Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
01/26/2012 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB290 | |
| HB184 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 290-ESTABLISH ENDOW ALASKA GRANT PROGRAM
8:03:57 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act creating the endow Alaska grant
program in the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development to encourage community development."
8:04:23 AM
ERIN HARRINGTON, Staff, Representative Alan Austerman, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 290 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Austerman, by paraphrasing the following written
remarks [original punctuation provided]:
Endow Alaska sets up a challenge grant or matching
fund mechanism that allows local community foundations
throughout Alaska to leverage private donations from
within their communities by matching donors'
contributions dollar-for-dollar with state funds.
By providing a powerful tool to help grow the endowed
assets of community foundations, the Endow Alaska
program addresses several objectives:
· It supports community self-sufficiency
· It recognizes the ability of community members
to identify and respond to local needs
· It creates additional catalyst for community
conversations about philanthropy and the power
of Alaskans to invest in meaningful local
projects and visions
· It creates an opportunity to take today's state
dollars--which result from the development of a
finite, non-renewable resource--and turn them
into a financial tool that can yield
perpetual returns, potentially supporting local
projects and investments for centuries to come.
Endow Alaska is inspired by a program that was
originally put in place in Iowa--Endow Iowa--and which
has since been established in Kentucky, as well. The
legislation envisions a relationship between the state
and a "lead philanthropic entity"--a statewide
organization that receives an annual lump-sum grant,
and then turns around and provides numerous "challenge
grants" to local community foundations or community
affiliate funds.
· Presently in Alaska, the organization most
likely to qualify as the "lead philanthropic
entity" would be the Alaska Community Foundation-
-a statewide community foundation with more than
250 funds in management, and assets of more than
$47 million.
· A nonprofit public charity promoting personal
philanthropy and providing financial management,
strategic development and donor-development
services to communities, organizations and donors
across Alaska.
MS. HARRINGTON then posed a hypothetical example in which Kodiak
has a community foundation. The State of Alaska would make an
annual lump sum grant to perhaps the Alaska Community Foundation
(ACF), which would be able to provide a challenge grant to the
Kodiak Community Foundation. The Kodiak Community Foundation
would apply to lead a local campaign and have its fundraising
matched. If the Kodiak Community Foundation was able to raise
$10,000 in its first year, it might be able to obtain a state
match via ACF. She then continued to paraphrase from her
written remarks [original punctuation provided]:
The program is quite simple, but the impacts are
potentially profound.
The bill does not currently recommend a funding level,
though it does provide some funding limitations to
ensure that community investments are made in diverse
regions of the state.
· However, because this is a matching or challenge
grant program, the scope of the fund is
necessarily limited by the capacity of donors in
Alaska's communities.
8:08:58 AM
MS. HARRINGTON then reviewed the legislation, which is only one
section. The language on page 1, lines 6-12, establishes the
Endow Alaska program in the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED). The program is being placed in
DCCED due to the department's experience with administering
grant funds through the Division of Community & Regional Affairs
(DCRA). Page 1, line 13, through page 2, line 9, outlines the
requirements of a community foundation for the purposes of this
program as well as what would be considered a lead philanthropic
entity. The language references the Internal Revenue System
(IRS) code because some of these organizations are explicitly
defined in the IRS code and have to meet certain tests. The
language started on page 2, line 10, through page 3, line 5,
describes some of the factors the lead philanthropic entity
should consider when choosing to offer a community a challenge
grant. She characterized this portion of the legislation as the
policy portion in which the legislature describes what it wants
to achieve. The language on page 3, line 6, sets forth the
limits such that the grants cannot exceed $25,000 for a
community foundation unless it benefits multiple boroughs or a
large region. Furthermore, a single borough can't receive more
than five Endow Alaska grants per year. She did note that work
needs to be done in the aforementioned provision since some
areas in the state aren't an organized borough. The last
limitation stipulates that only 5 percent of the grant funds
received by the lead philanthropic entity can be used for
administrative purposes. Currently, ACF administers about [280]
affiliate funds and about $47 million in holding. She related
her understanding that ACF's administrative fees are much lower
than 5 percent of the grant funds received. The final portion
of the legislation consists of definitions. Ms. Harrington then
paraphrased from the following written remarks [original
punctuation provided]:
Our office has been work-grouping this bill with
individuals from around the state who are involved in
community foundations and their work. Through this
process, we have identified several aspects of the
bill that can be improved to:
· Ensure the legislation recognizes the unique
characteristics and opportunities of Alaska
· Enable communities with limited financial
resources to avail themselves of the
opportunities presented by Endow Alaska.
· Clarify that the program is intended to grow
endowed funds
· Underscore the importance of local donors and
local control of funds.
After your committee hears public testimony today,
we'd like to return at a future meeting with proposed
revisions to HB 290 that helps achieve the goals I've
just outlined.
8:14:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the policy if more than
one philanthropic entity existed in a community or if there came
to be more than one philanthropic entity in the future.
MS. HARRINGTON said that currently she wasn't aware of
communities that have more than one community foundation.
However, she deferred to those in the community foundation
realm. She related her understanding that typically there is
only one community foundation in communities with such an
organization.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER acknowledged that may be the case now,
but suggested that once state money is available more such
organizations may be created. For instance, if an existing
community foundation doesn't support a particular issue, she
could envision another organization being created. Therefore,
there should be a manner in which to select which community
foundation [to fund] unless the intention is to fund multiple
community foundations.
8:16:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then directed attention to page 2, lines
5-6, of HB 290 and inquired as to whether the intention is to
support only community organizations or also corporate and
private organizations.
MS. HARRINGTON acknowledged that the aforementioned portion of
the legislation is one in which the sponsor would want to amend
in order to provide clarity regarding [the member organization
being the Alaska Community Foundation].
8:17:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to how the work of the
Rasmuson Foundation would compare with what HB 290 proposes.
MS. HARRINGTON recommended that the committee invite the
Rasmuson Foundation to speak regarding its work and view on the
proposal in HB 290. She did note, however, that she believes
the Rasmuson Foundation would need a formal invitation to
testify due to the nature of the organization. To the question,
Ms. Harrington specified that the Rasmuson Foundation has been
investing in community foundations through challenge grants as
well as through the community foundation mechanism, albeit with
a different focus. The focus of the Rasmuson Foundation with
the community foundation mechanism has been to provide funds and
assist communities that don't have community foundations to
create one and thus involves more technical assistance. Ms.
Harrington emphasized that HB 290 doesn't compete with the work
of the Rasmuson Foundation, rather it enhances it.
8:19:04 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the committee certainly can invite
the Rasmuson Foundation to speak at the next hearing of HB 290.
8:19:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to the inception of this idea.
MS. HARRINGTON explained that staff in Representative
Austerman's office subscribe to various newsletters and follow
some nonprofits. Originally, staff became aware of the Endow
Iowa program and some of its benefits, particularly in the rural
communities of Iowa. She opined that the Endow Iowa program has
experienced an astonishing level of success, success in ways
that she suggested would be analogous in Alaska. The Endow Iowa
program was inspiring and resulted in discussions of how it
would work in Alaska.
8:20:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the $25,000 limit [specified on
page 3, lines 8-9] is per year.
MS. HARRINGTON answered that the $25,000 limit is intended to be
per year, although she acknowledged that it's not clear in the
legislation. In further response to Representative Saddler, Ms.
Harrington confirmed that the $25,000 limit is for each sub unit
not the lead organization and the borough is not intended to be
the recipient of the funds. This language could be clarified,
she acknowledged.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that with a 1:1 match, much
philanthropy would flow to this proposed fund and perhaps starve
other philanthropic organizations. He inquired as to the
experience in Iowa.
MS. HARRINGTON related that in conversations with nonprofits she
found that annual campaigns are fairly different than
endowments. In fact, the Chilkat Valley Community Foundation
related that they were explicit with nonprofits that they didn't
intend to perform annual fundraising or compete with nonprofits
to provide ongoing annual services. Rather, they are dealing
with bequests and planned giving and other ways in which funds
can flow into the fund during major life transitions. The
aforementioned resulted in some of the nonprofits being the
original investors in the community fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised then that the goal of HB 290 is
to create an endowment from which the proceeds go toward direct
grants to the community foundations.
MS. HARRINGTON replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this would be a one-time
appropriation to the lead philanthropic organization or would it
take a couple of years.
MS HARRINGTON deferred to the sponsor.
8:24:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related that he has reviewed it both as
an annual appropriation or a larger sum to create its own
endowment from which the interest earnings are spent. He
expected the discussion of the aforementioned to occur in the
Finance committees.
8:25:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the Alaska Community Foundation
is the lead philanthropic organization.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that currently ACF is the
organization which he knows has a track record and the
capability to do this, although there may be other organizations
that will come forward.
8:25:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the sponsor has had any
discussions with the Kenai and Soldotna [foundations].
MS. HARRINGTON confirmed that there is a Kenai Peninsula
Foundation. The sponsor statement in the committee packet
includes a list of community foundations that already exist.
She noted that there are also community funds that have been
established with the assistance of Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation (ASRC) in order to benefit all of the North Slope
communities. Furthermore, there are communities throughout the
state that are actively exploring the establishment of local
community foundations.
8:27:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN, returning to Representative Gardner's
earlier question, clarified that the legislation doesn't specify
there is only one community foundation or affiliate, and
therefore there is the potential for more than one as reflected
in the language on page 1, line 11. He then suggested that the
benefit of having more than one foundation could result in a
better organization or philanthropic community due to the
competition.
8:28:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that under the language
capping the grant amount on page 3, lines 8-9, communities with
multiple organizations would receive a greater benefit because
each organization would receive $25,000. Therefore, she
questioned whether the limit would be one per organization or
per community, in which case knowing the selection criteria
would be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that he was not sure.
8:29:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to the feedback regarding the
5 percent administrative cap, particularly from those smaller
communities that don't have the administrative economies of
scale.
MS. HARRINGTON said that she hasn't received any feedback on
that matter. However, she clarified that the 5 percent
limitation is for administrative purposes within the lead
philanthropic entity. When the dollars go to the local
community foundation, they are intended to flow into the endowed
fund to build it. Therefore, there would be no administrative
fees at the local level, which is based on the assumption that
these foundations are already functioning or will be shortly and
the purpose is to build endowments with existing resources
running the administrative functions.
8:30:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there is any standard for
management of the lead philanthropic organization.
MS. HARRINGTON said that she is learning about the IRS
restrictions that provide high levels of assurance that these
organizations are operating in a manner consistent with the
public good. Additionally, Uniform Prudent Management of
Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) ensures that donors have the
ability to be ensured that organizations holding endowed funds
on their behalf are doing so in a fiscally prudent manner.
Essentially, when there is a fund with many donors, [the donors]
can become the safeguard in that the donors have the ability to
be sure the foundation is being managed prudently.
8:32:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled the legislation's goal of
leveraging donations. Referring to the language on page 2,
lines 16-17 and 29-30, she asked if the community foundations
and community affiliate organizations are required to match
dollar-to-dollar or can they do more.
MS. HARRINGTON confirmed that the language allows for community
foundations to [provide a match that exceeds dollar-for-dollar].
However, she wasn't sure that is useful and characterized it as
a policy call.
8:34:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that this is a
matching grant fund and thus the community foundation has to
raise whatever amount the state is asked to provide.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied yes.
8:34:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the details of the Endow
Iowa and Kentucky programs.
MS. HARRINGTON said she would have to research the type of
philanthropy those two programs have generated. Since the
Kentucky program was enacted relatively recent, it's likely just
beginning to have impacts. However, in Iowa the dollar-for-
dollar match component has been in existence for six to seven
years during which donors could receive a tax write-off. The
Iowa program was so successful that it had to do away with the
dollar-for-dollar match and only have the tax write-off for
donations.
8:36:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that in terms of money flow, the
state would appropriate a certain amount of money to the lead
philanthropic organization that would take applications for
grants. Local community foundations would apply for grants, the
applications would be scored, and a matching amount of funds
would be provided. He then asked whether there is another
effort to obtain matching state funds or do the state matching
funds come through the lead philanthropic organization.
MS. HARRINGTON clarified that it's intended to refer to the
funds that are received through the lead philanthropic
organization.
8:38:04 AM
KEN CASTNER, Member, Board of Trustees, Homer Foundation,
informed the committee that the Homer Foundation has been in
existence for over 20 years. He noted that he submitted written
testimony to the sponsor and thus he would like to provide
answers to some of the questions posed today. He informed the
committee that UPMIFA, AS 13.70.020, is state law that addresses
the concerns expressed by Representative Saddler regarding the
prudent management rule. With regard to Representative
Gardner's concern over the possibility of rapid growth of new
community foundations, he reminded the committee that community
foundations don't fund projects. Therefore, there is no
competition. [Community foundations] fund other 501(c)(3)s and
other general charitable organizations and publish annual
reports. He characterized community foundations as apex boards
that are difficult to populate. Most of the work for community
foundations is in regard to the management and administration of
the funds as well as reporting; the distribution of grant funds
isn't the largest portion of what a community foundation does.
Although he said he wouldn't expect a rapid growth of community
foundations, he would expect ACF would grow more affiliates. He
said he would also expect the smaller communities to create
simple funds, which he referred to as community endowments.
Because of the nature of the various sizes of communities in
Alaska, he expressed hope that the community funds would qualify
for matching grants for their endowments. Mr. Castner opined
that as a public charity, [community foundations] have to
annually meet a public support test such that one-third of the
community foundation's income has to come from public sources.
Although the support from individuals is capped, it's not from
governmental sources. Therefore, any funds from governmental
sources are very helpful in meeting the aforementioned public
support test. In closing, Mr. Castner offered to help craft
this legislation for Alaska.
8:42:01 AM
CANDACE WINKLER, President/CEO, Alaska Community Foundation
(ACF), provided the following testimony:
[The Alaska Community Foundation is] a statewide
community foundation that works to increase
philanthropy and build community throughout the state.
I am testifying in support of HB 290, which I think is
a pragmatic way to incentivize and grow individual
philanthropy and to invest in Alaska's future. I think
Alaskans understand the value of endowments; ... we
all live with the Permanent Fund as a part of our life
and I also think Alaskans recognize the importance of
local control and guidance and I think that this bill
enables that to happen. Many of us in the nonprofit
and development world know that Alaska has low levels
of individual giving and I think the concepts behind
this bill utilize state resources to maximize and grow
private dollars that will not only help build these
permanent endowments but will also help build a
culture of philanthropy. And I think that ... is how
a program like this can help all of the nonprofits in
the State of Alaska that are doing such great work.
To give a bit of context to the bill and to the work
of community foundations, I want to tell you a little
bit about the Alaska Community Foundation .... We
have been around for 16 years. During that time we
have granted out more than $30 million around the
State of Alaska. We currently hold about $55 million
in assets for the benefit of Alaskans. From that we
grant out somewhere in the neighborhood of around $5
million last year and I think that's what we're
anticipating this year.
We have 280 different funds ... included in that is
the Alaska Children's Trust (ACT), which just recently
those funds moved over from the State of Alaska. With
regard to affiliates, we actually have five affiliates
that are locally ... managed and they set goals at a
local level, do local fundraising, make granting
decisions, but do fall under the governance structure
of the Alaska Community Foundation, and that's the
Seward Community Foundation, Petersburg Community
Foundation, Kenai Peninsula Foundation, Jessica
Stevens Community Foundation, and Chilkat Valley. In
addition, we have three partner community foundations
that are their own stand-alone nonprofits: the Homer
Foundation, Juneau Community Foundation, and the
Arctic Slope Community Foundation (ASCF). Those
stand-alone entities do hold permanent endowments with
the Alaska Community Foundation in addition to endowed
funds they held locally. And then we have a more
loosely structured partnership with the many other
community foundations: Chugiak Eagle River, Bethel
Community Services Foundation, and Northstar Community
Foundation.
We do have experience in managing these matching
programs. In partnership with the Rasmuson Foundation
we have given away more than $1 million in matching
funds to ... our two partners and the five affiliates
as they have raised dollars. These have proven to be
a really effective method to build community
endowments. In a four-year period the Seward
Community Foundation, an affiliate of ACF, received
three bequests; one of them was a $1.9 million gift
when a long-time Sewardite passed away. So, it's not
only an effective way to raise dollars today, but
there's the potential as activity and the work is
happening in local communities to plant seeds and
receive some of those resources when Alaskans pass
away. So, that's really powerful. The program has
been called the Community Asset Building Initiative
(CABI) and from a generous grant with the Rasmuson
Foundation, we will be expanding to three or four new
communities as early as this fall. We are currently
working on meeting with different communities and
determining their interest level.
8:46:33 AM
MS. WINKLER continued:
Specific comments on the bill, as Erin stated, ACF is
not a membership organization. The only membership
organizations that really work with foundations are
Philanthropy Northwest, which is our regional
association in Alaska. It's one of the five
Northwestern states, and then there also is the
National Council on Foundation that's a membership
organization; they are the entity that oversees the
community foundations' best practice standard that is
referenced in the bill.
If I were to make comments specific to the bill, there
is on page 2, line 27, a reference to those best
practice standards. And I do think that this is a
policy area for you all to think about. The
terminology says "substantially complied" with these
best practice standards for organizations who might be
applying to the lead organization to participate in
the matching funds. From my perspective, trying to
administer language around "substantially complied" is
complex; it entails defining what that means. And so
from my perspective it would be much easier to have
language that says you either meet these best practice
standards or you don't. I think then that review
process happens at a national level and I think some
of the questions regarding ... if you have two
community foundations or ... are unsure about how
funds are invested or managed, ... that national best
practice standard reviews those policies and
practices. And I think it provides the highest level
of protection for the state dollars and also the
individual donor dollars that are coming in. That's
the standard that Iowa is using. There also is
currently draft language at a federal level to use
USDA funds to do a very similar project to incentivize
rural communities to build endowments and it also uses
the best practice standards as sort of the marker of
how you participate in that program. So, ... I do
think that the policy decision around that is that we
do have some community foundations, that at this time
in the State of Alaska meet those standards [and] we
do have some that don't. And I think that there will
be a cost associated for some of those that don't to
actually get that best practice standard. And so,
that is certainly a consideration.
Ken talked a little bit about some of the strategies
to try to address the needs of communities that don't
currently have a community foundation. And I think
some of his suggestions were good ideas. Currently
the Alaska Community Foundation does have what we call
an Alaska Fund and out of that fund any community is
eligible to apply. We could look at setting up some
sort of fund that matching funds went to and then
state funds ... corresponded and could be open only
for those communities that did not have a specific
local community foundation in the region. It would be
one way to kind of aggregate that activity but provide
still some benefit to communities that maybe are quite
small or don't have the current capacity.
8:50:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the criteria used to
evaluate applications from communities without an existing fund
that apply to ACF. She also inquired as to examples of things
commonly funded by community philanthropic endowment funds.
MS. WINKLER stated that such organizations, ACF, mostly fund
nonprofit organizations via the grant program. However, there
may be a few cases in which ACF may become involved with
expenditure responsibility when there is a need in a community.
She explained that when communities without a nonprofit apply,
ACF performs basic due diligence to ensure the nonprofit is in
good standing with the IRS. If it's a competitive project, the
proposal would be evaluated on the criteria that have been set.
Other funds are established in such a way that they may be
funding a specific organization by design, which means that
there is a basic review to ensure the organization is still in
compliance and operating effectively. The process for
determining an affiliate community foundation is complex and
very different than applying for funding for a grant. Ms.
Winkler then related that ACF funds a wide variety of issues
based on the goal/mandate to improve the quality of life in
communities throughout Alaska. Therefore, ACF may fund
refrigeration systems, food banks, a smolt study, revitalization
of the Gwich'in language, trails, parks, and basic health and
human service needs. Much of what ACF funds is dictated by the
280 different funds, she stated.
8:53:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, referring to the language "substantial
compliance with the national standards" on page 2, line 27,
asked if Ms. Winkler would foresee any problem with "national
standards" working in small communities in Alaska.
MS. WINKLER answered that the downside of national standards is
that it takes time and effort to document the practices, which
can be costly. There are some community foundations in the
state that do great work, but don't meet those criteria. There
are also community foundations in Alaska that do meet the
national standards, such as ACF and the Homer Community
Foundation. In fact, ACF is currently in the process of re-
certification, which occurs every five years. Ms. Winkler
opined that the criteria are doable and provide protection by
demonstrating that the organization has an investment strategy
and policy, a distribution policy, a grant policy, and a fund
acceptance policy. An external body reviews whether the
community foundation has the policies and practices in place to
manage the complexities of a community foundation.
8:55:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested that Ms. Winkler work with the
[sponsor] to develop a flow chart of the various organizations
and how the money could flow through them.
MS. WINKLER agreed to do so. She then explained that the
affiliate organizations work in their community to be the face,
set agenda, raise funds, and make grant recommendations.
However, legally affiliate organizations are part of ACF and
governed by its bylaws, policies, and investment strategies.
The aforementioned situation provides local flavor and autonomy
without redundant infrastructure. Because the program is
substantially supported with a partnership with the Rasmuson
Foundation, 99.5 percent of the dollars raised in affiliate
foundations stay in those endowments because they don't have
significant operational costs as those are handled by ACF. She
did note that the Iowa model and pending federal legislation
recognizes those affiliates as eligible and able to apply for
matching funds. However, because there are specific endowed
funds that ACF holds only for the benefit of Seward and Moose
Pass, those grants can't be spent on grants or projects in any
other part of the state.
8:58:50 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 290 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 184 sponsor stmt Ver D.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 CS Ver E.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Ketchikan Resolution Motion.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 AML Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Fish Tax Rev Share An.xlsx |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Petersburg Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Wrangell Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 290 Endow Alaska Sponsor Statement--Version E.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 290 |
| HB290-DCCED-DCRA-01-20-12.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 290 |
| HB184 Fish Mgmt Areas Map.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Muni Harbor Facilities.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 AK Harbormasters Port Admin Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Fish Tax Revenue.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184-DCCED-DCRA-01-20-12.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |