Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/06/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 138
"An Act relating to the purposes of the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation to advance to develop a large-
diameter natural gas pipeline project, including
treatment and liquefaction facilities; establishing
the large-diameter natural gas pipeline project fund;
creating a subsidiary related to a large-diameter
natural gas pipeline project, including treatment and
liquefaction facilities; relating to the authority of
the commissioner of natural resources to negotiate
contracts related to North Slope natural gas projects,
to enter into confidentiality agreements in support of
contract negotiations and implementation, and to take
custody of gas delivered to the state under an
election to pay the oil and gas production tax in
kind; relating to the sale, exchange, or disposal of
gas delivered to the state under an election to pay
the oil and gas production tax in kind; relating to
the duties of the commissioner of revenue to direct
the disposition of revenues received from gas
delivered to the state in kind and to consult with the
commissioner of natural resources on the custody and
disposition of gas delivered to the state in kind;
relating to the authority of the commissioner of
natural resources to propose modifications to existing
state oil and gas leases; making certain information
provided to the Department of Natural Resources and
the Department of Revenue exempt from inspection as a
public record; making certain tax information related
to an election to pay the oil and gas production tax
in kind exempt from tax confidentiality provisions;
relating to establishing under the oil and gas
production tax a gross tax rate for gas after 2021;
making the alternate minimum tax on oil and gas
produced north of 68 degrees North latitude after 2021
apply only to oil; relating to apportionment factors
of the Alaska Net Income Tax Act; authorizing a
producer's election to pay the oil and gas production
tax in kind for certain gas and relating to the
authorization; relating to monthly installment
payments of the oil and gas production tax; relating
to interest payments on monthly installment payments
of the oil and gas production tax; relating to
settlements between producers and royalty owners for
oil and gas production tax; relating to annual
statements by producers and explorers; relating to
annual production tax values; relating to lease
expenditures; amending the definition of gross value
at the 'point of production' for gas for purposes of
the oil and gas production tax; adding definitions
related to natural gas terms; clarifying that credit
may not be taken against the in-kind levy of the oil
and gas production tax for gas for purposes of the
exploration incentive credit, the oil or gas producer
education credit, and the film production tax credit;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
9:08:30 AM
Co-Chair Kelly discussed the meeting's agenda. He related
that Vice-Chair Fairclough had a bill hearing before
another committee, but would join the meeting in progress.
MIKE NAVARRE, MAYOR, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH, appreciated
the opportunity to discuss the impacts of SB 138 on local
governments. He related that the Kenai Peninsula Borough
was in agreement that a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project
could and should be in the best interest of the state and
could provide long-term revenues for both the state and the
municipalities. He stated that there were a number of
issues that he wanted to discuss that were relevant to
local government, as well as concerns regarding some of the
things that the borough had reviewed, including the
legislation and the heads of agreement (HOA). He related
that a group consisting of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the
North Slope Borough, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, and
Valdez had got together as a group to discuss the issue of
an Alaska LNG project; the group had also invited the
Denali Borough, the Mat-Su Borough, and Anchorage, which
may be along the route, to participate in some of the
discussions regarding what the impacts of such a project
might be to municipalities, as well as what issues of
concern the municipalities might raise. He reported that
the biggest concern to municipalities was the language in
the HOA that referenced legislation that would be brought
forward, presumably next year, which would allow for the
construction of a pipeline and facilities necessary to
monetize the natural gas resources. He stated that the
concern involved a reference made to a payment in lieu of
taxes (PILT) and other items that might be needed in order
to have a successful project. He stated that the group of
municipalities recognized that there might be concessions
for a project of this size and would probably support them;
however, they did not know what those concessions and
impacts would be. He noted that the language in the HOA
said that the state would consult with the municipalities,
but observed that consult was not a very strong word; the
group would rather have agreement in the process or it
would rather negotiate a deal on its own behalf.
Mr. Navarre continued to speak to language in the bill and
related that past negotiations between the state and the
major companies had resulted in a discussion of other
fiscal certainty terms such as existing oil properties. He
explained that there was a concern that because tax bases
for existing oil infrastructure were a big part of local
government tax revenue, they should not be changed and
included in the concession with respect to a natural-gas
facility and pipeline. He noted that the group of mayors
recognized that companies would be taking a significant
risk, but that the State of Alaska was also taking a large
risk. He expected that companies that came to the table
would do the best they could and would bring everything to
the negotiations that would benefit them; likewise, he knew
that members of the legislature would look out for Alaska's
interests. He noted that the group was before the committee
to make sure that in the course of discussion, they were
able to raise the issues that were important to local
governments that would impact them. He stated that the
contractual provisions regarding what the legislative role
over the project would be over time had changed
significantly and that it was a way to lock in fiscal
certainty. He concluded that the group's goal was to
identify their concerns during the process and ask that
they be addressed.
9:15:35 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, MAYOR, FAIRBANKS NORTHSTAR BOROUGH, indicated
that the group of mayors had been tracking SB 138 and the
conditions that it allowed the administration to go forward
with and negotiate. He noted that he had experience with
PILT agreements and that both sides agreed to a value that
went forward to the legislative bodies for approval. He and
the other mayors in the group were concerned that if they
sat down and negotiated, they might not be able to come to
conclusion, which would be unfortunate. He stated that the
group wanted amendments to the legislation that stated
specifically that there needed to be consent by
municipalities, the commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources, and others negotiating with the
producers. He mentioned fiscal certainty and noted that
Section 10 of the HOA spoke to a healthy long-term oil
business, reducing valuation, and other potential disputes
between the producer parties and the state; he stated that
the group of mayors wanted language added to the bill that
specified that this did not affect those items in Title 29
and AS 43.56 on existing oil and gas properties. He stated
that there were methodologies and sideboards regarding how
impact aid was computed and that the group could speak to
that as well; however, so far, the group's in-depth review
of the bill brought forward the existing oil and gas
infrastructure concerns, as well as how a PILT agreement
was arrived at.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired what the group of mayors' level of
discussion had been with the administration about the bill
and their concerns. Mr. Navarre thought that both he and
Mr. Hopkins had spoken with the administration and recalled
speaking to Mr. Pawlowski the prior day. He thought that
Mr. Pawlowski had a better understanding of what the
group's concerns were and that he had stated that the
Department of Revenue was able to negotiate away existing
oil properties in a contract; however, what concerned the
mayors was that the HOA stated that once the parties agree,
they brought forward and supported legislation before the
legislature. He explained that the agreeing parties could
bring forward any legislation and while they may not have
statuary authority currently to do some things, they would
ask for it. He expounded that the concern was that if the
group of mayors did not at least raise their issues now,
the next year the legislature would say that they should
have been before them earlier in the process or that the
dynamic of the discussion and debate over the issue next
year would be that it was too late to change any of the
terms that had been agreed on going forward.
9:19:59 AM
Mr. Hopkins related that the group of mayors had submitted
letters asking to meet with the governor, Commissioner
Rodell, and Commissioner Balash. He related that he had met
with Commissioner Balash and Commissioner Rodell the day
before yesterday and had very good conversations with them.
He noted that he spoken with the administration about the
concerns in depth and that Commissioner Balash had
understood their points, as well as the need to discuss
them as sideboards in the legislation.
Co-Chair Kelly noted that the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) and the HOA would be signed and would exist
regardless of the legislation and that the legislature
would trigger the next step. He related that the challenge
with SB 138 was that people tended to talk about so many
things that were not in the bill and that huge gas-line
issues were being discussed when the project was still
trying to get to the pre-FEED stage. He wanted to be sure
that there was a mechanism to address the concerns of the
group of mayors.
Mr. Navarre stated that he had met with the governor a few
weeks prior and that the governor had related that the
state did want to talk to communities but that it was too
early in the process for a lot of the discussion. He opined
that particularly with contractual arrangements,
municipalities knew that they were unlikely to be in the
negotiating room and that they would not see anything until
legislation was brought forward; while it may be premature
for municipalities to have specific discussions, it was not
premature to raise issues of concern. He thought that
during the negotiations, sideboards in the legislation for
the administration would be important and would be given
attention. He related that the sideboards could recommend
against certain types of things being written into the
agreements; he thought that instructions like this would
change the dynamics of the negotiations and what would come
back from it. He offered that all Alaskans had a vested
interest in the project and that all of the communities
would be impacted because they were part of state and
received a lot of support from the state.
9:24:42 AM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that Mr. Navarre had previously been
co-chair of the House Finance Committee and that his
opinion carried a lot of weight. He inquired if intent
language would suffice to meet the goal of the group of
mayors. Mr. Navarre replied that the group had proposed
some amendments to the legislation that would basically
state that contracts "may not change these specific items."
He noted that even with the amendments, the administration
could go forward with negotiations and bring anything to
legislature that the HOA allowed; however it would be
stated by the legislature that extra scrutiny would be put
on certain issues that were brought back from negotiations.
Mr. Hopkins stated that as you looked at the bill, there
were a lot of specifics regarding what would move forward;
the group's amendments represented another piece to add
more specificity to the two areas of concern. He expressed
concern with using intent language instead of an amendment
to affect the change.
9:26:07 AM
CLAY WALKER, MAYOR, HEALY-DENALI BOROUGH (via
teleconference), related that the Healy-Denali Borough
supported the methodology of a PILT payment with impact
funds. He looked forward to being part of the discussion
and that Mr. Hopkins had brought up an important point
about the meaning of negotiation relative to consultation.
Co-Chair Kelly noted that Vice-Chair Fairclough had joined
the committee in progress.
Senator Olson noted that there had been amendments drafted
to protect the municipalities and inquired if Mr. Walker
had seen those and agreed with them. Mr. Walker responded
that he had not seen the proposed amendments.
9:27:59 AM
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if the municipalities were working
as a group. Mr. Navarre replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that he had asked Senator Micciche to
work with the group of mayors regarding some of the
language and how to proceed forward. He noted that the
committee wanted to get a new CS out the following Monday
and that any language that could be provided would be
appreciated. He stated that from memory, he saw about four
things that needed to be addressed in the bill. He thought
that the concerns of the group of mayors were worthy of
consideration and should to be addressed before the bill
left the committee.
Vice-Chair Fairclough apologized for being late and noted
that she had had a bill before the Senate State Affairs
Committee. She thought that the state absolutely wanted to
protect its municipalities, but also wanted to keep enough
leverage for a project to actually happen. She noted that
at least for her, any language for consideration would need
to leave flexibility in the state's position in negotiating
with the parties involved. She explained that the project
involved a commercial agreement that was much different
than telling people what to do inside of a contractual
obligation. She offered that the state could negotiate
certain arrangements and could also not get a project
depending on what was placed inside of the legislation. She
was cautiously optimistic at arriving at a process that met
both expectations.
Mr. Navarre thought that everyone was in agreement that a
project was desired and that the HOA specifically
referenced the alignment of interests between the state and
the other parties to that agreement. He thought that there
should really be an alignment between the state and local
governments on the issues strictly because it was a
significant change from the status quo. He noted that the
group did not want to stop the project, but was also
concerned about what was negotiated into it. He thought
that everyone should be concerned if the bill was
discussing rolling existing taxable oil properties into an
agreement because there was already a significance reliance
on those taxes at the local-government level. He noted that
things could change over time and recalled the passage of
SB 21 the prior year; however, drafting things into an
arrangement or compromising them at the front end of a
project was something that was significant. He opined that
no one was in disagreement with monetizing the gas, but
that it was a matter of figuring out who got what share;
furthermore, the group of mayors recognized that total
government take was a key component of that and that the
state was impacted as much as anyone by a project like
this.
9:31:42 AM
Senator Dunleavy imagined that in the process of figuring
things up front, the municipalities would have come in as a
group. He inquired if the group of mayors foresaw
municipalities having veto power down the road and if the
concerns needed to be addressed up front before the state
moved on with the project. He wondered how the group
envisioned language or a mechanism by which municipalities
acted as one to provide alignment and certainty as opposed
to having veto power down the road. Mr. Navarre did not
think that municipalities should have veto power. He stated
that a PILT was different than the status quo and that
determining what that looked like and how things were
allocated was a key part of the agreement. He noted that he
had served in the legislature and that there was always
competition for any available money. He opined that if
there was a PILT paid to the state, how that was allocated
could change over time. He stated that all of the mayors
and municipalities that had participated in the group had a
little bit different interest and take on the issue. He
noted that currently, the lead site for the terminus of the
LNG facilities was Nikiski. He explained that if Nikiski
was the terminus, his borough's communities would be
significantly impacted; as a result, he wanted some
relationship between where the assets were sited, where the
long-term impacts were, and what a PILT would look like. He
stated that impact aid during the construction of the
pipeline would look significantly different; the Kenai
Peninsula would be impacted, but so would Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and any other community along the corridor. He
noted that the project would also impact port cities that
brought materials in.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that he would not support language
that resulted in a veto power for municipalities and that
Mr. Navarre had stated that he also did not support that.
He thought that the committee needed to put something in
place for the next step that guided negotiations through
that "gate" and inquired if that was an accurate. Mr.
Navarre replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hopkins noted that he and Commissioner Balash had
discussed whether something similar to a MAG group that in
the Stranded Gas Act would be sufficient. He stated that
something similar to a MAG group was possible, but that
different boroughs might have different values that they
would start at with the state in the negotiation of a PILT;
furthermore, these pieces should be rolled in somehow to
ensure a fair process.
9:35:24 AM
Co-Chair Kelly did not want to make any commitments or
statements about how the bill should look, but agreed that
there needed to be some consideration for the
municipalities before the next step was taken. He noted for
the record that his previous statements about the new CS
had not been intended to mean that the group of mayors'
problems would be fixed, but that he wanted to discuss and
decide what to do regarding the municipalities before the
CS came out.
9:35:58 AM
AT EASE
9:40:00 AM
RECONVENED
9:40:17 AM
AT EASE
9:41:18 AM
RECONVENED
9:41:28 AM
CHARLOTTE BROWER, MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH (via
teleconference), spoke from prepared written testimony
(copy on file).
Good morning Co-chairman Kelly, Co-chairman Meyer, and
Senators.
My name is Charlotte Brower. I am honored to be the
Mayor of the North Slope Borough, the wife of a
whaling captain, and am blessed with six children and
twenty-five grandchildren.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on SB138, a
bill that authorizes the State of Alaska to move
forward on developing a natural gas pipeline from the
North Slope to tidewater.
Today I would like to talk about some of the concerns
and interests of the North Slope Borough regarding SB
138 and the Heads of Agreement, which is a separate
document that outlines the guiding principles of the
Alaska LNG Project. I'm also here to offer some
suggestions on how those concerns could be addressed
by this committee, the Legislature, the Governor, and
his Administration.
Before we talk about concerns, it's important that say
'Thank You' to our Good Lord for the opportunity to be
having this discussion on how to build a 40 to 50
billion-dollar project to develop our natural gas.
How many other legislators or mayors would love to
trade places with us right now?
The Alaska LNG Project envisions a 20 to 25 percent
ownership by the State of Alaska. This requires the
Legislature to evaluate complicated policy decisions
and risks and costs on a level equal with decisions
made by Fortune 500 companies. Please let me take a
moment to acknowledge our appreciation for your
efforts on behalf of our residents. You are truly
deciding the future of our state, and on behalf of the
North Slope Borough, I commend you. Quyanaqpak.
As Alaskans, we've learned from the past that large
projects like this can set a positive course for our
future. But we also know that in order to provide the
maximum possible benefits, we have to be prepared for
the impacts. For example, the Trans Alaska Oil
Pipeline has provided billions of dollars of revenue
and jobs, but we also learned lessons about demands
for public services to deal with social services, job
training, infrastructure, public safety, and
education.
That brings me to the points that should be addressed
in Senate Bill 138 and the Heads of Agreement document
before this committee.
The Heads of Agreement has language in Article 9.3
that states the "Parties" intend for the project's
fiscal terms to be included in project-enabling
contracts. Subject to "consultation" with local
governments, the Administration will establish
payments in lieu of property tax (PILT), which are to
be based on a unit rate per throughput basis. In
other words, the payment is calculated as cents per
thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
The reason for concern is that the process for
"consultation" is not defined. We see that the
process for enabling contracts is an "up or down"
ratification vote by the Legislature after the
Administration submits them to you for approval. If
the local taxing authority of municipal governments is
going to be modified to provide fiscal certainty, we
must be part of the process.
Let me turn now to the language in Senate Bill 138.
The current language in SB138 addresses the taxing
authority of local municipal governments in three
different sections.
First, the Senate Resources Committee added
Legislative Intent language in Section 1 that the
interests of local governmental entities "must be
considered in contract negotiations to protect the
financial and other interests" of the local
governmental entities. The addition of this language
is recognized and appreciated, but it does not have
the force of law, and does not go far enough.
Second, in Section 8 of the bill, the state-created
subsidiary is given the legal provisions created in
current law for the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation, known as "AGDC". This includes the
language in Alaska Statute 31.25.260, which exempts
AGDC from municipal taxes for any property owned by
AGDC. In addition, this section of law further
exempts taxable property for any joint venture or
partnership with AGDC during construction of the
pipeline.
This creates confusion because the new subsidiary for
the large-diameter project is given the all the
benefits provided to AGDC, but they are two completely
separate and distinct projects. In the case of the
Alaska LNG Project in SB138, there is a very large
project that proposes to have significant state
ownership. This was not the model that was envisioned
when the Legislature discussed the formation of AGDC
last year during the hearings on House Bill 4.
Third, the Commissioners of the Departments of Natural
Resources and Revenue are provided authority to
negotiate enabling contracts that must be ratified by
the Legislature. Based on the language in the HOA,
these enabling contracts will be used to establish a
PILT system and also establish a series of impact
payments during project construction.
I am here today to request your consideration for
making amendments to SB138 and other changes that will
protect the interests of local governments. Before
discussing those amendments, I would like to provide
some background.
Less than three weeks ago I was fortunate enough to
offer testimony to the House Resources Committee in
Juneau to support of HJR26. HJR26 is a resolution
calling upon the United States Congress to pass
legislation that establish a revenue sharing program
from the proceeds of oil and gas development on the
outer continental shelf off our shores. Earlier this
week, HJR26 passed the Senate on a vote of 17 - 0.
Thank you for your vote. By working together as
Alaskans, we are sending a message for receiving a
fair and equitable distribution of revenues that come
from energy development off our shores.
It was our combined message as state and local
governments that we will need resources to keep up
with infrastructure requirements, expand emergency
response and search and rescue capabilities, and work
to maintain healthy communities and a healthy
ecosystem.
When it comes to dealing with the impacts of oil and
gas development, the basic discussion between offshore
and onshore is not really that much different. As the
local government responsible for providing basic
essential services, the North Slope Borough is there
to help provide for cost of schools, emergency
response, health and social services, and public
safety.
Like most other municipal governments, the North Slope
Borough relies upon our authority to levy a property
tax in order to generate the revenue to provide these
public services. That is why any discussion to exempt
property taxes from a project of this magnitude gives
me cause for concern.
This is not the first time we've discussed the
development of a natural gas pipeline and the issue of
fiscal stability for the project. And I continue to
believe that municipal taxes are not the issue that
makes or breaks the margin on a project that could
exceed $50 billion.
On behalf of the North Slope Borough, I would like to
request your consideration for the following
amendments to Senate Bill 138:
The newly created subsidiary should not be provided
the tax exemptions provided to AGDC for the small in-
state project. In particular, the tax exemptions
under AS 31.25.260 should not apply to the large-
diameter project in SB138.
Let's explore ways for municipalities to participate
in the project. For the all the reasons that the
project benefits from participation by the State of
Alaska, perhaps many of the concerns of municipalities
could be addressed in the same manner. For example,
perhaps municipal governments could access revenues
and get access to natural gas by having an ownership
stake in a portion of the project.
The Governor has authority to issue Administrative
Orders that could establish an advisory working group
of municipal officials, Administration officials,
industry participants, and others. Perhaps this
approach could be explored to get conversations
started to resolve some of these concerns.
No one wants to see a natural gas pipeline more than
myself. I see the opportunity for my grandchildren to
have good jobs, and I also want to see access to
affordable energy for my grandchildren's children.
In order to get jobs and access to affordable energy,
our villages will need good schools, housing, and
other basic services in order to take advantage of the
opportunities. And for that reason, I am here today
to speak up for the ability of our municipal
government to have the authority to meet those needs.
Quyanaqpak
9:54:00 AM
Mr. Hopkins stated that as the group of mayors looked at
questions regarding legislation, the MOU, and the HOA, it
looked at how impact aid to municipalities was determined.
Additionally it had looked at where the five take-off
points were, how that was decided, and if municipalities
had a role in that. He noted that his community was
concerned with a possible take-off point close by. He
reiterated that the group's main concerns were the existing
taxation on oil properties and being able to
negotiate/consent with the PILT agreements. He was clear
that PILT agreements would be part of the project.
Senator Olson requested a comment on the three suggested
amendments that Ms. Brower had recommended. He inquired if
Mr. Hopkins was in favor of those amendments or if there
were other things that he felt should be included that were
not. Mr. Hopkins replied that had not yet had a chance to
discuss all of the specifics of the amendments with Ms.
Brower. He noted that the representatives from the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, the North Slope Borough, the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, and Valdez had discussed suggested
amendments, but that it was a moving target. He
acknowledged the concern with AS 31 and noted that Ms.
Brower had spoken to specific impact pieces that did not
currently have any sideboards for discussion; he looked
forward to speaking Ms. Brower as soon as possible and see
if other concerns could be submitted as a as a group.
9:57:08 AM
Mr. Navarre realized that municipalities would not be part
of the negotiations in the HOA. He noted that often times,
someone else had to negotiate on your behalf. He stated
that, in general, people who were doing the negotiation
know more about how the terms were arrived at and also
looked out for their own interests first before they looked
at the interests of people who were not in a room; this
reflected the groups concern and why they were raising the
issue of impacts to local governments. He thought that 90-
day sessions were sometimes inadequate for complex issues
and acknowledged that the legislature spent a lot of time
discussing and researching the issues. He thought that when
a bill was introduced the following year, the legislature
would do its due-diligence and would look out for state and
municipal interests. He offered that it was the mayors'
responsibility to pay attention to what was going and to
express their concerns going forward because the dynamic of
the debate changed when there was a bill before the
legislature that could result in a $65 billion investment;
at this point, the focus would be turned on pushing the
project forward. He noted that most people would be in
favor of moving the project forward, but that the details
of what that meant long-term would only be known by a few.
Mr. Navarre noted that the people who would know about the
specifics of the agreements would be legislators because it
was their job and responsibility. He reported that he had
delved into some of the materials that had been presented
on the HOA and the legislation, but that he could not do it
full time. He added that the legislature would know more
about the issue, would participate in the negotiations, and
would be part of discussions with the administration. He
stated that while it may not be allowed in current law, a
line could be added to the legislation that stated that
"notwithstanding the provisions of whatever, this is what
we agreed to." He observed that the group was not trying to
stop the negotiations, but was trying to put sideboards on
it that protected what it viewed as municipal concerns, as
well as what the long-term impacts to the state were. He
noted that the group was concerned about the impacts to the
state long-term because municipalities also shared in
revenues that went to the state as a result of the state's
resources base.
Senator Bishop thanked the mayors for their testimony and
thought none of the raised concerns were over the top; he
thought that the mayors' concerns represented common-sense,
good-question approaches to the process. He noted that the
legislature had heard time and time again how big the
project was and referenced Ms. Brower's comments regarding
how many other legislators would like to be negotiating a
$50 billion to $65 billion deal. He noted that the project
was huge and that expert testimony had stated that it
needed to be on time and on budget in order to meet the
window of opportunity. He noted that the state needed to be
competitive to have a deal and that part of that was in
making sure that the state's municipalities were on board
with the deal. He concurred with the comments of the mayors
and hoped that an agreement could be reached that got
everyone in sync in order to meet the on-time, on-schedule
process of the project.
10:02:47 AM
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the following meeting's agenda.
SB 138 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB138 NSB Testimony Brower.docx |
SFIN 3/6/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 138 |