02/19/2002 08:09 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 2002
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Gretchen Guess
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andrew Halcro
Representative Drew Scalzi
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 289
"An Act relating to the effective date of a municipal manager
plan that has been adopted and to the effective date of the
repeal of a municipal manager plan, and relating to a special
election for mayor when municipal manager plans are adopted or
repealed."
- MOVED SSHB 289 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 358
"An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal
property taxes for certain land from which timber is harvested
and for certain improvements used in or necessary to the harvest
of timber."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 289
SHORT TITLE:MUNICIPAL MANAGER PLAN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1950 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1950 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1950 (H) CRA
02/05/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/05/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/13/02 2232 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/13/02 2232 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2232 (H) CRA
02/13/02 2232 (H) REFERRED TO CRA
02/19/02 (H) CRA RPT RECD AWAIT
TRANSMITTAL NXT
02/19/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 358
SHORT TITLE:EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAX: TIMBER
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/25/02 2067 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/25/02 2067 (H) CRA
01/25/02 2067 (H) REFERRED TO CRA
02/19/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of SSHB 289.
PAT CARLSON, Manager
Kodiak Island Borough
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 289.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that AML has no formal position
on SSHB 289.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 358.
JEFF JAHNKE, State Forestor
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1450
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 358.
ED OBERTS, Assistant to the Mayor
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 N Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 358.
BLAINE GILMAN, Attorney
Gilman & Associates
150 North Willow Street, Suite 33
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Representing Salamatof Native Association,
Inc., testified in support of HB 358.
TIM NAVARRE, President
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
144 North Binkley Street
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Noted the [Kenai Peninsula Borough
Assembly's] support of HB 358.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:09 a.m.
Representatives Morgan, Meyer, Guess, and Kerttula were present
at the call to order. Representative Murkowski arrived as the
meeting was in progress. [Minutes pertaining to that
presentation can be found under the minutes for 9:30 a.m. of the
same date.]
HB 289-MUNICIPAL MANAGER PLAN
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that the first order of business before
the committee would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO.
289, "An Act relating to the effective date of a municipal
manager plan that has been adopted and to the effective date of
the repeal of a municipal manager plan, and relating to a
special election for mayor when municipal manager plans are
adopted or repealed."
Number 0120
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as the sponsor of SSHB 289, began by posing a
situation in which the voters don't know to what position they
are electing candidates and candidates don't know for which
position they are running. He said that such a situation [can]
occur when municipal government changes from a manager to
mayoral form of government or vice versa. In such a situation,
at the same time the voters are choosing to change the type of
government, the voters are also electing the mayor.
Representative Stevens explained that a mayoral type of
government is often referred to as a strong mayor and that
person is responsible for the administration of the government.
In many cases, a mayoral position is paid a salary. The manager
form of government is one in which the person is responsible for
the administration of the government, and in this case the mayor
would be in a ceremonial position to run the meetings. In the
manager form of government, the mayor's position wouldn't be a
full-time job.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS returned to the aforementioned situation
in which there is an election to decide to change from one form
of government to another at the same time there is a mayoral
election. In such a situation, the voter wouldn't know for
which position the person is running. Furthermore, the
candidate wouldn't know whether he/she is going to be a
ceremonial head of government or have a full-time job.
Therefore, a great deal of confusion is created, which this bill
would eliminate. He noted that there is always the option of
having a special election. This bill provides that the person
elected in a position would stay in that position for a year in
order to allow a year for the community to make the change.
Representative Stevens noted that at first it was thought [that
the form of government] would remain [unchanged] until the mayor
left office. However, mayoral terms are often three years and
thus the aforementioned thought would force the community to
have the old form of government for three years. Representative
Stevens felt that the one-year transition presented in SSHB 289
is a better approach.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS reiterated that SSHB 289 attempts to
simplify these situations and allow voters to know for what
position they're filling. Furthermore, SSHB 289 clears up the
situation for the candidate in regard to what position he/she is
running for.
Number 0631
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS remarked that she wasn't convinced that the
system proposed in SSHB 289 is simpler. She pointed out that in
a situation in which the [form of government] is changed and a
mayor is elected at the same time, the [candidate doesn't know
for which position he/she is running] because he/she doesn't
know whether the position is changing. Furthermore, even if
[the form of government] changes, under SSHB 289 there would be
a one-year lag and thus [a candidate] is being asked to run for
a position that will change function in the middle of the [three
year] term. In the other situation, a mayor is in place and the
[form of government] is changed. Therefore, that mayor would've
been elected under different circumstances. This proposed
legislation seems confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS returned to the confusion created for the
candidates in these situations.
Number 0850
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS returned to the situation in which the form
of government and the [mayor] were being voted on at the same
time. In such a situation, it's confusing now. The bill would
change it so that if the form of government did change, the
change wouldn't occur for a year. Therefore, the candidate
would have a year to adjust his/her life or resign and have a
special election. She indicated her understanding that [the
form of government] would still change.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS agreed that the [form of government]
would still change. He felt that the year transition would
provide [a candidate] a year to adjust his/her life. He
informed the committee that an attorney [from Legislative Legal
and Research Services] suggested that whoever is elected would
continue his/her term of office. However, that results in a
three-year lag before the change [in the form of government]
occurs. Representative Stevens related his belief that when
people vote [to change the form of government] that should
happen in as reasonable time as possible. He reiterated that at
any time there can be a special election to determine the form
of government. He echoed his belief that [SSHB 289] is
advantageous due to the one-year grace period.
Number 1054
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to how often these situations occur.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS answered that such a situation could
occur any time there is a vote to change the form of government.
In regard to how often such situations actually occur,
Representative Stevens couldn't answer. In these situations,
the voter isn't sure what position the election is for, and the
candidate isn't sure to what position he/she will be elected.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked, "But doesn't everybody know
that that's a possibility when they run." She asked whether the
vote always happens at the same time or could there be a special
election [to change the form of government].
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS replied that there could be a special
election, which he indicated to be a preferable situation.
However, he noted that there is a cost to a special election.
This bill provides another option with the one-year lag.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to how many times this has
happened. She also inquired as to whether this bill would be
retroactive.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that he couldn't specify how many
times these situations occur. He answered that [SSHB 289]
wouldn't be retroactive. In further response to Representative
Kerttula, Representative Stevens affirmed that [SSHB 289] is
prospective.
Number 1323
PAT CARLSON, Manager, Kodiak Island Borough, testified via
teleconference in support of SSHB 289. Mr. Carlson recalled a
situation in Kodiak in which the form of government was on the
ballot at the same time the mayor was up for reelection. There
was a significant amount of confusion for the voters, as well as
the candidates. He related his belief that the votes of many
voters were impacted in relation to their belief of the form of
government [a particular candidate] embodied.
MR. CARLSON informed the committee that when Kodiak had a
special election for a change of government, the Kodiak Borough
Assembly [decided to have a transition of] one-year. Although
that was determined to be illegal given the current statutes, it
was the appropriate approach. Mr. Carlson concluded by
reiterating his support of SSHB 289.
Number 1474
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS agreed that [SSHB 289] provides a smoother
way; however, she questioned whether it's really a less
confusing situation.
MR. CARLSON explained that under the current statute, the change
in the form of government is in the assembly's control after the
vote takes place. Therefore, the one-year window provides the
opportunity to structure the government appropriately and ensure
a smooth transition.
Number 1596
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), informed the committee that although AML hasn't taken a
formal position on SSHB 289, the issue being addressed is real.
If one year into a three-year term there is a petition to change
the form of government without addressing a transition, the
mayor may be forced to quit his/her job and the voters may not
elect that person to be the full-time mayor. Mr. Ritchie felt
that a one-year transition is a good idea, which could also be
addressed in a petition. However, he wasn't sure how this
proposal would be addressed in a petition.
MR. RITCHIE, in response to Representative Murkowski, clarified
that AML hasn't gotten to SSHB 289 yet. The local government
subcommittee is meeting today and will discuss SSHB 289.
CO-CHAIR MEYER commented that the bill makes sense. He referred
to page 2, lines 5-9, and asked if the logistics work while
providing a smooth transition during a change in the form of
government.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS indicated agreement.
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS moved to report SSHB 289 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SSHB 289 was reported from the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:36 a.m.
HB 358-EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAX: TIMBER
CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 358, "An Act relating to an optional exemption
from municipal property taxes for certain land from which timber
is harvested and for certain improvements used in or necessary
to the harvest of timber."
Number 1902
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HB 358. Representative Chenault
informed the committee that the Kenai Peninsula Borough
encompasses 9.9 million acres of which approximately 2.2 million
acres is forested. Of those 2.2 million acres of forested land,
1.1 million acres is infested with the spruce bark beetle. [The
infested areas] have been identified as a fire threat with
limited accessibility for fire fighting resources as well as
inadequate evacuation sites. Representative Chenault also
informed the committee that in 1998 the Kenai Peninsula Borough
was concerned for the people with property on the peninsula and
thus the Spruce Bark Beetle Mediation Program was formed. The
program is currently in the process of cutting trees that are
dead and [pose] a high to moderate fire risk. He noted that the
borough intends to work cooperatively with the private property
owners, and therefore the borough has looked for incentives [to
encourage] the property owners to remove the infested timber.
One incentive is to exempt property taxes caused by the removal
of the infested timber.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT continued by informing the committee
that in 2001 the Kenai Peninsula Borough proposed an ordinance
granting the aforementioned tax exemption. However, the
borough's legal department determined that the borough didn't
have such authority without amending Alaska statutes. The
Alaska State Constitution provides that "all exemptions be
provided by law". He explained that the phrase "by law" in the
constitution is limited and refers to the legislature. On
January 8, 2002, the Kenai Peninsula Borough asked, through a
resolution, the legislature to enact legislation allowing
boroughs to exempt from taxation land subject to timber salvage.
Therefore, [HB 358] is before the committee today.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated for the record that she owns
property in Kenai that is infested by the spruce bark beetle.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT pointed out that the committee packet
should include a photo that illustrates the areas infested by
the spruce bark beetle.
Number 2131
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her interpretation that HB 358
seems to allow municipalities to totally exempt land from
property taxes. Therefore, she asked whether Representative
Chenault would consider changing the language to only refer to a
partial exemption because there would seem to always be some
property value left.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT agreed with Representative Kerttula that
the gist of the HB 358 is to [exempt taxation relative to the
improvements].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA acknowledged that [the exemption] would
still be up to the municipalities, which probably won't provide
a total exemption. However, on page 1, line 6, the deletion of
"or totally exempt" would be an easy change.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned whether that would also
apply to page 1, line 11.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to page 1, line 11, and specified
that the improvements could be totally exempt because those
could all be new. Therefore, she suggested that line 11 could
remain.
Number 2247
CO-CHAIR MEYER referred to page 1, line 7, and inquired as to
how a tree's risk of infestation is determined.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT answered that [the language] would
provide the municipality the leeway to review infestation and
grant the exemption if the municipality deems it appropriate.
In further response to Co-Chair Meyer, Representative Chenault
assumed [that the determination] is done through the borough.
Number 2348
JEFF JAHNKE, State Forestor, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference in support
of HB 358. Over the past ten years, the spruce bark beetle has
infested almost 3 million acres of land on the Kenai Peninsula,
Anchorage bowl, and the Copper River Basin. This legislation
removes a disincentive for harvesting spruce threatened and
killed by this epidemic and others to come. Harvesting
continues to be important following a spruce bark beetle
infestation because [harvesting] reduces the wildfire hazard
caused by dead and dying trees; encourages reforestation; and
recovers the remaining value. Unfortunately, there is not much
financial value left in these [infested spruce] trees.
Therefore, [the department] supports HB 358 and any effort that
might encourage the harvest of infested trees.
CO-CHAIR MEYER reiterated his question regarding how one
determines which trees are potentially at risk of being infected
by insects.
MR. JAHNKE explained that DNR, in conjunction with the U.S.
Forest Service state and private organizations, [have]
entomologists [who] perform annual aerial surveys in order to
identify emerging [infestations] and map current infestations.
This information is used as a common database, and the spruce
bark beetle database feeds into many efforts to determine what
to do.
Number 2504
ED OBERTS, Assistant to the Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough,
testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that
[the borough mayor's office] is in support of HB 358. One of
the key issues [related to the spruce bark beetle infestation]
is the fire risk. He noted that the [borough] has received
approximately $11 million to address [the spruce bark beetle
infestation] and thus there is a lot of satellite imagery and
mapping that identifies where the [infested] trees have been
removed. Additionally, [the borough] recently received a grant
from NASA in order to specifically target satellite imagery and
identify the areas in the process of being infected by the
spruce bark beetle. Mr. Oberts encouraged the adoption of an
exemption, especially in regard to larger tracts of land where a
firebreak could be created. However, he announced that [the
borough] would suggest an effective date of January 1, 2001, in
order to allow retroactive tax exemptions for the 2001 tax year.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that no effective date is
specified on HB 358 and thus it would be effective 90 days from
the governor's signature.
MR. OBERTS, in response to Representative Murkowski, confirmed
that [the borough] is requesting that HB 358 be written such
that it [the tax exemption] could be retroactive to January 1,
2001. Regardless of that request, [the borough] is supportive
of the bill as written.
Number 2640
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to whether Mr. Oberts
envisioned a total property tax exemption.
MR. OBERTS related his understanding that the intent of HB 358
is to allow an exemption on the improvements to the property,
which is probably sufficient. However, he acknowledged that
there could be some exemption for the value of the property. He
pointed out that these are salvage operations that are
marginally profitable. Even the chip value of the spruce bark
beetle infested tree may not be economical to sell. Therefore,
[the borough] is looking for incentives for the landowners to
clear their property.
Number 2727
BLAINE GILMAN, Attorney, Gilman & Associates, testified via
teleconference representing Salamatof Native Association, Inc.
Mr. Gilman noted Salamatof Native Association's support of HB
358. He explained that the "total exemption" language is
necessary because under the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) if a Native corporation decides to
take timber on its property, the property becomes developed
property and thus becomes taxable. He related one of his
clients' reluctance to remove [infested] timber because the
property, which is thousands of acres, could become taxable.
Mr. Gilman concluded by encouraging the committee to forward HB
358.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that under
ANILCA the land isn't taxable under a municipal property tax.
Therefore, if timber [is taken], the property would fall under
the municipal property tax.
MR. GILMAN agreed with Representative Kerttula's understanding.
Number 2815
TIM NAVARRE, President, Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly,
testified via teleconference. He pointed out that the committee
packet should include a resolution in support of HB 358. He
informed the committee that U.S. Senator Ted Stevens has
provided funding for both reforestation and salvage along the
rights-of-way as well as for large parcels. Mr. Navarre echoed
Mr. Oberts' suggestion to make the effective date January 1,
2001. Some areas that have already been cleared will face a
taxable situation if this legislation isn't retroactive to
January 1, 2001. Mr. Navarre said he would hate to penalize
those people who partnered with the borough early on in
addressing the spruce bark beetle problem.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to how spruce bark beetles
travel because the map in the packet illustrates that these
beetles have managed to migrate across the inlet.
Number 2957
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to an article in the March
[2001] edition of the Alaska Magazine. The article discusses
the belief that the spruce bark beetle [infestation] is due to a
climate change. Before the spruce bark beetle can fly, the
temperature must be 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Representative
Kerttula seemed to believe that being next door to an infested
lot would be a high risk. She noted that there are some other
problems in Southeast Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to how the spruce bark
beetles travel across the inlet.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she imagined that the beetles are
there already and thus if the climate heats up, there will be
problems.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT referred to a map included in the
committee packet. The map illustrates that the infestation is
across Cook Inlet, in the Copper Valley, as well as around
Haines. Although Representative Chenault felt that the spruce
bark beetle moves via flight, he did believe that the beetle
moves in other ways such as salvage firewood sales.
TAPE 02-6, SIDE B
MR. JAHNKE agreed with Representative Kerttula's comments
regarding how the spruce bark beetle moves. These beetles are
very small and move with the wind. A significant number of
beetles can be blown a fair distance. Additionally, the host
has to be such that the spruce bark beetle can be effective in
killing the trees and the beetle growing in numbers.
Number 2988
CO-CHAIR MEYER noted that the spruce bark beetle is a problem in
Anchorage as well. Therefore, he supported HB 358. He asked if
there is any way to kill the spruce bark beetle before it
spreads throughout the state. He also asked if the Kenai
Peninsula is receiving any federal [funds] to spray and stop the
migration or increase of the beetles.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT answered that the Kenai Peninsula has
received some federal funds. He related his belief that there
are some chemicals that can be used if the infestation is caught
early on. However, he said that the infestation on the Kenai
Peninsula is such that spray won't help.
CO-CHAIR MEYER noted his understanding that there is some
concern regarding the chemical that is used.
MR. JAHNKE pointed out that the spruce bark beetle lives most of
its life underneath the bark of the tree or in the ground, and
therefore it's difficult to spray and kill the beetle. He noted
that there are some sprays that can be applied to the trunks of
trees that haven't yet been infested and thus prevent the beetle
from infesting the tree. "Spraying to kill the beetle itself
and lower populations really isn't effective," he specified.
Number 2897
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to the best course of prevention
against the spruce bark beetle.
MR. JAHNKE said that most believe that maintaining a healthy
forest, and not allowing forests to develop in stands that are
susceptible to the beetle is the best prevention. Stands
susceptible to the beetle are those that are overcrowded with
large numbers of spruce and old [spruce].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if a really long, cold, hard
winter would kill the spruce bark beetle.
MR. JAHNKE answered that he believes there are certain weather
conditions that can cause the populations to decline. Mr.
Jahnke explained that spruce bark beetles are an endemic insect,
exist all the time. Therefore, the combination of the right
place to live and the appropriate weather causes an explosion to
the point of infestation. Although a really cold winter would
have some impact, it would only be a limited impact because the
beetles in the duff.
Number 2807
CO-CHAIR MEYER noted that he some of these [spruce bark beetles]
in his backyard. Co-Chair Meyer inquired as to whether Alaska
is behind in regard to forest management practices that would
attempt to beat the spread of the spruce bark beetle
[infestation].
MR. JAHNKE remarked that Co-Chair Meyer's question is very
complex. He informed the committee that the infestation is
declining significantly, which he mainly attributed to the lack
of host spruce in the stands necessary to maintain the
infestation. He acknowledged that there are some natural
reasons why spruce has developed the way it has in the Kenai
Peninsula, the Anchorage bowl, and the Taku River. Personally,
Mr. Jahnke said he felt it would've been difficult for a
treatment to prevent the infestation.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN, hearing no further public questions, closed the
public testimony.
Number 2701
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA [moved] that HB 358 be amended to be
retroactive to January 1, 2001. She noted that it is a
conceptual amendment. [There being no objection, the conceptual
amendment [Amendment 1] was adopted].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that the language indicates
that a municipality would've had to adopt an ordinance already
in place by January 1, 2001, to take advantage of the proposed
retroactive [effective date]. She asked if any municipality has
[adopted such an ordinance].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested [adding language] allowing
municipalities to enact ordinances that would retroactively
grant [the property tax exemption]. She moved the
aforementioned as a conceptual amendment, although she commented
that the committee might want to see this change [before
reporting the bill out of committee].
Number 2563
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved to adopt the aforementioned
amendment to conceptual Amendment 1. There being no objection,
the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that HB 358 would be held in order to
review the language after the amendments are incorporated.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee
meeting took a brief at-ease at 9:11 a.m. in order to prepare
for the presentation from the Alaska Native Health Board.
[Minutes pertaining to that presentation can be found under the
minutes for 9:30 a.m. of the same date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|