current plan stipulates transferring a portion of the unrealized gains and earnings reserve into the corpus of the permanent fund. He stated that these transfers would help keep the accounts in balance. Phil Okeson shared that he had spoken with the Division of the Permanent Fund about how to balance the need to constitutionally protect the fund with the need to provide a cushion in case of a major market downturn. The recommendation the division gave was that a one-third to two-thirds split is adequate. He noted that the division would be looking at the matter in greater detail. The goal is to find the amount most reasonable to keep in each account, according to Phil Okeson. Phil Okeson turned to the graph titled, Total Spending and pointing out the difference between this plan and previous plans is a greater increase of the dividend line. He explained this reflects the larger dividends paid under this plan. Senator Loren Leman clarified that the plan inflation proofs the fund first and then applies a portion of the remaining amount to the 5.88 percent that is split between the dividend and government expenditures. However, he noted that he calculated the split to be 34-31-35. Co-Chair John Torgerson said he thought the payout rate is higher under the current plan. There was discussion to clarify the 2.94 percent allotted to the dividend using the same base amount. Co-Chair John Torgerson stated that the multipliers are somewhat different under this plan and that the predictions of 36-36-28 are correct. Senator Loren Leman then addressed the provision in the plan to take the excess earnings and redeposit them into the corpus of the fund. He pointed out that only two-thirds of the excess earnings would actually be transferred and that one-third would remain in the unrealized gains account. Phil Okeson affirmed and stated that the goal is to maintain a one-third to two-thirds balance in the distribution of the fund. Senator Loren Leman asked if the adjustments would be made annually. Co-Chair John Torgerson stated that the matter of detailing the balancing of the fund wasn't officially before the Committee. Therefore, he believed there would be time to work out the details with the Division of Permanent Fund so long as the intent of the one-third to two-thirds balance was approved. He reminded the Committee that the division has reserved the right to make a different recommendation after further reviewing the matter. Senator Gary Wilken requested the witness detail the 2.25 percent market value calculations and then show the fifty- fifty split (dividend and governmental services) on a spreadsheet. He was having difficulty calculating the split. Phil Okeson noted that the information was not prepared at this time. Senator Gary Wilken asked for a spreadsheet to reflect the Balanced Budget Plan. Senator Al Adams commented that the figures shown for this plan use 2.25 percent of full market value to inflation proof the permanent fund while previous plans used a three- percent calculation. He asked if either amount follows the calculations required in statute. Phil Okeson replied that the 2.25 percent method is an attempt to reach the same result as the current statutory inflation rate. He explained that in order to provide a higher dividend, the method of inflation proofing the fund needs to be closer to the current method. Therefore, he said, it was determined to use a 2.25 percent rather than the three-percent earlier proposed. Senator Al Adams then asked what would be the actual percentage needed to inflation-proof the fund and still stay within the directives of statute, disregarding the amount of dividends. Co-Chair John Torgerson responded that the 2.25 percent is the correct figure to use for inflation-proofing the fund. He explained that this figure assumes a three-percent inflation on the corpus of the fund less the CBR, the unrealized gains and the earnings reserve, which had never been inflation-proofed in the past. When that amount is subtracted from the expected earnings of 8.13 percent of the permanent fund, the result is 2.25 percent, according to Co-Chair John Torgerson. Senator Al Adams surmised that it is a policy call to only inflation-proof the permanent fund corpus and not inflation-proof the earnings or the unrealized gains. Co- Chair John Torgerson replied that the practice is not a policy call, but in existing law. Phil Okeson expounded showing on a spreadsheet how the inflation proofing is done. He detailed the intent to allow for a three-percent inflation rate in the next year, although models were not yet available to predict the actual inflation rate. A higher percentage than the normal inflation rate is used with the extra earmarked to inflation-proof the permanent fund, he explained. He summarized saying that the goal of the plan is to inflation proof the permanent fund much the same way as the current practice. Senator Al Adams asked what would happen if the market value fell below the 5.88 percent and the earnings projections cannot be met. Phil Okeson remarked this is the main advantage of using a market value of assets approach rather than an earnings approach to calculate the dividend. He explained that the market value approach gives a cushion so money is always available for the dividends. He cautioned that the cushion must be adequate and that causes a concern with having a one-third to two-thirds balance between the CBR, earnings reserve and unrealized gains and the corpus of the entire fund. He continued speaking on the possibility of a three or four year "flat market" and how an adequate cushion allowed under the market value approach protects the assets of the permanent fund. Senator Al Adams wanted to know if anyone from the Division of the Permanent Fund was present to attest to this information. Co-Chair John Torgerson related that prior conversations he had with the fund managers indicated that they are neutral on the use of the fund in this manner. He stressed that the fund manager's main concern is that the chosen market value approach method balances, which he assured this plan does balance. Senator Pete Kelly referred to comments the witness made on the possibility of infusion into the fund of large amounts of new revenue and how the dividend would be affected. He also referred to scenarios presented showing the state's fiscal situation if no changes were made except budget cuts. He asked what years the permanent fund would be depleted in these situations. Phil Okeson responded that the amount of budget reductions would need to be determined. He cautioned that permanent fund earnings would still be needed because of the billion- dollar deficit, but that if five to six hundred million dollars in sustainable budget reductions were made, the fund could last up to twenty years longer. Senator Robin Taylor remarked that the balanced budget plan allows for no growth in the Alaskan economy. Co-Chair John Torgerson challenged that statement, saying that future oil and gas revenue is factored in the plan. He qualified that ANWAR revenues were not included in the plan, but noted that is because there is no authorization to develop the refuge. Amendment #1: This amendment inserts language on page 2 line 9 of the committee substitute following "years." The added language reads, "Submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the voters that would reduce the base amount of annual appropriations in art. IX, sec. 16, Constitution of the State Of Alaska, from $2,500,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 and make other changes to establish a meaningful appropriation limit." Senator Dave Donley indicated that he would not offer this amendment and the amendment was HELD. Amendment #2: This amendment replaces the advisory vote ballot language relating to Plan A to read as follows: Balanced Budget Plan: This will preserve the permanent fund dividend, inflation-proof the permanent fund, support public services, and establish a citizen Revenue Task Force. The plan will (1) Protect the Permanent Fund: The principal of the Alaska permanent fund will remain untouched and inflation-proofed to protect the value of the fund for current and future generations. (2) Preserve the Dividend: Dividend payments to qualified Alaskans are continued, and the dividend will grow over time. Dividends will be paid based on the market value of the Alaska Permanent fund. The dividends payable are projected to be as follows: 1999 = $1,740, 2000 = $1,700 and thereafter at approximately $1,394 and higher. (3) Reduce Spending: Reduce state general fund spending for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. (4) Public Accountability: All permanent fund expenditures will be disclosed to each Alaskan who receives a permanent fund dividend check. (5) Explore Revenue Options: Establish a citizen's Revenue Task Force to present options to identify revenue sources. (6) No Income Tax: No personal income tax will be enacted as part of this plan. Senator Sean Parnell moved for adoption. He explained that the House of Representatives adopted this language in HB 231. He assured the Committee that this amendment preserves the two choices on the ballot, although he inserted the projected dividend amounts. Senator Randy Phillips asked if the amount of anticipated spending reductions would be specified in the ballot language. Co-Chair John Torgerson replied that the reductions were addressed in the text of the balance budget plan. Senator Randy Phillips referred to distinctions made in earlier ballot language adopted by the Committee. Senator Lyda Green questioned the amendment's title of the forth descriptive paragraph of Plan A, Public Accountability. She interpreted the title to mean that the public will be held accountable, when the intent is for the legislature to be accountable to the public. Senator Sean Parnell moved to amend Amendment #2 (a) to delete "Public" from the title of the forth descriptive paragraph. Without objection, the amendment to the amendment was adopted and Amendment #2 was AMENDED. Senator Dave Donley commented that the amendment proposes implementing a recommendation made by the governor to create a citizen's revenue task force. Senator Dave Donley believed that if there is to be a citizen's tax force on revenue, there should also be a citizen's task force on spending reductions. He spoke of an earlier commission on long-range fiscal policy that was statutorily charged with making recommendations for budget reductions but did not actually do that. Senator Sean Parnell asked if Senator Dave Donley intended to create two separate task forces or one task force to address both revenue and spending reductions. Senator Dave Donley replied that he felt there is a need for two committees because the earlier commission assigned with both budget aspects only preformed half its duties and never recommended any budget reductions. Senator Randy Phillips suggested amending the amendment's third descriptive paragraph of Plan A, Reduce Spending, by inserting language providing for the establishment of a citizen's review committee to identify spending reductions. Senator Sean Parnell moved to amend the amended Amendment and a" [citizen Revenue Task Force] in the summary of Plan A. He noted that conforming language could also be inserted elsewhere in the ballot language. Senator Loren Leman cautioned against setting up task forces, who served and how long they functioned. He stressed the bottom line is that the Legislature is the task force for Alaska. While he supported public input, he did not want the legislature to "pass the buck." Co-Chair John Torgerson commented that it sometimes helped to have additional input and he approved of the creation of task forces for this purpose. Without objection, the amendment to the amended amendment was ADOPTED. The discussion continued with Senator Sean Parnell agreeing with Senator Randy Phillips's earlier suggestion to create an oversight committee on spending reductions along with a committee to review new revenues. Senator Sean Parnell moved to amend the amended Amendment #2 (c) to change the fifth descriptive paragraph of Plan A to read, "Explore Spending Reductions and Revenue Options: Establish a citizen's Spending Reduction Task Force and a citizen's Revenue Task Force to present options to identify spending reductions and revenue sources." Senator Sean Parnell expressed that this amendment shows the public that oversight is given to "both sides of the ledger." The amendment to the amended amendment was ADOPTED without objection. Senator Randy Phillips moved to amend the amended Amendment paragraph of Plan A. This changes the language to read, "reduce state general fund spending $60 million for fiscal years 2000 and 2001." Senator Dave Donley stated that this language was ambiguous because it did not state whether $60 million in reductions would be made in each of the two fiscal years or if a total of $60 million would be made over the two fiscal years. He had a suggestion to clarify the language. Senator Randy Phillips and Senator Dave Donley discussed possible language. Senator Randy Phillips moved to withdraw his motion to amend the amended amendment #2 (d). Senator Al Adams objected. He stated that the Minority would agree to a reduction in general fund spending but could not agree to a set dollar amount. Co-Chair John Torgerson commented that the governor agreed to the $60 million figure. Tape: SFC - 99 SS1 #1, Side B By roll call vote of 8-1, the amendment was WITHDRAWN. Senator Al Adams voted cast the nay vote. Senator Randy Phillips moved to amend the amended Amendment paragraph of Plan A with, "Reduce state general fund spending at least $60 million over the next two fiscal years, 2000 and 2001." Senator Al Adams objected and restated his opposition to assigning a definite amount to the budget reductions. The amendment to the amended amendment was ADOPTED by a vote of 8-1. Senator Al Adams voted in opposition. Senator Al Adams objected to the adoption of the amended Amendment #2. The amendment as amended read as follows: Balanced Budget Plan: This will preserve the permanent fund dividend, inflation-proof the permanent fund, support public services, and establish a citizen Spending Reduction Task Force and a citizen Revenue Task Force. The plan will (1) Protect the Permanent Fund: The principal of the Alaska permanent fund will remain untouched and inflation-proofed to protect the value of the fund for current and future generations. (2) Preserve the Dividend: Dividend payments to qualified Alaskans are continued, and the dividend will grow over time. Dividends will be paid based on the market value of the Alaska Permanent fund. The dividends payable are projected to be as follows: 1999 = $1,740, 2000 = $1,700 and thereafter at approximately $1,394 and higher. (3) Reduce Spending: Reduce state general fund spending at least $60 million over the next two fiscal years, 2000 and 2001. (4) Accountability: All permanent fund expenditures will be disclosed to each Alaskan who receives a permanent fund dividend check. (5) Explore Spending Reductions and Revenue Options: Establish a citizen's Spending Reduction Task force and a citizen's Revenue Task Force to present options to identify spending reductions and revenue sources. (6) No Income Tax: No personal income tax will be enacted as part of this plan. Amendment #2 as amended, was ADOPTED by a vote of 8-1. Senator Al Adams voted against adoption. Amendment #1: This amendment inserts language on page 2 line 9 of the committee substitute following "years." The added language reads, "Submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the voters that would reduce the base amount of annual appropriations in art. IX, sec. 16, Constitution of the State Of Alaska, from $2,500,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 and make other changes to establish a meaningful appropriation limit." Senator Dave Donley moved for adoption, stating that the amendment incorporates language into Plan A providing for, "the concept of submitting a constitutional spending limit to the voters in the future." He explained that the existing constitutional spending limit is not enforced. For example, he cited that the constitutional amendment stipulates that one-third of total expenditures is devoted to capital projects, which is not currently done. Senator Dave Donley technically AMENDED the amendment to delete, "from $2,500,000,000 to $2,000,000,000". He expressed his intent to establish a meaningful appropriation limit when the new constitutional amendment is drafted. He also wanted the new constitutional spending limit to contain the spending reduction provisions included in Plan A. Senator Dave Donley stated he wanted discussion on the constitutional spending limit option as the reason for his motion to adopt the amended Amendment #1. Senator Al Adams and Senator Pete Kelly objected. Senator Al Adams asked if the reduction from $2.5 billion to $2 billion only applies to the operating budget. Senator Dave Donley answered that the reduction applies to both the operating and the capital budgets. He explained that the concept is to pattern an amendment similar to the existing constitutional appropriation amendment, but to make the constitutional amendment meaningful. He wanted the constitutional spending limit to facilitate the goals that are included in Plan A. AT EASE until 5:06PM Senator Gary Wilken said he would be supporting Amendment documentation to show the true effect or to give guidance in future deliberations. He stated that more work needed to be done to determine the ramifications of the amendment. Co-Chair John Torgerson concurred, and added that if the figures had been left in the amendment he would have been compelled to oppose the amendment for the same reason. However, he agreed with idea of submitting a constitutional spending limit to the voters. Senator Sean Parnell assumed the language in this amendment would be inserted into the description of Plan A and asked for the exact location. Senator Dave Donley replied that Amendment #1 language as amended would be inserted as a new sentence in the third descriptive paragraph of the amended Amendment #2. He moved a conforming amendment to instruct the bill drafters to make necessary changes to insert the amended Amendment #1 language into the amended Amendment Senator Pete Kelly was concerned that a constitutional amendment was not before the Committee. He wanted to know if other states had similar constitutional spending limits that are successful that could be studied as a model. Co-Chair John Torgerson referred to Proposition 13 from the State of California, although he was unsure whether that spending limit actually works. Senator Dave Donley asserted that Alaska is the best model with twelve years of experience with the existing constitutional amendment. He qualified that the current constitutional spending limit is problematic in its drafting and the court's interpretation of its meaning. However, he believed that improvements could be made to the current constitution. Senator Lyda Green asked if changes to the state constitution were necessary before any of the proposed versions of a balanced budget plan could be implemented. She was not convinced that the provisions spoken about in the various plans abided by the constitution. Co-Chair John Torgerson stated the only way the spending limit could be changed is through another amendment to the constitution. It would take a vote by the people of Alaska to enact a constitutional amendment, he advised. Statutory changes, he added, are what will be necessary to implement the balanced budget plan, once voters approve it through the advisory vote. Senator Lyda Green expressed concern that it would be confusing to voters to insert language into Plan A on the ballot relating to a future constitutional spending limit. Co-Chair John Torgerson said it is his intention to not recommend a set amount of reductions. He reiterated that this election is simply an advisory vote to inform the public of the intent of the legislature. By a vote of 8-1, Amendment #1 was AMENDED and ADOPTED. Senator Al Adams voted against the amended amendment. Senator Randy Phillips asked if the intent is to place two separate plans before the voters. That was determined to be correct. Senator Sean Parnell MOVED CSSB 1001(FIN). Senator Al Adams OBJECTED. Senator Randy Phillips said he would prefer if only one plan were on the ballot with voters casting yes or no votes on that plan. He cautioned that by offering two plans, the legislature would not gain a clear direction of where Alaskans wish to be fiscally, in the next five or ten years. Senator Randy Phillips offered a conceptual Amendment #3 to remove Plan B from the advisory ballot. Senator Sean Parnell moved to withdraw his motion to report the bill from Committee to allow for consideration of Amendment #3. Without objection, the motion to report the bill from Committee was WITHDRAWN. Senator Randy Phillips WITHDREW Amendment #3, saying he would offer it in the Senate Chambers. Senator Sean Parnell offered a motion to report from Committee, CS SB 1001(FIN). Senator Al Adams objected. By a roll call vote of 8-1, the bill was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations and a fiscal note from the Governor, Division of Elections in the amount of $939. Senator Al Adams cast the nay vote. Co-Chair John Torgerson noted for the record that the cost of the fiscal note is accounted for in the FY00 capital budget.