Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532

04/02/2012 09:00 AM FINANCE


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SB 100 PERS TERMINATION COSTS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 159 SUSITNA STATE FOREST TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 151 FETAL ALCOHOL SPEC. DISORDER AS MITIGATOR TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ SB 226 PURCHASE & LEASE OF NOME OFFICE BUILDING TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 179 MISSING VULNERABLE ADULT RESPONSE PLAN TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 210 CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+ SB 221 ALCOHOLIC BEV. TAX/PREVENTION FUND TELECONFERENCED
<Above Item Removed from Agenda>
*+ SCR 24 COMMISSION ON 100TH ANNIV. OF LEGISLATURE TELECONFERENCED
<Above Item Removed from Agenda>
+= SB 192 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX RATES TELECONFERENCED
<Above Item Removed from Agenda>
SENATE BILL NO. 100                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act  relating  to employer  contributions  to  the                                                                    
     Public   Employees'   Retirement  System   of   Alaska;                                                                    
     relating to  requirements that employers  who terminate                                                                    
     some  or all  participation  in  the Public  Employees'                                                                    
     Retirement System of Alaska  pay termination costs; and                                                                    
     making the changes retroactive."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
9:05:29 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR JOE PASKVAN, introduced SB 100. He referred to the                                                                      
Sponsor Statement for SB 100 (copy on file).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Senate   Bill  100   addresses  the   future  financial                                                                    
     stability   of  all   PERS   employers   -  the   State                                                                    
     municipalities, school districts  and the University of                                                                    
     Alaska  -   and  their   ability  to   efficiently  and                                                                    
     effectively  manage   the  delivery  of   programs  and                                                                    
     services.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Due  to  a  variety  of  historical  circumstances  and                                                                    
     decisions,  the  Public  Employees'  Retirement  System                                                                    
     (PERS) defined benefit system  evolved from being fully                                                                    
     funded to  being underfunded by billions  of dollars. A                                                                    
     solution  embraced  by  all   parties  to  address  the                                                                    
     unfunded  liability was  incorporated into  Senate Bill                                                                    
     125 and was  passed by the legislature in  2008. SB 125                                                                    
     set into  law that  the PERS  system is  a consolidated                                                                    
     system and  that the combined defined  benefit (DB) and                                                                    
     defined   contribution  (DC)   salary  base   would  be                                                                    
     required to pay down  the unfunded obligation, which in                                                                    
     turn  would provide  for  sustainable, predictable  and                                                                    
     affordable employer rates.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Paying off  the unfunded obligation is  predicated upon                                                                    
     a stable, reasonably  growing, system-wide salary base.                                                                    
     A  concern at  the time  SB  125 was  adopted was  that                                                                    
     employers   might  en-masse   elect  to   convert  PERS                                                                    
     salaried  positions to  contracted positions  to reduce                                                                    
     or  avoid  their PERS  cost,  thus  shrinking the  PERS                                                                    
     salary base needed to pay  off the unfunded obligation.                                                                    
     To address  this concern, it was  agreed that employers                                                                    
     would pay the  greater of 22 percent  on their combined                                                                    
     DB and  DC salary base,  or, 22 percent on  their total                                                                    
     payroll   for  the   period   ending  6/30/2008.   This                                                                    
     effectively  set the  minimum  contribution, or  floor,                                                                    
     that an  employer would  pay once  PERS converted  to a                                                                    
     consolidated system.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Additional  language  relating to  termination  studies                                                                    
     was  added  at  the  time  to  prevent  employers  from                                                                    
     intentionally  reducing their  fair share  contribution                                                                    
     toward   paying  off   the  unfunded   obligation.  The                                                                    
     application  of  the  termination studies  law  is  the                                                                    
     cause for concern and the introduction of SB 100.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Current  law   requires  an  employer   who  terminates                                                                    
     participation   of  a   department,  group,   or  other                                                                    
     classification  of  employees   to  pay  the  following                                                                    
     bills:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          1. the cost associated with obtaining a                                                                               
         termination study from the PERS actuary;                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          2. the actuarial cost to the employer for future                                                                      
          benefits   due   employees   whose   coverage   is                                                                    
          terminated; and                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          3. the past service cost, annually, on each                                                                           
          position terminated until the unfunded obligation                                                                     
          is paid off decades from now.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Enforcement of  the termination  studies law  is making                                                                    
     it difficult for employers to  manage their delivery of                                                                    
     services,  discriminates  against small  municipalities                                                                    
     even thought their impact is  immaterial, and is costly                                                                    
     and  nearly impossible  to  implement  in an  equitable                                                                    
     manner.  These  mandated  termination studies  fail  to                                                                    
     recognize that we do not  have a single-agent, multiple                                                                    
     employer  system  in   which  different  employers  pay                                                                    
     different   net  rates.   SB  125   provided  for   one                                                                    
     integrated   system   of   accounting;   the   unfunded                                                                    
     obligation is  to be shared  among all  employers, with                                                                    
     each paying  a single, uniform contribution  rate of 22                                                                    
     percent.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     All  agree that  the unfunded  obligation must  be paid                                                                    
     off. All agree that the  entire PERS salary base - both                                                                    
     DB  and  DC  -  is  needed  to  pay  off  the  unfunded                                                                    
     obligation,  and that  it must  be  sustained and  have                                                                    
     reasonable growth. The fear  that employers would actin                                                                    
     in a  manner jeopardizing  the payment of  the unfunded                                                                    
     obligation has  not materialized; in fact,  the system-                                                                    
     wide salary base has grown  steadily. The law providing                                                                    
     for termination  studies is not needed  and is repealed                                                                    
     through SB 100.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     SB  100  maintains  the 6/30/2008  floor  as  the  base                                                                    
     salary  amount   upon  which   PERS  payment   must  be                                                                    
     calculated  as   this  is  the  most   efficient,  cost                                                                    
     effective   and  equitable   method  of   ensuring  the                                                                    
     unfunded obligation is paid off.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
9:13:09 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman noted  the one fiscal impact  note from the                                                                    
Department of Administration (DOA).                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL   BARNHILL,  DEPUTY   COMMISSIONER,  DEPARTMENT   OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION,  stated that  DOA did  not take  an official                                                                    
position on SB 100. Senate Bill  125 was passed in 2008, and                                                                    
the  salary floor  provision in  that bill  was intended  to                                                                    
ensure  a certain  participation  of political  subdivisions                                                                    
and payment  of the existing unfunded  liability. By capping                                                                    
employer  rates  at 22  percent,  SB  125 ensured  that  all                                                                    
future unfunded  liabilities would be the  responsibility of                                                                    
the general  fund. The termination study  issue ensured that                                                                    
when employers  create new unfunded liabilities  as a result                                                                    
of  staffing   changes,  those  employers  bear   those  new                                                                    
unfunded  liabilities. He  expressed concern  about SB  100,                                                                    
because the  bill permitted cost-shifting when  new unfunded                                                                    
liabilities  were   created.  The  amounts  at   issue  were                                                                    
currently  relatively small,  but those  amounts could  grow                                                                    
larger in the  future. He relayed some  discussions with the                                                                    
bill  sponsor and  the Alaska  Municipal  League. He  stated                                                                    
that  DOA recognized  the concerns  of the  Alaska Municipal                                                                    
League, particularly  in the  context of  smaller employers.                                                                    
Those  small employers  often wanted  additional flexibility                                                                    
in how their staff was handled.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Barnhill  stated  that  DOA   had  offered  the  Alaska                                                                    
Municipal League  a compromise proposal. He  stated that DOA                                                                    
suggested the  adoption of a 20  percent partial termination                                                                    
rule: if  there was a  staffing change that would  trigger a                                                                    
termination under  existing law, but impacted  20 percent or                                                                    
less than  the payroll over  a specified period of  time, no                                                                    
termination  study  would be  triggered.  He  felt that  the                                                                    
partial  termination   rule  would  particularly   help  the                                                                    
smaller  municipalities.  He  remarked  that  under  the  20                                                                    
percent partial termination rule,  there was a potential for                                                                    
municipalities  to  create  new  unfunded  liabilities  that                                                                    
would  be cost-shifted  to  the state.  He  stated that  DOA                                                                    
suggested that  the 22 percent  cap be increased  to account                                                                    
for  the projected  new unfunded  liabilities that  would be                                                                    
created. This  way, the  State would  be protected  from the                                                                    
creation  of  any  new unfunded  liability  by  a  political                                                                    
subdivision that wanted to take  advantage of the 20 percent                                                                    
partial termination rule.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:17:26 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman  surmised that  if SB  100 were  amended to                                                                    
include a 20 percent partial  termination rule, DOA would be                                                                    
in favor  of the  bill. Mr. Barnhill  replied that  he could                                                                    
declare that  DOA would be  in favor  of the bill,  but felt                                                                    
that DOA would not oppose the bill.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Senator Thomas  wondered if there  would be a change  to the                                                                    
aggregation  of the  employees working  for an  employer, or                                                                    
were employees  tracked individually based on  who they work                                                                    
for, length of  service, and hours worked.  Mr. Barnhill did                                                                    
not know to what extent individual employees were tracked.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CATHY  LEE,  DEPUTY  DIRECTOR, DIVISION  OF  RETIREMENT  AND                                                                    
BENEFITS, stated  that individual employees were  tracked by                                                                    
their  service  hours,  salaries,   and  by  employer.  This                                                                    
information  was  transmitted to  the  actuary  in order  to                                                                    
evaluate the system.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
KATHIE   WASSERMAN,   ALASKA   MUNICIPAL   LEAGUE,   JUNEAU,                                                                    
testified in support of SB  100. She stressed that the small                                                                    
communities  were  taking the  brunt  of  this expense.  The                                                                    
larger employers could  layoff or lose 20  employees, but if                                                                    
they kept just one employee,  the larger employers would not                                                                    
need to pay into the system  for that loss. Whereas, a small                                                                    
community  could have  one person  in that  group, and  when                                                                    
that one person is terminated,  the small community needs to                                                                    
pay into that  loss. She stressed that  the larger employers                                                                    
are impacting the  system when the employees  were laid off.                                                                    
She  agreed  that  there needed  to  be  safeguards  against                                                                    
manipulating the system.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman wondered  if the  Alaska Municipal  League                                                                    
had  an opinion  on  the 20  percent  termination rule.  Ms.                                                                    
Wasserman replied that  she had not addressed  the idea with                                                                    
the board.  She expressed concern regarding  the increase to                                                                    
20 percent, but stressed that  there had been no negotiation                                                                    
or discussion regarding the 20 percent termination rule.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:22:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DOROTHY LEAKE, SELF, CITY  OF ANDERSON (via teleconference),                                                                    
spoke in support of SB  100. She explained that Anderson had                                                                    
received a  bill from the  State Division of  Retirement and                                                                    
Benefits  for  $27,000 for  falling  below  the 2008  salary                                                                    
floor. She had  spent the last two months trying  to opt out                                                                    
of the contract, because the City  of Anderson had not had a                                                                    
full-time  employee since  2008. That  one, former  employee                                                                    
had  been  paying  into  the  Public  Employees'  Retirement                                                                    
System (PERS) in their new  job with the State. She stressed                                                                    
that the City of Anderson did  not have the money to pay for                                                                    
full-time employees, so therefore  could not pay the $27,000                                                                    
owed to the Division of Retirement and Benefits.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SALLIE STUVEK, HUMAN RESOURCE  MANAGER, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR                                                                    
BOROUGH,  FAIRBANKS   (via  teleconference),   testified  in                                                                    
support  of SB  100. The  Fairbanks North  Star Borough  was                                                                    
concerned  with  the  current application  of  the  existing                                                                    
statute in regards  to the PERS termination  studies. In its                                                                    
current  form, the  termination  study requirement  impacted                                                                    
all PERS-participating municipalities  in a significant way.                                                                    
It "ties the hands"  of municipal governments to effectively                                                                    
and efficiently manage their provided services.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DOUG GRIFFIN,  CITY OF PALMER, PALMER  (via teleconference),                                                                    
testified in support of SB  100. He agreed with the previous                                                                    
testifiers.  He  stated  that   the  City  of  Palmer  would                                                                    
probably be considered a medium-sized  community, but it had                                                                    
faced some  recent budget adjustments. The  general fund was                                                                    
reduced by  15 percent over  the last two fiscal  years, and                                                                    
it was  difficult for  the City  of Palmer  to pay  into the                                                                    
unfunded liability.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
9:28:30 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LISA  VAUGHN, ACCOUNTANT,  NORTH POLE  (via teleconference),                                                                    
testified in support  of SB 100. Current  practice placed an                                                                    
unfair burden on  small employers across the  state, as many                                                                    
of  the   departments  and  classifications   in  individual                                                                    
municipalities only have one or two employees.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER  JOHNSTON,  MEMBER, ANCHORAGE  ASSEMBLY,  ANCHORAGE                                                                    
(via teleconference),  testified in  support of SB  100. She                                                                    
stated   that  Anchorage   was  recently   charged  with   a                                                                    
termination study regarding  the discontinued weatherization                                                                    
grant program.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman closed public testimony.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  queried Senator Paskvan's position  on the 20                                                                    
percent partial  termination study. Senator  Paskvan replied                                                                    
that  it was  a new  proposal,  but looked  forward to  more                                                                    
discussions regarding this idea.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  wondered if Senator Paskvan  would be opposed                                                                    
to an amendment. Senator Paskvan  stressed that the proposal                                                                    
was new, and  would like to speak with  the Alaska Municipal                                                                    
League   regarding   the   proposal's  effect   on   smaller                                                                    
communities.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator Paskvan  stressed that the problem  was an immediate                                                                    
problem that needed to be resolved in a timely manner.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SB  100  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 159 Alaska Forest Association.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 All_Blocks_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Alaska Trappers Association.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Alexander_Creek_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 East_Petersville_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 East_Skwentna_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Expanded Bullets on SSF area plans public process.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Explanation of Changes.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Houston_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Kashwitna_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Mat-Su Borough.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Red_Shirt_Lake_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 RESOLUTION 12-05 ( Susitna State Forest).pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Resource Development Council.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Ruffed Grouse Soc.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Safari Club.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Sectional Analysis.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 South Skwentna_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Susitna State Forest Briefing Paper.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Susitna State Forest Briefing Side by Side 1-19-12.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Sustina_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Talkeetna_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 West_Skwentna_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 WIller-Kash_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
SB 159 Yentna_A.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 159
CSSB 151 Explanation of Changes SHSS SJUD.docx SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 151
CSSB 151 Sponsor Statement version U.docx SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 151
SB 151 Letter of Support Disability Law Center.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 151
SB 151 Letter of Support FASD Partnership.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 151
SB 151 Support AK FASD Partnership Rationale.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 151
SB 151-Letter of Support-AMHB-ABADA.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 151
SB 151-Letter of Support-Trust.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 151
Sb 221 03-16-12 Ltr of Support.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 11 7 11 Alcohol Drug Abuse GF Funding LegLog 870-1.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 - HB 78 Loan Repayment 2012 letter of support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
HB 78
SB 221
SB 221 AAPA letter to support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Alaska Federation of Natives Letter of Support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Alaska Wine & Spirit Wholesalers Association.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Anchorage Assembly Resolution 2011-347.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Catholic Social Services Letter of Support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Copy of FY11 Alcohol Drug Abuse Treatment GF SA Rev Expend as of 10 31 11.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Economic Costs of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse in Alaska - McDowell 2005 Report.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 FY12 Substance Abuse Authorized Components (2).pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 ISER 2009 Report - The Cost of Crime.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 letter of support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Log 1099 DHSS Response Regarding Alcohol Fund Projections (3).pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Log 1102 Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment and Prevention Fund Grantees Final Response (2).pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 MSHF Support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Nine Star Enterprises Letter of Support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Partners for Progress Letter of Support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221 Substace Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Cost Offset of Tx.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 221-Letter of Support-ABADA.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 221
SB 226 - Letter of Interest Nome State Office Building.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Atwood Parking Garage - Agreement to Develop between Muni of ANC & ACCT.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Atwood Parking Garage - Agreement to License between AHFC and Muni of ANC.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Atwood Parking Garage - enrolled bill (SB 317).PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 317
SB 226 - Atwood Parking Garage - fiscal note.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Atwood Parking Garage - HFIN minutes 5_3_06.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Atwood Parking Garage - SFIN minutes 4_28_06.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Atwood Parking Garage bill history.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - City of Nome letter - 3_7_12.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - City of Nome letter - 3_12_12.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - condition of existing state bldg.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - NOME Delivery Plan Diagram 3-7-12.pptx SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Nome SOB Proposal 2012 Final.doc SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - Sectional.docx SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 226 - v.B.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226
SB 179 Background Information.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
SB 179 Letter of Support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
SB 179 Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
SB179 Letter of Support--signed scan 2-23-12.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
SB 179 Background Information.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
SB 179 Letter of Support.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
SB 179 Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
SB179 Letter of Support--signed scan 2-23-12.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 179
Letter of Support_Board Resolution on SB 210 (3).pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 210
Sponsor Statement SB 210.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 210
SCR24_2ndOrganicAct_1912.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SCR 24
SCR24_Alaskas_1stHouseRepresentatives_1913.jpg SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SCR 24
SCR24_Alaskas_1stSenate_1913.jpg SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SCR 24
SCR24_HomeRule_forAK.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SCR 24
SCR24_SessionLaws_Summary_1913.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SCR 24
SCR24_Sponsor_Statement_29March12.pdf SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SCR 24
SB 226 - DOA's RFI.PDF SFIN 4/2/2012 9:00:00 AM
SB 226