Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/23/2000 09:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 137-MUNICIPAL DIVIDEND PROGRAM Number 0022 CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 137, "An Act relating to the municipal dividend program; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR JAMES first remarked that second class boroughs have become somewhat of an issue; she is doing research to resolve the issue and it will be discussed at another meeting. Number 0160 PHIL YOUNKER, SR., said he is representing himself as a taxpayer who lives in the Fairbanks North Star Borough. He stated that he supports HB 137 and understands the difficulties of second class boroughs. He explained that he was serving on the assembly when 50 percent of the population did not have emergency medical services (EMS) or fire protection. He thinks that while HB 137 needs some adjustment, he would be opposed to just sending a blank check to local government. As a taxpayer living in Fairbanks, he knows it took years to build adequate fire service areas with state and local money and just plain hard work by volunteers. He commented that road services are in the same position. While the committee may have to make some adjustments, he hoped that the committee would keep a large portion of HB 137 dedicated to the four basic services that taxpayers all need to maintain safety and quality of life. He emphasized that HB 137 covers the most people according to the way it is written and covers the most basic services. He urged the committee to move HB 137 and he hopes it passes. CHAIR JAMES remarked that since volunteers spend many, many hours in community work, the least the legislature can do is provide equipment, education, and tools for volunteers to do their job. MR. YOUNKER said he has been involved in opposition to the ten- mil tax-cap initiative both at home and around the state. He said he is scared that the initiative possibly could pass, and if it does, he believes local service areas will feel the first cuts. He noted that the scary thing is that what he saves in [property] taxes under the tax cap will not pay the difference on his home fire insurance, and he can guarantee that is what will happen. He commented that the tax-cap initiative is bad, and he hopes it can be killed. He acknowledged that it is going to be difficult to get people to vote to raise their own taxes, and that is how people are going to see the tax-cap initiative. He remarked that if HB 137 stays close to what it is today, at least it keeps basic services in service areas that otherwise would be lost if the initiative did pass. Number 0504 DUANE UDLAND, Chief, Anchorage Police Department, said he also represents the Alaska Association of Police Chiefs. He noted that one of the primary concerns for police chiefs is the issue of public safety and as a chief, he is worried about funding. He explained that municipal assistance and revenue sharing as a means of allocation is a difficult subject for the public to understand. He acknowledged that nobody really understands the formula and what he likes about HB 137 is that it is simple and addresses the basics, though he is sure there will be much discussion about what dollar amount should go where. MR. UDLAND indicated that when he had talked with legislators in the past, they had told him that they were not sure where revenue sharing money was going when it goes to cities. He emphasized that he thinks that HB 137 does give the legislature a feeling that they are buying something [tangible] because it outlines where the money goes and what it is for. He remarked that every police chief and city in the state would be able to make long- range plans under the formula presented in HB 137 instead of thinking year to year. He reminded the committee that just as the committee wrestles with long term funding issues, police chiefs do that also at the local level. He said that HB 137 will go a long way toward addressing funding issues, and it would certainly make it easier for the public to understand just where their tax dollars are going because right now he thinks the public does not understand revenue sharing. He urged the committee to make their adjustments to HB 137 and move it out. Number 0686 FRANK KELTY, Mayor, City of Unalaska, testified via teleconference from Unalaska in support of HB 137 and urged the committee to move it forward. Number 0727 PAM KARALUNAS said she is testifying for herself as a lifelong Alaskan. She noted that it has been frustrating to her to see nothing happening probably as a result of the September 14, 1999, [advisory vote on the permanent fund issue] and so she is excited about HB 137. She commented that HB 137 is a step in the right direction and agrees that a combination of more efficient government and citizen responsibility, including [taxes], is the right way to go. She indicated she likes the basic concept of HB 137 and the clear delineation of funds, even though there are some things that will need adjustment. She mentioned that the reality is that people will pay for services one way or another either by increased taxes at home or by costs that are incurred when services do not exist. Number 0846 MIKE O'BRIEN, Mayor of Bethel, indicated that for the Bush communities, HB 137 is going to end up being a matter of economic survival. He informed the committee that Bethel serves as the "Anchorage" of southwestern Alaska because it has a great many small communities that surround the area. Due to cuts to municipal assistance and revenue sharing, small community governments may very well dissolve in the next few years. He acknowledged that a great deal of business comes into Bethel and when those small governments go by the wayside, it will cause severe economic impact on the city of Bethel. Bethel has a plethora of woes just like everybody else in the state, for example, roads that are still silty sand, a water and sewer system that only serves 30 percent of the people, and [the remaining population] still haul water and sewer. He is not so naive as to believe that HB 137 will solve everyone's problems, but he believes this is the best start that has been presented in years. Ultimately other things will have to be attached to HB 137 to make this whole plan work. Number 0952 CHAIR JAMES said she had invited Jim Baldwin here today because there was a concern by one of the representatives about constitutionality of HB 137 as to how it relates to dedicated funds. Number 0969 JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said he had reviewed both versions of the work draft for HB 137, and they appear to be the same in regard to use of the permanent fund (PF) earnings reserve account. He would interpret this provision similarly to what the state is doing now with inflation proofing and the permanent fund dividend (PFD) that goes to individuals. He indicated that the constitutional way to implement HB 137 would be through appropriation in the budget process, consequently there cannot be an automatic dedication of funds. He acknowledged that the department had wrestled with that issue at the time the PFD was created. He remarked that the PFD was [first] established as an automatic budget transfer and then the department switched it to an appropriation because of [constitutional] concerns. He observed that if HB 137 operates through an appropriation he does not see a constitutional issue. MR. BALDWIN suggested that HB 137 can be improved by clarifying the word "transferred" that appears in section 7, page 5, line 12, of the "K" draft and in section 11, page 13, line 25, the phrase "transfers under (b) and (c)." He said that the clarification should say that HB 137 is subject to appropriation and that it is not a dedicated fund. He explained that transfers are made at the end the fiscal year, and he does not know whether the committee is looking at the amount that would be made available in one fiscal year to fund revenue sharing for the next fiscal year. Number 1183 CHAIR JAMES stated that was the intent of HB 137. She reiterated that the $125 from each dividend is counting the previous year's dividends already distributed. MR. BALDWIN said according to AS 37.13.145, the determinations are made at the end of the fiscal year, and if the committee is "forward funding," that is fine. However, if inflation-proofing the PFD and amounts reserved for the municipal dividend year are to [occur] in the same year, there may be a debt-to-cash-flow problem. He commented that he did not know if the HB 137 drafters had thought of that or not. Number 1247 CHAIR JAMES indicated that what the drafters intended to do was identify the money and then "forward fund" it. She said the drafters will make that completely clear in the language. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reiterated that the legislature has a ban on dedicated funds as directed by the constitution, and the legislature gets around that by subjecting things to appropriation every year. He asked if Mr. Baldwin is suggesting that the committee put language into HB 137 that says this particular transfer is subject to appropriation on a yearly basis. Number 1311 MR. BALDWIN said he would not accept Representative Ogan's characterization that Mr. Baldwin or the committee is trying to get around the dedicated fund prohibition. He stated that he believes what is at work here is a means to preserve the legislature's power of appropriation over funds, as required by the Alaska State Constitution. He noted that Representative Ogan had correctly indicated that only in certain instances are dedications permitted in the state system. However, he added, municipal systems are different in that respect. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he thinks the legislature does try to get around the dedicated fund prohibition by simply adding that language. He reiterated that by reviewing the list of things that are appropriated every year, it is clear that dedicated funds are there if it were not for yearly appropriations. Number 1372 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how HB 137 would impact the PFD. MR. BALDWIN replied that the PFD is calculated based on a rolling average so any effect would be delayed by the working of that formula. He said that the PF Corporation has sought some relief from the legislature in the way that net income is calculated. He noted that the way net income is calculated now, it would seem that the effect of HB 137 would not be magnified. However, HB 137 will have some effect, but it will not be a sharp effect from year to year. Beyond that he cannot be specific. CHAIR JAMES explained she had checked what the effect would be on the PFD. She indicated that the $71 million subtracted from the PF earnings reserve would not be earning money to be calculated in the five-year average upon which the PFD calculation is based. She agreed there would be an effect upon the amount of growth of the PF after $71 million is withdrawn. She acknowledged that the income that is produced off of the earnings reserve is a lesser percentage generally than what is in the PF itself because of the restriction of investment. She reminded the committee that the earnings reserve has to be available for appropriation whereas funds in the PF itself have no restrictions and can be invested differently. She explained that an average eight percent income, for example, of the $71 million divided by 571,000 PFDs results in about a $4 reduction in growth of the PFD. Essentially, she added, HB 137 has such a minimal effect on the PFD that it would almost be negligible in the long term. Number 1607 DAVID VEAZEY, Assembly Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough, said he was representing the borough. He noted he had observed that the assembly and the legislature do not get along very well. He explained that the legislature in many ways gets blamed for making cuts and does not get credit for the money that is sent to Fairbanks. He commented that all that Fairbanks has been getting lately is less of expected money and so the legislature is to blame. However, he added, that is unfortunate because it does not help the assembly get along with the legislature. By the same token, the assembly finds it difficult to develop a positive working relationship when conversations the assembly has with the legislature mean nothing in a caucus. He indicated that the assembly is out of the [caucus] loop which does not engender a positive working relationship. He does not know how to get around that because everybody says that is just how things are done. Number 1733 MR. VEAZEY suggested that HB 137 is none of the above; rather, it is truly an incremental solution to the long-range fiscal plan. He remarked that he thinks the long-range fiscal plan that everybody talks about is one of those things where small "bites" out of the problem are better than one big legislative effort. If an entity tries to take a big bite, too many people are opposed to little things in a piece of legislation and it goes nowhere. Therefore, he does not know how a long-range fiscal plan will work or how it will be put together, but he does believe that incremental change is the way to go. He means incremental change in which both the legislature and local elected officials are working together in that solution. MR. VEAZEY said that HB 137 is the work of municipalities of the Alaska Municipal League and courageous legislators who are willing to step up and do something. He hoped that HB 137 can be moved out of committee, move it on to Finance [Committee], and get it rolling. He noted that the committee would find support for HB 137 throughout the state; it is really a local control issue. He explained that service areas have gone from $2000 a mile down to $500 a mile, and HB 137 restores [road service] back to $2000. He indicated that service areas are being severely damaged, and some services are going out of business in Fairbanks. He emphasized that he really believes HB 137 is a positive thing and maybe a first step in developing a very positive relationship with local elected officials and the state legislature. Number 1793 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that Mr. Veazey's comments were well taken. He noted that the problem with HB 137 is another use of PF earnings which he does not think the public is going to accept until there is some sort of constitutional protection for the existing PFD program. He explained that [establishing constitutional protection] is the first step. Until the public trusts the legislature to keep their hands off the PFD, attempts like HB 137 are futile [in trying] to utilize the PF earnings. He mentioned that he thinks that it is appropriate at some point to use the PF earnings, but HB 137 is "the cart before the horse" as far as public acceptance is concerned. Number 1859 MR. VEAZEY said that he and Representative Ogan probably come from different philosophical camps, but he can respect that. He suggested that people do expect the government to use PF earnings, in fact that is what it was set up for. He has three properties in Fairbanks, and he pays property tax. He receives about $10,000 per year from PFDs because he has a wife and three children. He is not going to complain about taxes being too high [when he is receiving $10,000 free money each year]. He indicated that he thinks Alaska is an investment state, and it is time to tap that resource responsibly. He emphasized that handing out money at a time when Alaska has a huge fiscal gap is lunacy, and he thinks people in the state recognize that, but if the legislature takes money away from the people, the people will never like it. Nevertheless, somebody has to be brave and strong at some point and take that risk. Number 1981 JIM TURNER, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, testified that there have been other schemes (better said "ideas") for setting up dedicated funds for the PF. He reminded the committee that a couple of years ago [a scheme] was called the "educational permanent fund." He can understand some hesitancy on the part of the legislature to go forward with an idea like this at this time, but the problem needs to be solved. He recognized that municipalities in the last few years have had a 70 percent decrease from the legislature in municipal sharing. He stated whether this particular solution is it, whether it can be part of a comprehensive plan where other interests of the state are taken into consideration when using the PF, is a question that the legislature is going to have to decide. Number 2087 MR. TURNER stated that he did know that when he works on the borough budget this spring, and municipal sharing comes in less than last year, the borough is going to have to either cut services or raise taxes. On a municipal level, the borough is facing the property tax cap, and he knows that one of the things that fueled that initiative was the idea that the state was increasing taxes surreptitiously through the localities. In other words, the state cut funding to municipalities and municipalities raised taxes. The tax cap initiative is an effort by some people to stop [surreptitious taxes], and that is what these people have said publicly. Consequently, when facing the tax cap initiative next fall, [keep in mind that] people are observing what individual municipalities have done to the people's taxes and services, and he thinks that people will vote in favor of the tax cap. He explained that he thinks there is some culpability on the part of the legislature regarding the tax cap initiative, therefore, constructive solutions and dialogue should go forward, and HB 137 could be part of it. He wanted the committee to be aware of the connection that he sees and that he thinks the voters will see when they have to consider what needs to be done. Number 2170 CHAIR JAMES said she had heard from Matanuska-Susitna folks that they did support the concept of HB 137. LEO RASMUSSEN, Mayor, City of Nome, testified, noting that he is a member of the Alaska Municipal League. He said that over time the legislature and municipal governments have tended to agree that a partnership is advisable in order to move the state forward wherever that might be. He noted that HB 137 might begin to reinstate some partnership. He wanted to offer to the committee the opportunity to reinstate partnership with the Alaska Municipal League (AML), which represents 200 some municipal governments that fall under AML jurisdiction and underneath legislative authority. By working together, the Alaska Municipal League and the legislature can come up with something that will benefit everybody in the end. He acknowledged that both entities are facing a tax cap because neither entity has been working together very much, and it has forced the situation to this point [of a tax cap initiative]. Municipal assistance and state-shared revenue reached its peak at $166 million and now municipalities are looking at $28 million with an 11 percent cut this year, which represents an 84 percent reduction. He reminded the committee that if every institution in the state had taken that same reduction, there would have been "an awful gob" of money to spend on developing other sources of revenue which is not happening currently. He recognized that municipalities are faced with a situation where they must raise revenue because municipalities and the legislature are no longer partners. MR. RASMUSSEN reiterated that municipalities face a tax cap now which is going to force an even further situation of embroiling the legislature in redistribution of the total wealth of this state to accommodate something that is not really needed since [tax cap] is a local option at this time. He noted that if the tax cap takes place, a whole restructuring of the way people live in Alaska will occur to make sure that they fall underneath the two percent clause. There will be very little exchange of property because the minute a title changes on property, the property goes back to full value. Another redistribution of wealth will happen in trying to accommodate or trying to stop [return to full value]. He mentioned that because of fall off of revenue, especially in the Bush, disillusionment with government is observable. It is not unrealistic to think that dissolution could be considered for Douglas or Eagle River so that they would not have to fall under certain terms that come with the ten-mil tax cap, and they would play a different game. He indicated maybe they [Douglas, Eagle River, etc.] could become a profit corporate entity which would fall totally outside [municipalities' tax authorization reach], and municipalities would still have to face the issue of servicing things for the unincorporated city because [the unincorporated cities] would no longer fall within a legitimate government. Number 2381 MR. RASMUSSEN said it is ridiculous that municipalities are at this point because had municipalities and the legislature partnered, there would be no issue of whether HB 137 passes or not. He agreed that HB 137 would bring some stability back, which would stop the disillusionment with government in the state. He emphasized that some time ago municipalities and the legislature could have moved with a stable platform of funding the partnership. He is 100 percent for HB 137, he said, and thinks that HB 411 finally is beginning to set a plan. He remarked that the last plan was the PF, and the state has had no plan since then, though there have been attempts, but no one has had the "guts" to stand up and say "do something if we are going to move into the future." He hesitates to say that Nome may go back to the "honey bucket," but the final call, if no decisions are made soon, is that Nome residents will have a PFD check, and they will be using a "honey bucket" all over again. He stated that he came basically to speak in favor of the fact that municipalities and the legislature are finally beginning to do something with HB 137. Number 2479 HENRY GUINOTTE, Mayor, City of Palmer, said he'd had a conversation with Rick Mystrom [Mayor of Anchorage,] who could not be here today, and that Mr. Mystrom would like to hang out a "carrot." Mr. Guinotte noted that revenue sharing in the House side, at least, has been cut by 10 percent again, which is better than being cut by 30 percent. Mr. Guinotte quoted Mr. Mystrom as saying that regarding the "carrot," should the legislature take some action to restore funding to the municipalities at the end of this session, he would send a note out to every taxpayer in Anchorage saying, "The legislature has responded to the needs of the borough, and I foresee no reason to increase taxes, possibly a very slight decrease in taxes." Mr. Guinotte said that Mr. Mystrom had told him that Mr. Mystrom would like to send such a postcard out because he would like to support his legislators. Mr. Guinotte commented he had talked with Darcie Salmon from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Mr. Salmon said he would do the same thing [as Mr. Mystrom]. MR. GUINOTTE mentioned that HB 137 would be a good way of responding to the needs of communities. He is from Representative Ogan's district, but Mr. Guinotte does not believe that everyone in his district distrusts the legislature. He acknowledged that there are some people who distrust any form of government, but he thinks that if people can recognize how the money is being used, they will not object. He reminded the committee that it has HB 137 before it that designates how money from the state will be used. He said that Palmer needed money to upgrade its wastewater treatment system, the assembly put it to the voters, and a 75 percent "yes" vote was submitted because the people trust their assembly. He stated that if the legislature will release to municipalities, through HB 137 or however it comes eventually, municipalities would use the money appropriately and would be able to give better services in Palmer; while at the same time, the legislature would be heroes in the eyes of the people of the Mat-Su Borough. MR. GUINOTTE said that he wished that the State of Alaska would get to the point where the legislature would make the rules and the government in this state would not be run by initiative or referendum. He commented that he would like to hope that trust can be built with the legislature so these initiatives and referendums will not have to appear on the ballot. He explained that "decently and in order" means that the legislature makes the rules since state government is not a pure democracy, rather it is a republic where elected people are supposed to make decisions. He will support the legislature all the way, and he has spoken heavily against the ten-mil cap, even though it does not affect the city of Palmer. Palmer is a town of about 4,800 people, and its income comes from sales tax. He added that Palmer has only a moderate property tax, but he can see economic chaos for his borough and for the entire state [because of the tax cap]. He asked the committee to give some support for local government so that it can even more strongly oppose the ten-mil cap. He reminded the committee that he would like to hold them up as heroes when he gets back home. Number 2695 CHAIR JAMES said she has talked to people around the state and one of the things that people did say was that they did not trust the legislature with a big pot of PF money. She noted that she believes HB 137 would meet most people's concerns about this because the money HB 137 takes is identified, and people know where it is going to be spent. She explained that HB 137 is a good step in the right direction. She had also found out that there are people out there who do not want one cent taken out of their existing PFD. There are also some people out there who want taxes instead of taking the PFD, and there are some people who do not want either taxes or discontinuance of the PFD. In general the problem is that people did not like the plan because the plan balanced the fiscal problem with PF earnings and nothing else. As an accountant, she can tell the committee that right now the legislature could not close the fiscal gap enough by taxation, and there will not be enough money in the PF earnings reserve to fill the gap if the legislature does not get an idea of what it is going to spend. She emphasized that the government that is closest to the people is the best government, and the more the legislature can get done on the municipal level as opposed to the state level is better for the people. She acknowledged that is her conservative view, and one of the reasons why she strongly supports HB 137. Number 2784 MR. GUINOTTE asked the committee to tweak HB 137 so that it is constitutionally acceptable. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Mr. Guinotte felt that citizens in his community really got involved. MR. GUINOTTE replied that he knows that people want services such as roads, better police protection, and good fire protection and EMS. He has heard that the legislature was sent to Juneau to cut, but when somebody says that to him, he asks that person "how much road service do you want to cut?" He noted that the people in the city of Palmer have confidence in their government. As mayor, he makes sure that he never pushes the truth. As a result, [the people] have a great trust for the city government in Palmer. He guaranteed that if the legislature will give HB 137 money to [Palmer], it will be used as outlined in HB 137 and no other way. He also guaranteed that the people will not object if they see better police service and more roads. Many of the people in Palmer are retired, and they would be happy to see a little of the PF be used for HB 137 so long as the dividend remains in place. He mentioned that many of them had told him that they would be happy with a PF cap at $1500, but he cannot speak for everybody. Number 2899 DARIO NOTTI, City Council Member, City of Bethel, said that when he comes back from fishing and leaves the fish uncovered, the seagulls start flocking around, and they think the fish is theirs, but it is still his fish. He noted that it is time that the legislature hauls in some of those "fish" and starts using them. He said that it is time for the legislature to start using some of the PF. He commented that he had voted against the [use of PF earnings] in the [September 14, 1999 initiative] because he thinks it is time to tax the people. He mentioned that municipalities are "children" of the legislature and need to be fed and encouraged. TAPE 00-23, SIDE B Number 2992 DAN KELLY, Assemblyman, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, said that his borough has a large group of individuals who certainly voted against attacking the PF in any form. There are many wise, intelligent people in the [Mat-Su] valley who are concerned about the state of the state, and he believes that all should be aware of what HB 137 offers the people. He commented that he thinks HB 137 is a good document, and it should succeed, but he also needs to advise the committee that those who do not want their PFD attacked in any way, shape or form need to be given a chance to say so. He mentioned that HB 137, or some form of it, actually ought to go before voters for approval so that voters can say what they really want. He agreed [that idea] was a big bite. MR. KELLY indicated that there are some problems in HB 137 and he referred to page 7, section 29.60.720. He informed the committee that he had much experience with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) since he was an employee for 26 years, therefore, he is sensitive to DOT&PF issues. He quoted from section 29.60.720(a) as follows: "Road maintenance and driver usage entitlements. ...the department shall distribute road maintenance entitlements to municipalities to be used for road maintenance." He emphasized that when he first read that he thought maybe that was where DOT&PF was coming from when they go back to the municipalities and want the municipality to pick up maintenance of roads, including some of the projects that are on state roads. On the bottom of the same paragraph he quoted: "excluding ... as defined by regulations of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities." In other words, it is clear here that HB 137 is saying that maintenance money does not apply to state highway roads. He asked why is DOT&PF coming to the municipalities and asking municipalities to take over maintenance of state projects. He reminded the committee that his question is just an example of [road maintenance] needs. For instance, the Parks and Glenn Highways intersection across to Knik Arm needed lighting along the road. It was his understanding that the state would not [install lighting] unless the municipality picked up maintenance [of the lighting]. Consequently, there is a conflict in ideology, and he is concerned about that part of HB 137. MR. KELLY reiterated that he thinks that HB 137 is a wonderful document and is on the right track. He will support HB 137, and he will encourage his constituents to support it as well. Nevertheless, HB 137 needs to be put before the voters to give them an opportunity to speak because [voters] really do want to be aware of where their state is going and what is happening to their PFD. Number 2760 CHAIR JAMES acknowledged that for quite some time DOT&PF has been wanting municipalities to care for roads. Because Alaska is such a large state, managing all of the things from Juneau is very expensive. She noted that the cost or benefits are not necessarily felt by people out in the districts. Not having roads plowed, having potholes in the roads, and all of those kinds of things are very difficult to service because at a state level, the legislature has to get the votes of every district in the state before anything [money] can be sent out there [to the people]. She personally believes that services would be less expensive and more responsive to the public if administered by municipalities, provided they are given funds to do their job. She envisioned taking a pot of money from DOT&PF and giving it to municipalities so that municipalities can do road maintenance that DOT&PF used to do. Her idea will not sell overnight, but she thinks that if municipal officials will talk with their folks back home, it might be a possibility in the future. She said that DOT&PF is working on that issue, and she supports it, even though she knows it will take a long time to get there. She noted that at least the idea needs to be discussed now as a potential. Such an idea is not going to be taken on with existing funds, but it would be taken on if the legislature provided money to municipalities. CHAIR JAMES noted that the other issue is that HB 137 only goes to service areas. For example, if a town does not have power over the roads in its borough, then money under HB 137 goes to service areas to take care of roads that are already being cared for. [HB 137 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|