Legislature(2015 - 2016)FAHRENKAMP 203

03/15/2016 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Location Change --
-- Recessed to 2:30 p.m. --
Heard & Held
-- Initial Presentation Only --
Moved CSSSSB 114(STA) Out of Committee
Moved SB 128 Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled: TELECONFERENCED
Moved SJR 1 Out of Committee
      SB 128-PERMENANT FUND: DEPOSITS; DIVIDEND; EARNINGS                                                                   
9:35:22 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of SB 128.                                                                            
9:35:55 AM                                                                                                                    
RANDY  HOFFBECK,  Commissioner,  Alaska  Department  of  Revenue,                                                               
Juneau,  Alaska, thanked  the committee  and Senator  McGuire for                                                               
their  efforts in  putting forward  a  plan that  would create  a                                                               
stable  and durable  fiscal  plan  for the  State  of Alaska.  He                                                               
opined that  Alaskans were concerned about  government's level of                                                               
spending  during  high  revenues  and the  importance  of  having                                                               
spending  accountability so  that  the state  is  dealing with  a                                                               
boom-and-bust economy.                                                                                                          
9:38:09 AM                                                                                                                    
He  asserted  that  the  Alaska  Permanent  Fund  Protection  Act                                                               
(APFPA) encapsulates the volatility  within the Permanent Fund by                                                               
putting the  oil and gas tax  with the royalty revenues  into the                                                               
Permanent Fund. He  added that a secondary  advantage was created                                                               
where the lows within the system were taken out as well.                                                                        
He   stated   that   the  current   low-oil   price   environment                                                               
necessitated  stress  testing  the  plan's  revenue  models  with                                                               
extreme scenarios in  order to make sure  goals were accomplished                                                               
even  in times  that rarely  occur. He  revealed that  the plan's                                                               
modeling  did survive  the highs  and lows  of a  commodity-based                                                               
economy. He added that after a  series of tests with thousands of                                                               
iterations,  the plan  could sustainably  draw $3.3  billion from                                                               
combining  oil and  gas  revenues with  investment  returns on  a                                                               
sustained basis.                                                                                                                
He reported  that the private  sector had expressed the  need for                                                               
government  to  stabilize its  portion  of  the state's  economic                                                               
base. He  conceded that after  attempts to diversify  the state's                                                               
economy over the years, Alaska  has two primary economic engines:                                                               
resource   development,  the   commodity  side;   and  government                                                               
spending,  both state  and federal.  He remarked  that there  was                                                               
very  little that  could be  done on  the commodity  side of  the                                                               
equation,  but  the  one  thing  that  could  be  stabilized  was                                                               
government  spending. He  added that  the private  sector clearly                                                               
stated  their  need for  stability  in  order to  make  long-term                                                               
financial decisions and investments. He  said the lows were taken                                                               
out to  address the  private sector's  difficulty in  making long                                                               
term commitments due to uncertainty.                                                                                            
9:40:45 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR STOLTZE  asked how Commissioner  Hoffbeck has  responded to                                                               
businesses  that  either  support  a smaller  government  or  the                                                               
sector dependent on government activity.                                                                                        
COMMISSIONER  HOFFBECK   answered  that  both   discussions  have                                                               
occurred.  He detailed  that discussions  have primarily  been on                                                               
government's size,  followed by predictability and  stability. He                                                               
summarized  that  people  want  to  pay for  the  right  size  of                                                               
government, not excessive government.                                                                                           
CHAIR STOLTZE  commented that  predictability and  stability were                                                               
the most  important parts  and both were  being impacted  for the                                                               
largest revenue producers.                                                                                                      
9:42:32 AM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK answered correct.                                                                                         
He  set forth  that the  APFPA  was a  good plan  that worked  by                                                               
taking the  volatility component out  of the system.  He asserted                                                               
that thinking had to be  different, dynamic, and immediate action                                                               
was  needed. He  said  the administration  can  suggest, but  the                                                               
Legislature  had  to  make  the choices.  He  asserted  that  big                                                               
problems don't get easier by waiting.                                                                                           
He remarked that  closing the $3.5 billion to  $4 billion deficit                                                               
in  a  year  and  a  half, two  legislative  sessions,  would  be                                                               
something that  nobody really believed could  be accomplished. He                                                               
opined that  even after  the deficit  was closed,  the individual                                                               
tax burden for  Alaskans would still be one of  the lowest in the                                                               
nation.  He detailed  that  the dividend  would  be protected,  a                                                               
dividend  that no  other state  pays; the  state's savings  would                                                               
continue  to grow  at  least at  the rate  of  inflation, if  not                                                               
greater;   children's  and   grandchildren's   future  would   be                                                               
protected; most  of the government's services  that Alaskans have                                                               
enjoyed over  the years  would be preserved;  and money  would be                                                               
left to invest in the state's resources.                                                                                        
9:46:31 AM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGGINS  asked that  Commissioner Hoffbeck  summarize the                                                               
five traits that he was looking for.                                                                                            
COMMISSIONER HOFFBECK summarized as follows:                                                                                    
   1. Keep the individual tax burden as low as possible.                                                                        
   2. Preserve the dividend.                                                                                                    
   3. Preserve  the   Permanent    Fund's   corpus   for   future                                                               
  4. Retain as many essential government services as possible.                                                                  
   5. Have money available to support resource development.                                                                     
9:47:52 AM                                                                                                                    
CRAIG W.  RICHARDS, Attorney General,  Alaska Department  of Law,                                                               
Juneau, Alaska,  set forth  that the  governor's plan  does three                                                               
things as follows:                                                                                                              
   1. Places the volatile petroleum revenues, production tax and                                                                
     royalties directly into the Permanent Fund. Revenues from                                                                  
     oil and gas are no longer large enough to sustain                                                                          
   2. Annually draws $3.3 billion out of the Permanent Fund to                                                                  
     the General Fund. All of the cash-flow streams would act as                                                                
     an annuity. Revenues from oil and gas are no longer large                                                                  
     enough to sustain government.                                                                                              
   3. Changes the dividend formulation from one based on a five-                                                                
     year average of half of the Permanent Fund earnings to a                                                                   
     royalty formulation of half of royalties.                                                                                  
9:50:40 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR STOLTZE noted  that Senator McGuire's plan was  not to fill                                                               
the  whole gap  with Permanent  Fund earnings,  but to  provide a                                                               
substantial  gap.   He  opined  that  the   governor's  "annuity"                                                               
approach may make the state dependent on just the payout.                                                                       
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS replied  that neither Senator McGuire's                                                               
POMV approach  under SB  114 nor the  governor's plan  could take                                                               
enough  out   of  the   Permanent  Fund   to  fully   fund  state                                                               
government's $4 billion budget.                                                                                                 
CHAIR  STOLTZE asked  Attorney General  Richards  to verify  that                                                               
Attorney General Richards did not  want to be misinterpreted that                                                               
people could not be taxed enough.                                                                                               
ATTORNEY   GENERAL  RICHARDS   clarified  that   Chair  Stoltze's                                                               
question was  whether or  not the  administration was  leaving to                                                               
the  Legislature the  flexibility  to budget  how  they want.  He                                                               
specified that the answer between  SB 114 and the governor's plan                                                               
was SB 114 annuitizes one type  of wealth and the governor's plan                                                               
annuitizes two types of wealth.                                                                                                 
ATTORNEY GENERAL  RICHARDS detailed that  SB 114 takes  a measure                                                               
of the Permanent Fund's value,  not its earnings, the actual cash                                                               
flow, and takes  the measured value and turns it  into an annuity                                                               
where  "x"  amount  is  taken   out,  but  leaves  the  petroleum                                                               
revenues' volatility in the General Fund.                                                                                       
He  added that  the  third component  was the  gap  that was  not                                                               
covered  by the  petroleum revenues  and the  Permanent Fund.  He                                                               
asserted that  no one's plan  was going to  be able to  close the                                                               
gap because  the petroleum revenues  and the Permanent  Fund were                                                               
not big enough.  He asserted that SB 114  annuities the Permanent                                                               
Fund's earnings.  He pointed out  that the  administration's plan                                                               
does  both  the  Permanent  Fund's  earnings  and  the  petroleum                                                               
revenues  to provide  more stability  than  just annuitizing  the                                                               
Permanent  Fund  earnings  themselves. He  reiterated  that  both                                                               
plans  only  get  part  of   the  way  there,  which  leaves  the                                                               
Legislature to decide whether to cut more or increase revenues.                                                                 
9:54:09 AM                                                                                                                    
He revealed  that the state's  unrestricted budget  compared with                                                               
unrestricted  petroleum revenues  have  tracked  each other  very                                                               
closely.  He explained  that  the government  spends  a lot  more                                                               
money when  it has a  lot of  money from petroleum  revenues, and                                                               
the government has to find a way to spend less when it has less.                                                                
He  pointed   out  that  the  Legislature   has  been  incredibly                                                               
disciplined  in  terms  of saving  Permanent  Fund  earnings.  He                                                               
specified that  the state has  had a rules-based system  in place                                                               
around the  Permanent Fund  for over 30  years. He  detailed that                                                               
the  rules-based  system  inflation  proofs  the  Permanent  Fund                                                               
corpus,  pays  out  a  dividend   and  then  customarily,  not  a                                                               
legislative requirement, of not  appropriating the Permanent Fund                                                               
earnings reserve  or otherwise  taking money  out of  the system.                                                               
Even though  there has  not been particularly  a large  amount of                                                               
discipline in saving  monies in high oil  environments, there has                                                               
been  an incredible  amount of  discipline  in terms  of how  the                                                               
Legislature approaches the Permanent Fund.  He set forth that the                                                               
Legislature  has  shown  a willingness,  ability  and  desire  to                                                               
follow a  structured rule-based framework versus  the tendency to                                                               
spend the money that is available.                                                                                              
He  summarized  that one  of  the  goals  was not  only  reducing                                                               
volatility, but to  put around the petroleum  revenues some rule-                                                               
based  frameworks that  would increase  the likelihood  of saving                                                               
money and spending it on a  plan rather than just year-to-year ad                                                               
ATTORNEY GENERAL  RICHARDS explained that  the goal of  the APFPA                                                               
was to  take the  state off of  the commodities  rollercoaster in                                                               
terms of governmental spending.  He detailed that stable spending                                                               
patterns  makes  state  budgeting  easier. He  pointed  out  that                                                               
Alaska's  revenues have  historically gone  up and  down over  50                                                               
percent. He noted that revenues  where almost $10 billion in 2008                                                               
during  the oil  tax  period from  Alaska's  Clear and  Equitable                                                               
Share (ACES) to this year's  $2 billion. He summarized that going                                                               
to  a more  annuitized system  would make  governmental budgeting                                                               
easier  and  its  consequence  would  roll  through  the  state's                                                               
economy as well.                                                                                                                
9:57:51 AM                                                                                                                    
He revealed  that the International Monetary  Fund (IMF) reported                                                               
that  natural-resource  based  economies  tend  not  to  do  well                                                               
because they do not have  broad-based taxation and are subject to                                                               
oil revenue's cyclicality.  He said the IMF  report suggests that                                                               
finding a way  to create a fiscal structure that  was not reliant                                                               
on  year-to-year  volatility  would not  only  make  governmental                                                               
budgeting  easier, but  would actually  improve an  economy as  a                                                               
whole  by avoiding  the danger  of "pro-cyclical  spending" which                                                               
was spending a  lot when a government was flush  with revenue. He                                                               
pointed   out  that   an  economic   double-whammy  occurs   when                                                               
governmental spending  was dramatically reduced at  the same time                                                               
that  other  economic  sectors and  petroleum  development  comes                                                               
down. He  noted that the  IMF report concluded  that diversifying                                                               
oil based and  commodity-based economies could mean as  much as a                                                               
0.3 percent increase in annual GDP growth.                                                                                      
He summarized that  Alaska's economy was not broad  enough to tax                                                               
at a level  that would diversify the state away  from the oil and                                                               
gas  sector. He  said the  state has  to find  a way  to use  its                                                               
sovereign wealth to develop a sound fiscal policy.                                                                              
10:02:00 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STOLTZE  addressed  one  of  the  rules  Attorney  General                                                               
Richards talked  about and said  there's not a  strict adherence.                                                               
He specified that the constitution  required 25 percent royalties                                                               
for  quite  a  while.  He  noted that  the  Legislature  and  the                                                               
administration  supported  50  percent  and  the  percentage  was                                                               
reduced during the 23rd Legislature.  He said some rules are more                                                               
flexible than others.                                                                                                           
ATTORNEY  GENERAL RICHARDS  answered  correct. He  noted that  he                                                               
refers to  what Chair Stoltze  addressed as the Savings  Rule and                                                               
the Spending  Rule. He  specified that the  Savings Rule  has had                                                               
variability in  it, but  he thought  of past  actions as  doing a                                                               
little  extra.  He  said  the  Legislature  has  been  incredibly                                                               
disciplined  regarding   the  Spending   Rule  where   the  rules                                                               
framework  has not  been broken  where the  Earnings Reserve  was                                                               
raided for capital projects.                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGGINS  asserted that  the  State  of Alaska  pays  for                                                               
everything.   He   specified   that    his   statement   was   an                                                               
overstatement, but  not far  from the truth.  He opined  that the                                                               
concept  where  the  state  pays  for  everything  has  not  been                                                               
ATTORNEY GENERAL  RICHARDS reiterated that any  solution with the                                                               
Permanent  Fund  was  a  half-solution  where  a  billion  dollar                                                               
differential would  still exist. He  opined that there  was going                                                               
to  be  lots of  room  for  policy  discussions on  revenues  and                                                               
10:04:04 AM                                                                                                                   
He  set forth  that  a rules-based  framework  would sustain  the                                                               
Permanent Fund by:                                                                                                              
   · Preserving the purchasing power or inflation proofing the                                                                  
     value of the Permanent Fund over time to ensure that the                                                                   
     next generation had the same level of wealth as the current                                                                
   · Making sure the plan's durability modeling ensured enough                                                                  
     money for annual draws to the General Fund and dividends.                                                                  
   · Making sure the Earnings Reserve did not grow too large                                                                    
     over time to decrease the chance of a raid.                                                                                
He added that  a good policy would be taking  what was not needed                                                               
in the Earnings Reserve and moving it to the corpus.                                                                            
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that  Attorney General Richards characterized                                                               
any appropriation from the Earnings Reserve as a "raid."                                                                        
ATTORNEY  GENERAL  RICHARDS  replied  that he  should  frame  the                                                               
characterization  as   "ad  hoc  spending,"  spending   from  the                                                               
Permanent  Fund in  a manner  that  was not  under a  sustainable                                                               
10:06:22 AM                                                                                                                   
He  addressed the  difference between  the sovereign  wealth fund                                                               
model  and a  classical endowment  model. He  specified that  the                                                               
sovereign wealth  fund model would  house the  petroleum revenues                                                               
in the Permanent Fund itself.  Under the classic endowment model,                                                               
the petrol revenues would remain in the General Fund.                                                                           
ATTORNEY  GENERAL RICHARDS  said the  next option  was to  decide                                                               
whether to  go with  a fixed  draw or a  POMV draw.  He explained                                                               
that the  governor's bill has several  advantages where petroleum                                                               
revenue volatility would  be housed in the Permanent  Fund with a                                                               
fixed-draw amount.  He specified  that a  fixed draw  would allow                                                               
for  a  smoothed  out  or  averaged spending  where  a  bit  more                                                               
spending would be possible in lower  years and a bit more savings                                                               
in higher  years of petroleum  revenues. He pointed out  that the                                                               
Permanent Fund  and the POMV  both use averages  as a way  to get                                                               
reasoned calculations  that do  not jump all  over the  place. He                                                               
said putting the  petroleum revenues into the  Permanent Fund was                                                               
a  similar concept  where revenues  are  assigned a  value and  a                                                               
certain  amount would  be  spent every  year.  He suggested  that                                                               
petroleum revenue  be thought  of as an  asset and  deciding what                                                               
amount  of the  asset  can be  spent every  year  on a  sustained                                                               
basis. He  added that  the governor's plan  was similar  to Scott                                                               
Goldsmith's approach.                                                                                                           
10:08:36 AM                                                                                                                   
SENATOR HUGGINS  asked Attorney General  Richard to  confirm that                                                               
under the endowment model, the  assumption was that the Permanent                                                               
Fund  maintains  its  traditional  role   and  it  would  not  be                                                               
leveraged for something else.                                                                                                   
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS answered  that the Permanent Fund would                                                               
be  in its  traditional  role plus  some  kind of  endowment-like                                                               
payment to the General Fund plus dividends.                                                                                     
SENATOR   HUGGINS  asked   if  the   Permanent   Fund  would   be                                                               
destabilized  or volatility  created if  the fund  was used  as a                                                               
backstop for a gas pipeline.                                                                                                    
ATTORNEY  GENERAL RICHARDS  answered that  he did  not know,  but                                                               
suggested  that there  were several  ways to  do it.  He remarked                                                               
that he has not heard anyone  propose using the Permanent Fund in                                                               
the  manner Senator  Huggins suggested;  but if  used, he  opined                                                               
that  the Permanent  Fund  would directly  invest  as opposed  to                                                               
backstopping bonds.                                                                                                             
He noted that the fixed amount  and POMV were both reasonable and                                                               
produce  the  same  amount  of  money  over  time;  however,  the                                                               
percentage of market value approach  would have more fluctuation.                                                               
He reiterated that the biggest  difference between the governor's                                                               
approach  and  SB 114's  sovereign  wealth  was where  oil  price                                                               
volatility would reside.  He said the disadvantage  of having oil                                                               
price volatility  reside in the  General Fund was that  the state                                                               
would be  stuck with the  annual amount that could  be collected.                                                               
He specified  that reasoned assumptions  could not be  made about                                                               
how  much could  be  spent  over time,  which  meant there  would                                                               
always be volatility in the General Fund.                                                                                       
10:11:46 AM                                                                                                                   
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDS explained  that a hypothetical modeling                                                               
exercise  was done  by the  Department  of Revenue  to show  what                                                               
would have happened if the POMV  concept was enacted in the past.                                                               
He pointed  out that the  modeling showed that the  POMV approach                                                               
would not have smoothed out  the volatility-curve associated with                                                               
oil  prices and  additional layers  would have  been laid  on the                                                               
volatility. He  said the  layering would have  made sense  in the                                                               
low years  because the  revenues would have  been needed  to meet                                                               
budgeting needs, but in high  years an unadjusted POMV would have                                                               
compounded pro-cyclical spending because  savings would be placed                                                               
into a general fund that already had excess revenues.                                                                           
He  remarked  that  the  revenue-limitation  amendment  that  the                                                               
committee passed  was a  good amendment  because during  high oil                                                               
price environments,  money from savings  would not be put  into a                                                               
budget  that was  already highly  funded. He  explained that  the                                                               
difference  between the  revenue  limit and  what the  governor's                                                               
bill does was as follows:                                                                                                       
   1. Does not provide for automatic savings of the petroleum                                                                   
     revenues at very high revenues.                                                                                            
   2. Does not allow for spending a constant level of petroleum                                                                 
     revenues over time regardless of what is collected.                                                                        
   3. Volatility in the General Fund would continue to exist                                                                    
     under the revenue-limit cap.                                                                                               
CHAIR  STOLTZE clarified  that not  spending  would increase  the                                                               
likelihood of spending.                                                                                                         
ATTORNEY  GENERAL RICHARDS  answered correct.  He specified  that                                                               
the  POMV payout  does not  provide a  limitation on  spending or                                                               
revenues in  terms of excess  oil revenues. He remarked  that the                                                               
revenue limitation would  do a very good job of  making sure that                                                               
financial savings  were not spent  when it's not needed,  but the                                                               
amendment would  not go  to the next  step of  ensuring financial                                                               
savings at real high oil prices.                                                                                                
10:14:29 AM                                                                                                                   
ATTORNEY  GENERAL  RICHARDS   addressed  the  different  dividend                                                               
methodologies and  noted that two  combinations did not  make the                                                               
most  sense mathematically.  He said  using a  POMV draw  with an                                                               
earnings-based dividend  was a little dangerous  because the POMV                                                               
was  a  pretty steady  amount,  but  the earnings-based  dividend                                                               
would  always be  very  variable  and the  result  would make  it                                                               
harder to  depend on revenues to  the General Fund each  year. He                                                               
said the  preferred alternative to  a POMV draw and  an earnings-                                                               
based dividend would be to base  the dividend on the market value                                                               
of the  fund rather  than year-to-year  earnings, the  end result                                                               
would not  have the variability  and swings that exist  under the                                                               
current system. He remarked that  although variability and swings                                                               
might be good policy in  terms of people's dividends, variability                                                               
rather  than stability  in revenue  to the  General Fund  did not                                                               
make sense.                                                                                                                     
He  said the  other type  of dividend  combination that  he found                                                               
mathematically challenging  was SB  114's initial version  with a                                                               
royalty-based  dividend  and  a   PFD  floor.  He  detailed  that                                                               
dividends would  be paid  out on  the upside  of oil  prices, but                                                               
guaranteed  with  a floor  on  the  downside  of oil  prices.  He                                                               
asserted that the dividend plan  under SB 114 would easily become                                                               
unsustainable very fast.                                                                                                        
10:17:44 AM                                                                                                                   
SENATOR  MCGUIRE  thanked   Commissioner  Hoffbeck  and  Attorney                                                               
General Richards for working with  her office. She opined that an                                                               
amalgamation  of bills  would  ultimately  happen because  people                                                               
understand where  the state was financially.  She analogized that                                                               
people were at  the acceptance level that a "root  canal" must be                                                               
10:19:57 AM                                                                                                                   
SENATOR COGHILL commented that the  real question was whether the                                                               
state's wealth could  be used to stabilize the  government as the                                                               
Legislature starts  slimming down  the budget.  He said  to date,                                                               
the  Permanent  Fund earnings  have  not  been used  for  general                                                               
government  purposes.   He  detailed   that  using   the  current                                                               
methodology and taking  money out of Permanent  Fund earnings for                                                               
government spending  would highly impact the  dividend. He stated                                                               
that the intent in the governor's  plan and SB 114 was to protect                                                               
and sustain  the value of  the state's  wealth when used  for the                                                               
first time  in government services  and the dividend. He  said he                                                               
appreciated the approach being taken  and noted that that was the                                                               
reason for  his methodology change in  introducing his amendment.                                                               
He remarked  that if  the Legislature does  not do  anything, the                                                               
Permanent  Fund earnings  could be  used, but  the impact  on the                                                               
dividend  would be  great and  the state's  volatility would  not                                                               
[CHAIR STOLTZE set SB 128 aside for further consideration.]                                                                     
        SB 128-PERM. FUND: DEPOSITS; DIVIDEND; EARNINGS                                                                     
2:36:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  STOLTZE   returned  attention   to  SB  128.   Finding  no                                                               
amendments or additional discussion, he solicited a motion.                                                                     
2:37:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SB 128 from committee with                                                                      
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.                                                                           
2:37:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that without objection, SB 128 moved                                                                    
from committee.                                                                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 114 Supporting Document - APFC 2004 Resolution on POMV.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SCR 16 ver W - CS(STA) 3-11-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SCR 16
SCR 16 2015 Alaska Legislature Salary and Business Expense Report.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SCR 16
SB 114 Public Testimony to SSTA (Fifth Batch - 10 POMS) 3-11-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SCR 16 Fiscal Note - SSTA 03-14-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SCR 16
SB 114 CS(STA) Version U 3-14-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 114 Fiscal Modeling by LFD - to SSTA 03-14-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 114 PowerPoint Presentation to SSTA by Sen. McGuire on CS for SS SB 114(STA) ver U 3-15-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 128 Fiscal Note #3 - DOA-VCCB 02-03-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 128
SB 114 Summary of Changes Version F to CSSS SB 114 Version U 03-14-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 114 Amendment #1 (U.1) - Stoltze (Adopted as Amended, without objection).pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 114 Amendment #2 (U.2) - Coghill (WITHDRAWN IN FAVOR OF REPLACEMENT AMENDMENT #2 - U.3).pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 128 Presentation by Departments of Law and Revenue to SSTA 03-15-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 128
SB 128 Comparison Flow Charts vs SB 114 versions and Status Quo 03-15-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 128
SB 128 Comparison Rules Table (by Administration) vs SB 114 03-15-16.pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 128
SB 114 Replacement Amendment #2 (U.3) - Coghill (Adopted without objection).pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SB 114 Conceptual Amendment #1 to Amendment #1 (SSTA) - Stoltze (Adopted without objection).pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SB 114
SCR 16 Backup Document - LRS Report from LAA - Historical Special Session Cost Details (Revised by LAA 03-17-16).pdf SSTA 3/15/2016 9:00:00 AM
SCR 16