House Committee wrestles with new savings account idea

The committee considered combining Samuels’ new savings account with the existing state Constitutional Budget Reserve, then backed away from the idea because of the complexity of having the two funds joined.

Samuels' original proposal in HJR-28 would have income from the progressivity portion of oil production tax revenues that the state receives after June 30, 2007, deposited in a new “production tax revenue fund.” Withdrawals from the fund would be capped at 4.5 percent of its market value per year.

Judiciary Committee members objected to what they termed a “backward" approach of a constitutional amendment that included statutory references to the oil tax laws, but also had problems with a redrafted resolution.

The new version eliminated the statutory connection but combined the present Constitutional Budget Reserve and Samuel’s new PTRF as separately managed accounts of a single fund. However the payback requirement and so-called “sweep” provisions that applies to the CBR, which take surplus money from the general fund to the CBR, would not extend to the new PTRF.

The new version also halted progressivity tax deposits to the PTRF after Jan. 1, 2015. Samuels said falling oil production would probably require direct use of those revenues in the state general fund to support public services. The PTRF itself would continue to exist as a long-term revenue source, however. Unused portions of the 4.5 percent annual payout would go to the general fund for appropriation or redeposit in the PTRF as lawmakers chose.

Committee members said there would be voter confusion over the dual-account approach and ordered another redraft that returned to Samuels’ original proposal to create the PTRF with no connection to the CBR.

The committee plans more work on Samuels’ proposal.