Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/22/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB127 | |
| HB175 | |
| HB24 | |
| HB164 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB97 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to insurance; relating to health care
insurance, exemption of certain insurers, reporting,
notice, and record-keeping requirements for insurers,
biographical affidavits, qualifications of alien
insurers assuming ceded insurance, risk-based capital
for insurers, insurance holding companies, licensing,
federal requirements for nonadmitted insurers, surplus
lines insurance, insurance fraud, life insurance
policies and annuity contracts, rate filings by health
care insurers, long-term care insurance, automobile
service corporations, guaranty fund deposits of a
title insurer, joint title plants, delinquency
proceedings, fraternal benefit societies, multiple
employer welfare arrangements, hospital and medical
service corporations, and health maintenance
organizations; and providing for an effective date."
3:15:37 PM
KONRAD JACKSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, explained
that the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development (DCCED) was the requestor of the bill. He added
that the purpose of the bill was to clean up language and
terminology related to insurance. In addition, the
legislation would deal with issues that would bring the
state into compliance with federal regulations.
LINDA HALL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, explained
that HB 164 was long; some of the items were required, and
some represented streamlining activities that would update
consumer protections. She explained the subject grouping in
the bill and her intent to provide an overview by section.
Ms. Hall began with Section 1, which covered a small change
in statute (also reflected in Section 22) that would allow
insurance companies selling group insurance to be exempt
from the state's licensing statutes if they had less than
$50,000 in premiums. For example, one company (the Texas
Health Insurance Policy) was headquartered in Texas and
covered five employees in Alaska; the division did not
think it necessary for the company to go through the entire
licensing process to get a certificate of authority to be
able to continue to write health insurance for only five
employees.
Ms. Hall informed the committee that the terminology
section was intended to bring various Alaska statutes into
conformity with each other. The term "managed care entity"
would be taken out and replaced with "health care insurer"
throughout the following 21 sections. She detailed that the
term "managed care" was only found in AS 21.07; changing
the terminology would reduce confusion and create
consistency.
3:19:38 PM
Ms. Hall directed attention to pages 15 through 22,
containing a variety of technical changes related to
solvency oversight. She described the primary mission of
the Division of Insurance as solvency oversight of the
insurance companies doing business in the state. The
division's general philosophy was that if there was not
money to pay a claim when a consumer had one, the rest of
it did not matter. Other things (such as measuring capital
and risk) followed solvency.
Ms. Hall referred to sections in which the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners model laws had
changed. The current issue was "risk-based capital";
instead of a formula for determining the amount of capital
and surplus, there was a different type of evaluation that
dealt with the risk taken by companies. She referred to
past investments in sub-prime mortgages; these would be
considered "high-risk," and would not be allowed.
Ms. Hall pointed that there were very different types of
risk. For example, there were insurance companies dealing
with earthquake insurance, and others dealing with brick
dwellings in the middle of the country and not on a fault.
Much of the language in HB 164 dealt with risk-based
capital and changes in the way that was evaluated. In
addition, the bill would increase the level at which
regulators took action from 250 percent to 300 percent.
Ms. Hall noted that some of the sections required the
reporting of electronic mailing addresses. She reminded the
committee about a past discussion about how the division
communicated with those it regulated; it was allowed to
collect electronic mailing address so that it could be more
efficient in its communications. Record maintenance
requirements would also be made more stringent.
Ms. Hall pointed out that the division tried to meet
national standards set by the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners so that financial examinations were
capable of being used by other states.
3:23:13 PM
Ms. Hall turned to the section labeled "Licensing," which
would streamline the way the state licensed agents. There
would no longer be an individual or firm license; the
license would belong to the individual and if the
individual changed employment, the license would go with
them. The need to report to the division would be
eliminated if the individual turned in the license and got
a new one. The process would save work and eliminate
penalties for not doing things in a timely fashion. Both
the way the division licensed and the very complex fee
structure would be changed.
Ms. Hall continued that the statute would require an
employment contract so the individual agent working in a
firm could operate under the appointments by the insurance
companies that the firm was allowed to do business with. In
addition, the fiduciary accounts and records could be used.
Ms. Hall highlighted Section 38, which would remove the
requirement that non-residents be fingerprinted. She noted
that there was a national standard to no longer fingerprint
agents to be in compliance with a federal law (the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act). The statute would still require the firm
to be responsible for the individuals working under it, but
the individual agents would have more flexibility. The
streamlining of agent licensing would allow people to
conduct business in a more efficient manner.
Representative Wilson asked for clarification related to
resident and non-resident fingerprinting.
Ms. Hall responded that a non-resident individual would be
fingerprinted in their home state. The issue was
reciprocity; there was a national standard of not
fingerprinting.
Representative Wilson asked whether there was a reason
Alaska required fingerprinting.
Ms. Hall replied that she did not know the reason for
fingerprinting, as it pre-dated her (she had been doing
insurance business in Alaska for over 20 years). She added
that the general idea across the country was that
background checks included questions about convictions of
felonies; one of the standard criteria to become an
insurance agent was trustworthiness.
3:27:12 PM
Representative Wilson expressed concerns about the section.
She did not want people to be fingerprinted in order to
prove trustworthiness. She wanted to know where the section
came from. She did not think it was a national standard,
since only 24 states required fingerprinting.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the bill could
easily have said that agents were not required to be
fingerprinted if they were fingerprinted in another state
where their jurisdiction was, since less than half the
states required fingerprinting. He thought there were three
different things going on in the section: meeting the
national standard of the insurance commissioners, some
federal law issues, and the division's recommendations for
changes in statute. He wondered whether three bills
conforming to three different things would have helped.
Representative Guttenberg asked that the three categories
be delineated, if the bill was not held over.
Ms. Hall replied that the fingerprinting was part of a
national standard; all states did background checks,
although they might not go so far as doing them by
fingerprinting. She maintained that the state would not be
in compliance with some of the national standards if the
fingerprinting provision was changed.
Ms. Hall noted that there were different levels in the
bill. There were changes in federal law that had to be
complied with. There were changes in accreditation
standards. There were also things she would like to see,
such as the streamlining of agent licensing. In addition,
there was the section on long-term-care statutes, which
were 20 years old and did not reflect the marketplace.
There were consumer items that were not required by federal
law or accreditation standards; however, her goal as the
director of the division was protections for Alaska
consumers.
Ms. Hall acknowledged that all the various pieces had been
gathered together in one bill. She noted that there had
been significant discussion about whether to separate the
issues into multiple bills. She said that the decision to
have one bill had been made in conjunction with
Representative Olson.
3:31:35 PM
Ms. Hall stated that she could probably make HB 164 into
four bills on different topics.
Representative Wilson clarified that she supported
background checks, but questioned the need for
fingerprinting. She queried the extent of federal
requirements.
Ms. Hall replied that federal law did not call for
fingerprinting, but the national standards had been adopted
as the goal for how all states should do the background
check. House Bill 164 would not add fingerprinting; Alaska
had been fingerprinting for at least 24 years. She did not
know why the requirement had started, but it was very old.
Representative Wilson did not think "we've always done it"
was a good enough reason. She thought the requirement for
fingerprinting needed to be taken out of the bill unless
there was a good justification for it.
Representative Doogan queried the state's reason for
fingerprinting. He wanted to check his assumption that
people's identities were checked because they handled money
and Alaska wanted to know whether they had been in trouble
in some other state.
Ms. Hall responded that the reason for fingerprinting was
indeed related to handling money, but that was not the only
reason for it. She referred to the example of a licensee
who had issued false insurance certificates to people
without collecting money (although that had happened as
well); there were various types of crimes of fiduciary lack
of responsibility. She noted that there was a federal law
requiring any felon working in any aspect of the insurance
business (even in the mailroom) to apply to the division.
3:35:19 PM
Ms. Hall stated that fingerprinting seemed to help people
remember that they had a felony in their background,
although that was not common in Alaska. She added that
there was a national database with the information about
felons. The state checked license actions in the same way.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to page 25 and asked for
information about the new section allowing employment
contracts.
Ms. Hall answered that the state would require an
employment contract. When the state changed the way it
licensed (no longer had individuals in a firm license), it
would require that a firm had a contract with the employees
who would work under the firm license and under the
appointment with the insurance company. Many of the
agencies that did business in Alaska were called
"independent agencies" with appointments with multiple
insurance companies. She referred to Alaska National, the
largest insurance company headquartered in Alaska. She
described a possible situation involving an insurance
agency with an appointment with insurance company A (such
as Alaska National). The individuals working in the firm
would use the appointment to transact business; they were
enabled to write business under the appointment held by the
firm. She added that the insurance companies did not
normally appoint individuals in such cases. For example,
Marsh (a large brokerage in Anchorage) probably had
appointments with 45 companies and 50 to 70 employees;
those employees could transact business with the 45
companies because of the single appointment. The division
wanted there to be a connection so that the individual
agent could work under the appointment, the records could
be considered theirs, and the accounting of monies could be
shared.
3:38:45 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough summarized that the appointment was
the contract between an insurance agency and someone being
insured.
Ms. Hall corrected her; the appointment was between the
insurance company and the agency that would sell their
product. The employment contract was between the agency
selling the product and the individual agent working for
the firm.
Vice-chair Fairclough had questions related to payroll and
accounting, but she said she was totally confused.
Ms. Hall explained that the appointment was between those
offering a product and the agency selling the product. The
consumer would buy the product from the agency selling the
product; the consumer did not buy the product directly from
the insurance company offering the product.
Vice-chair Fairclough questioned how the employment
contracts were handled related to payroll. She wondered
whether an employment contract could shelter an agency from
a wrongdoing by the employee, whether they were handled as
employees or contracts.
Ms. Hall replied they were handled as an employee; the
contract was not intended to make them an independent
contractor.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the contract would
provide protection from liability because of an independent
employment contract with the person selling the product to
the consumer.
Ms. Hall replied in the negative. She pointed to page 25
(d), which stated that a firm would be responsible for the
actions and the individual transacting insurance under the
firm's employment; the intent was that the firm would
continue to be responsible for the actions of the agent
working under the contract. She emphasized that the
contract was not a shelter from liability or
responsibility.
Ms. Hall continued her review of the legislation with what
she felt was the most important section of the bill. She
relayed that in June 2010, a federal law was passed called
the Non-admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act. The law dealt
with the premium tax of non-admitted or surplus-lines
insurance. She detailed that there were two ways that
insurance companies wrote business. The first, traditional
way (pertaining to 90 percent of Alaskan insurance) was
selling as an admitted insurer with a certificate of
authority to operate in the state; premium tax was paid.
3:42:50 PM
Ms. Hall continued that the state collected about $50
million in premium tax and about $47 million of that tax
was from the admitted insurance market. The second way was
called non-admitted or surplus-lines insurance; this
pertained to insurers who decided they did not do enough
business in Alaska to go through the rigors of becoming
licensed and having forms and rates approved. The second
group of insurers did business through a brokerage
arrangement; the brokerage paid the premium tax for $3.5
million worth of business. The federal law referred to the
second type of business, surplus lines. The second type of
business was regulated differently, was not covered by the
guarantee fund disclaimers, and was sold differently.
Ms. Hall detailed that the federal law passed in June of
2010 pre-empted the states to the extent of changing the
way the state could collect the premium tax. Instead of
being collected only for the portion of the (multi-state)
risk in Alaska, each state needed to pass legislation to
collect 100 percent of the premium tax for a company whose
home state was Alaska.
Ms. Hall gave the example of a cruise-ship business that
was headquartered in California but had risk in the form of
lodges and docks in Alaska. A portion of the company's
insurance risk was in Alaska. Alaska would collect premium
tax on the pieces of property or liability risk that were
in Alaska. Under the new federal law, California would
collect 100 percent of the premium tax. Therefore, the
federal law encouraged the states to either join a compact
or to find some other procedure of collecting the taxes and
re-allocating them back to the states. The taxing rate was
not changed and a company would pay the same amount of tax
if its home state was Alaska, but would pay all of the
taxes to Alaska.
Ms. Hall emphasized that the federal law intended each
state to adopt uniform forms and procedures for reporting
the collection and allocation of the premium tax.
3:46:20 PM
Ms. Hall informed the committee that the section of the
bill from pages 27 to 37 would change how the state would
collect tax and would authorize the director to join a
clearinghouse. She referred to significant national debate
on the best way to implement the federal law. Regulators
formed an implementation taskforce and studied various ways
to implement the law, including asking legislatures for
authority to join a compact, keeping whatever the state was
entitled to keep, or asking for authority to join a
clearinghouse.
Ms. Hall pointed out that there were perimeters in the bill
that would protect the revenue stream, which was fairly
small for Alaska; of the roughly $50 million of premium tax
collected in the state, the number was probably $0.5
million.
Ms. Hall noted that the section on surplus lines needed to
be changed to achieve compliance with the federal law; it
also needed an adoption of the definition of "home state"
so that Alaska could collect 100 percent of the tax of any
company that happened to be a multi-state company domiciled
in Alaska. The bill would then allow the allocation of
taxes and authorize the division to join a clearinghouse
operation (a streamlined way of collecting and disbursing
the taxes).
Ms. Hall added that the division already had taxing
authority and collected premium tax; it was not done
through the Department of Revenue. Therefore, the taxation
issue was not new authority. She noted that the perimeters
of the clearinghouse were very small.
3:49:10 PM
AT EASE
3:51:58 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-chair Fairclough OPENED public testimony.
STEVE STEPHAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL SURPLUS LINES OFFICE (via
teleconference), testified both in support of and in
opposition to HB 164. He explained that the National
Association Professional Surplus Lines Office (NAPSLO)
supported the proposed provision to tax 100 percent of the
in-state risk. The association opposed the part of the bill
that would delegate authority to the commissioner to enter
into an interstate compact or agreement. He felt that the
agreement that had been drafted was too burdensome a method
of collecting taxes and would require numerous data
elements and the construction of a bureaucracy to collect
the taxes. He emphasized that there would be 30 data
elements for each policy, which would need to be entered
before inputting data to allocate taxes.
Mr. Stephan continued that NAPSLO was not opposed to the
states trying to share taxes with each other, but he felt
the burden would fall on the broker. He stated that the
association would support a method of sharing taxes that
did not burden the broker.
Mr. Stephan reported that part of the concern was that the
computation of casualty risks would be required for the
first time, which added a whole new burden on the broker.
Currently, brokers did not typically divide things like
director officer's insurance, umbrella, and excess; those
types of risks were usually considered home-state risks.
The agreement known as the non-admitted, multi-state
agreement would require the broker to input all the data
for the first time for the purpose of trying to pay taxes.
Mr. Stephan added that there was a concern about
legislative transparency; NAPSLO believed the agreement
would change the tax laws of the state. An Alaska
corporation with sales in Florida would be taxed at the
higher Florida rate (in excess of 10 percent); a tax
increase would have to be levied on some policy holders.
The details of the agreement would also have to do with the
amount of Alaska tax revenue that would be sent to other
states. The association believed those things should be in
a statute so that brokers, policy holders, and the
brokerage insurance community could see and understand what
the arrangement was.
3:56:19 PM
Mr. Stephan continued that the admitted side (where 89
percent of the business was written) generally did not
attempt to allocate things like health care; the allocation
effort was focused on the small segment of the insurance
community.
Mr. Stephan pointed out that in general, the vast majority
of policies in a normal state were single-state policies;
most of the policies would be taxed by Alaska currently and
would be taxed by Alaska following the introduction of the
legislation. In a normal state, the amount might be 90 to
95 percent; Alaska would be different because it did not
border other states. Multi-state risks would be difficult
because contractors and others could not easily move from
state to state. He guessed that the amount of multi-state
risk written in Alaska would be very small.
Mr. Stephan concluded with concerns about the long-term
viability of an agreement between the states to share tax
revenue, because a state would normally object to putting
more money into a system than it got back out, and would
drop back out. The concern was that the difficult and
burdensome system for the broker would be built and then
fall apart shortly afterwards because any state that put
more money in than it got back out would drop back out of
the system.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked Mr. Stephan for a written copy
of his comments.
Mr. Stephan agreed to supply written testimony the
following day.
Ms. Hall commented that the goal of the national group of
insurance regulators was not to create an additional burden
on the brokers. She referred to the National Interstate
Fuel Tax Agreement (NIFTA), which the Non-admitted
Insurance Multi-State Agreement (NIMA) was modeled after;
it was a simplified way of allocating collected tax. She
stated that there would be no change in the tax rate.
Ms. Hall added that she strongly disagreed with Mr.
Stephan's statement that Alaskans would be taxed at the
Florida tax rate. She said that everyone would be taxed at
the individual state tax rate that they currently had. An
Alaskan company headquartered in Alaska with a $5 million
building in Tampa (Florida) would currently be taxed at
Florida rates on the building and taxed at Alaska rates on
the rest of the account; that would not change with HB 164.
She emphasized that the legislation clearly spelled out
that the tax rates of each state would be applied to the
portion of the risk in that state. She disagreed that
Alaska did not allocate casualty; she had checked with
commercial brokers, who told her that they allocated their
casualty account when doing multi-state accounts.
Vice-chair Fairclough requested that the written testimony
submitted by Mr. Stephan include specific page and section
numbers in the legislation so that Ms. Hall could respond.
4:00:21 PM
Representative Gara asked how many other states were
dealing with the provision in the manner Mrs. Hall had
recommended it be dealt with.
Ms. Hall responded that at last count, there were 17 states
that had introduced the type of legislation represented in
HB 164; another 14 were contemplating the same
clearinghouse arrangement. There were about 10 states that
had introduced a compact-type of legislation, 5 states that
had both, and 11 states were still thinking about the
issue. She emphasized that a far greater number of states
were considering the simplified structure represented in HB
164.
Representative Gara did not think many legislators
understood the bill.
4:02:14 PM
DALE FOSSELMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT, DENALI ALASKAN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, WASILLA
(via teleconference), testified in opposition to Section 79
of the legislation. He detailed that the credit union had
55,000 members and over 500 sponsor employers, the vast
majority of whom employed less than 50 workers. He spoke to
Section 79 of HB 164, which would address individual health
care insurance policies in the group market. The credit
union felt that the language in the section would severely
limit both employer and employee choice of health care
insurance, and would leave employees without insurance
options for extended periods of times.
Mr. Fosselman provided the example of a hypothetical
employer forced to drop group health insurance coverage due
to declining profitability, the increasing cost of
insurance, or a combination of both factors. According to
the proposed language in HB 164, no insurer could issue a
policy to those employees for six months after the group-
plan coverage ended. He believed the restriction was "quite
onerous" and was poor public policy on several levels.
Mr. Fosselman believed employers and employees should have
more options to obtain health insurance in the described
circumstances, instead of facing restricted access to
health insurance. He thought the language of Section 79 was
so broad as to seemingly prohibit even the discussion of
individual health insurance policies with employers.
Mr. Fosselman proposed enacting legislation that would
expressly permit the use of federal tax-favored programs
such as health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) when employers
eliminated group health insurance benefits. From an
employer perspective, he felt HRAs were easy to administer
and allowed flexibility in determining contribution levels.
From an employee perspective, he thought HRAs allowed the
ultimate flexibility in how the dollars were spent, because
they could be used for either a specific list of medical
expenses (known as 213(d) expenses) or for those that had
health insurance, they could be used for co-insurance, co-
pays, or deductibles, in conjunction with that insurance.
For those without insurance, HRAs could be used to fund
health insurance premiums. Unlike flexible spending
accounts, there would be no "use-it-or-lose-it" provision.
Mr. Fosselman opined that individual policies were better
than group policies. For one, individual policies were
portable, and not tied to employment, which benefitted
seasonal, part-time, and temporary workers. Individual
policies typically had more stable pricing, because the
risk-rating group was much larger than a smaller employer-
based group. Individuals could currently chose from more
than 40 plan designs available, in order to optimize
coverage and cost at the individual level. The option
remained for individuals to apply to the Alaska
Comprehensive Health Association if pre-existing conditions
prevented an insurer from issuing coverage; in addition,
the employer would be able to increase the contribution for
the individual employee.
Mr. Fosselman concluded that Section 79 created more
problems than it solved for working Alaskans and stated
that establishing additional alternatives for employees and
employers would constitute better public policy.
Specifically, he believed that a statute that would
absolutely confirm that employers of any size could
establish HRAs that could fund individual health insurance
expenses without triggering small group health insurance
regulation would ably and better serve both employees and
employers.
4:06:01 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for a written copy of the
testimony given. She CLOSED public testimony.
Ms. Hall acknowledged the complexity of the bill. She
pointed out that there were several sections that she had
not had an opportunity to speak to and welcomed individual
questions if additional information was needed.
HB 164 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB8-NEWFNLAW-CIV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Executive Orders Info.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 CFR Costs.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 -HR0009A.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Null & Void article.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 NYC v FCC Syllabus.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 stroke of pen.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 sponsor.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Supremacy-10th Amend.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB 8 Utah Em. Dom. Article.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB8-NEWFNLAW-CIV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| CSHB10-NEWFNDOA-DMV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Email Mike O'Meara 3-15-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Fax AARP 3-14-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Leg Audit #08-20067-11 Summary.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Sponsor Statement ver M.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Leg Audit #08-20067-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24-NEWFNCCED-RCA-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| HB24 Supporting Documents - Letter GCI 3-15-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 24 |
| CSHB64-NEWFNDOA-DMV-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 CS Section Changes.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB64_Vehicle CountsDMV.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB64 NEWFN-DEC-AQ-03-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| 02 HB 097 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 04 HB 097 Invasive Weeds and Agriculture Pest Coordinator Accomplishments.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB 097 LOS AK Comte for Noxious and Inv Plants Mgment.PDF |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB097 Report on the Alaska Weed Project.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB 097 LOS AK Sealife Center.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB097 Testify Zaumzeil.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| 06 HB097_Perception_of_an_Invasive_Species.PDF |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| HB 105 AFA Letter of Support 1.12.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Parcel Maps 12.20.2010.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Public Briefing 1.24.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/14/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Land Ownership and Mill Status.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 SE Land Summary 2.22.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/13/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Transmittal.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/14/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Trends Populations Projections 2010-2034.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Value Added 3.8.2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Vicinity Map 12-20-2010.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB_141_Sponsor_Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Sectional_Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_ GOAC3.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_DuncanFeilds.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_Ivanof Bay Tribe.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_SWAMC.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_ BVI.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141_Support_Letter_Yakutat.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB147 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 147 |
| HB147 Supporting Documents-Letter Chair of State Board 1-25-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 147 |
| HB147 Supporting Documents-Letter Alaska Socity of CPAs 2-1-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 147 |
| CSHB164(L&C) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| CSHB164(L&C) Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB 175 Explanation of Changes CD JUD.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 175 Sponsor statement CS JUD.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Sectional CS JUD.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 141 NOAA Alaska Fisheries report 4pgs..pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB 10 AML Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB97 Letter.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 97 |
| HB 64 AML Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB164 Fosselman Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 164 |