Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/01/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 35 | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 1, 2005
1:39 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:39:01 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Kelly
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring; Sam Kito, III, Alaska
Professional Design Council; Pat Davidson, Legislative
Auditor, Legislative Audit Division; Rick Urion, Director
Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic
Development; Cheryl Frasca, Director, Division of Management
& Budget, Office of the Governor; Devon Mitchell, Executive
Director, Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority, Department
of Revenue; Michael Burns, Executive Director, Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation; Tom Boutin, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Revenue
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Murphy O'Brian, Planning director, MatSu Borough; Jane Dale,
Palmer; Gary Davis, Road Service Director, Kenai Peninsula
Borough; Mark Begich, Mayor, City of Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 35 "An Act extending the termination date of the
State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors; and providing for
an effective date."
CS HB 35 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with a previously
published fiscal impact note: # 1 CED.
OVERVIEW - AMERADA HESS/ALASKA CAPITAL CORPORATION
1:39:24 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act extending the termination date of the State
Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and
Land Surveyors; and providing for an effective date."
[House Bill 35 was previously heard on February 28, 2005.]
Representative Vic Kohring asked the committee to consider
Amendment 1 after hearing testimony from people in the
industry. He explained that the amendment allows the
eleventh member of the State Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors to vote.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, labeled
24-LS0273\A.1, Bannister, 2/28/05, as follows:
Page 1, line 2, following "Surveyors;":
Insert "relating to the membership of the State Board
of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors;"
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 08.48.011(b) is amended to read:
(b) The board consists of 11 [10] members
appointed by the governor having the qualifications as
set out in AS 08.48.031. The board consists of
(1) two civil engineers;
(2) [,] two land surveyors;
(3) [,] one mining engineer;
(4) [,] one electrical or mechanical
engineer;
(5) [,] one engineer from another branch of
the profession of engineering;
(6) [,] two architects;
(7) one landscape architect; [,] and
(8) one public member.
* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
APPOINTMENT OF NEW BOARD MEMBER. (a) On or before
September 1, 2005, the governor shall appoint a new
member to the State Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors to satisfy
the requirement of AS 08.48.011(b), as amended by sec.
2 of this Act. The member shall be an individual who
is registered under AS 08.48 to engage in the practice
of landscape architecture and who is otherwise
qualified under AS 08.48.031 to be a member of the
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers,
and Land Surveyors.
(b) The term of the member appointed under (a) of this
section is four years from the date of appointment."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Representative Holm OBJECTED.
SAM KITO, III, CHAIR, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN COUNCIL, spoke in favor of Amendment 1.
He indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the State
Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors. He stated support for converting the temporary
landscape architect position to that of a permanent
position, a recommendation of a legislative audit. He
explained that allowing the eleventh member to vote would
create an odd number and avoid ties.
1:43:31 PM
Representative Holm pointed out the difficulty of certifying
landscape architects in Alaska. He explained the various
growing zones in the state and lack of resources for
training. He said he is objecting to the idea of licensing
someone who would not be knowledgeable because they don't
have an opportunity to get adequate training. He recalled
when there were no landscape architects in Alaska.
Mr. Kito acknowledged that Representative Holm has raised
valid points. He explained the licensing procedure for a
landscape architecture. Representative Holm maintained that
there is no licensing procedure and he termed the licensing
procedure inappropriate. He related that the Association of
American Nurserymen has no standards regarding Alaska, and
Alaska is not at a point to have experts in this area. He
questioned the validity of requiring a landscape architect
to act as an expert and superimpose landscape information
over projects throughout the state.
Mr. Kito, speaking as a civil engineer, related that there
are manuals, books, and guidelines with applicable
information. Selection of specific materials is left up to
"knowledge at the local area". He opined that design
professionals would make a point of knowing conditions and
specifics in various areas.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the audit report recommended the
addition of a landscape architect position.
PAT DAVIDSON, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, AUDIT DIVISION, responded
that is correct. She explained that a variety of
occupations are licensed under the board and therefore a
variety of occupations are needed on the board. As a
growing and developing occupation, a landscape architect
should be on board to deal with related and emerging issues.
1:52:41 PM
Representative Hawker inquired why Alaska recognizes the
occupation of landscape architect. Mr. Kito said it is his
understanding that there are some benefits to having such a
person on board when an Alaskan firm bids on federal
projects such as playgrounds. Most landscape architects
spend a lot of time working on school playground projects
and other projects that receive the benefit of having their
expertise.
Representative Hawker asked how many landscape architects
there are in Alaska. Mr. Kito replied there are 33 licensed
landscape architects. Representative Hawker indicated that
that is a relatively small number. He wondered if it is
premature to give that occupation a seat on the board. Mr.
Kito noted that there are 1,000 licensed civil engineers in
the state and 33 licensed mining engineers. All of the
related architecture occupations have a member on the board.
He explained that if there were not a voting landscape
architect on the board, there would be no one to have a
voice regarding that occupation's regulations and statutes.
Representative Hawker asked if the concerns raised by
Representative Holm would be an issue or an unintended
consequence to the nurserymen in the state if the amendment
passes. Mr. Kito replied that he does not believe so. He
concluded that it would be an opportunity for the landscape
architect position to work with the other disciplines to
formulate guidelines for the practice and responsibilities
of landscape architecture.
1:57:26 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the sunset date was guided by
past legislation. Ms. Davidson replied the Legislative
Audit Division looked at current operations to make that
determination. Vice-Chair Stoltze voiced concern about
adding another regulatory entity and the possibility of
detrimental future regulations such as a closed shop.
Representative Holm reiterated past concerns with landscape
architects and cautioned the board that he would be closely
watching its actions. Representative Holm WITHDREW his
OBJECTION to adopt Amendment 1.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 35 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: # 1 CED.
2:03:06 PM
At ease.
2:04:37 PM
OVERVIEW: AMERADA HESS SETTLEMENT TO FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
CHERYL FRASCA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, introduced members of the panel.
She explained the handout entitled "Use of the Amerada Hess
Settlement to Fund Capital Projects" (copy on file.) The
first three pages are background history describing the
Amerada Hess settlement, pages 5 and 6 are a summary of the
proposed capital corporation, pages 7 and 8 are schematic
diagrams, pages 9 - 12 depict how the account works, pages
13 - 15 is a legal opinion from Wilson Condon regarding the
intent when the issue was before the court, pages 16 - 18
are frequently asked question, and pages 19 - 27 relate to
proposed capital projects to be funded by the revenue bond
proceeds.
2:08:19 PM
MICHAEL BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION, explained the history of the Amerada Hess
Royalty Oil Dispute and Settlement. In 1977 the State of
Alaska sued North Slope oil companies over royalty disputes.
Twenty-five percent of all oil royalties are directed to the
permanent fund, so the issue became whether or not an
Alaskan jury and judge could be impartial because they were
potential recipients of the royalty payments through the
Permanent Fund Dividend. The case ended up in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which encouraged settlement.
In 1989 and 1991 the Legislature passed legislation that
stated that any settlement would be deposited in the
permanent fund, but the earnings could not be used in the
dividend formula. That satisfied the court and it did not
go to trial. Between 1992 and 2002, about $194 million was
deposited into the fund. Earnings on that money, over the
years, have amounted to almost $153 million. Inflation
proofing of the original principal is about $77.5 million.
About $424,399,000 is in the fund today. Mr. Burns referred
to the delicate term "financial sequestration" in Wilson
Condon's memo and noted that he preferred the concept "self-
licking ice cream cone", to describe a fund within a fund
that is economically and financially being used for nothing.
Mr. Burns described the fund's accounting procedure.
Appreciation or depreciation on assets is added to the very
basic income such as stock dividends, bond interest,
property rent, revenues from securities lending, and
commission recapture. Then, operating expenses of the fund
and legislative appropriations are subtracted. This leads
to a number called an accounting net income or total return.
From that number, unrealized depreciation on assets is
deducted, which totals realized net income. From that
number any income attributable to the Amerada Hess fund is
subtracted. This equals the statutory net income, which is
used in the calculation of the dividend.
2:12:15 PM
DEVON MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL BOND
BANK AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained how the
bonds were issued. Two fundamental ideas were settled upon:
a new account created in the earnings reserve called the
Alaska Capital Income Account, which will be funded by
earnings from the segregated portion of the fund, and a new
public corporation, which will have the authority to issue
up to $350 million in corporate bonds supported by operating
leases that might be paid from the Alaska Capital Income
Account. The key reason for needing a separate corporation
is to have a structure to segregate funds and allow for
leveraging without any impact on the state's general credit
rating.
The new corporation would exist within the Department of
Revenue and be funded by revenue staff. There would be a
slight increment in operating costs for the corporation's
annual audit functions and other administrative functions.
The bond structure is critical to the viability of the
corporation because a very flexible structure is needed.
There is a 40-year nominal interest structure, like a
balloon payment at the term of 40 years, with the
flexibility to retire principle in the interim years as
additional revenue becomes available. There is also a tax-
exempt bond structure and a variety of other potential
enhancements to ensure protection against volatility. The
final credit feature is a fully funded debt service reserve
fund secured by a moral obligation pledge at the State of
Alaska.
Mr. Mitchell referred to page 7 of the packet. The flow
chart demonstrates how Amerada Hess funds would flow into
the earnings reserve sub-account and be available for annual
appropriations for projects, changing nothing related to the
permanent fund, the earnings reserve, or the dividend.
2:17:08 PM
Mr. Mitchell indicated that page 8 is the schematic for the
contemplated corporation that would be charged with issuing
$350 million in bonds. It depicts annual appropriations
flowing into the corporation through the revenue fund and
then splitting off into the debt service reserve, the bond
redemption fund, and the operations fund. The bond
redemption fund or advanced-funded bond redemption account
is an added security feature where debt service is funded a
year in advance. Prior to any principle redemption through
flexible amortization on the bonds, an additional year's
worth of security would be set aside to further insulate the
state from market volatility. The operations account would
provide for audit function duties of the corporation, and
fund the construction fund if there were revenues available
for transfer.
The corporate bond issue with flexible amortization is the
primary source of funding for the construction fund. That
money would flow from investors to the construction fund and
be available for various projects. The money appropriated
into the revenue fund would be based on Evergreen Operating
Leases.
The tables on pages 9-12 illustrate potential scenarios
based on certain assumptions. Page 9 depicts the Alaska
Capital Income Account and shows the principle balance of
the Amerada Hess funding and earnings assumptions of 7.61
percent, which the permanent fund corporation's consultants
have provided as the most likely scenario for the short
term.
2:20:02 PM
The result is an annual transfer of approximately $33
million that would fund (column 5 on page 10) the lease
appropriation received. This has a borrowing rate of 6
percent, which is conservative based on the ability to fund
on a tax-exempt basis. It has a reinvestment rate on the
fund balance within the corporation proper of 2 percent,
which is lower because it anticipates the short-term nature
of that money and the liquidity needs of the corporation.
Outstanding bonds show the nature of flexible amortization.
Flexible principle payments don't start until 2007. Mr.
Mitchell continued to explain the intricacies of the
spreadsheet.
Mr. Mitchell explained that page 11 shows the reserve fund
reinvested at a rate of 4 percent. Page 12 depicts
obligations of the construction fund, invested at a rate of
3 percent.
2:22:47 PM
TOM BOUTIN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
added that in addition to talking to the rating analyst to
insure that this structure would not be included in the
state general fund debt, the department worked closely with
bond counsel and special tax counsel about tax-exempt
status. The department also "went out and talked to the
market place a little bit" to make sure it was an acceptable
structure in the public finance market.
Ms. Frasca explained how the proceeds from the bond would be
used. She related that $155 million of the proposed $340
million is for several road projects in two categories,
"roads to resources" and "congestion relief or bottleneck
busters". She indicated that there is also $74 million
related to deferred maintenance, $71 million to match
federal highway dollars, and $24 million for several
University of Alaska projects, including the UAA science
complex.
Ms. Frasca pointed out that the idea to use state funds for
transportation projects instead of federal funds, came from
the general obligation bond packet which passed in 2000 and
provided that, for the first time, state funds could be used
for road projects, which relieved the state from some of the
federal requirements.
2:24:57 PM
JOHN MCKINNON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, explained how the proceeds from the
bonds would be used on transportation projects. He
explained that road projects were chosen if they would fit
the criteria of resource roads, bottleneck busters, tourism
development, or bridges necessary for gas line development.
The projects that were decided upon were badly needed and
would benefit, both in cost and delivery, by using state
funds. He pointed out that without constraint by federal
rules, delivery can be sped up and costs can be reduced.
2:27:15 PM
MURPHY O'BRIAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR, MATSU BOROUGH, expressed
excitement over projects that would provide a needed
east/west connection in his area. He agreed that this
infrastructure would enhance transportation. He encouraged
the pursuit of Amerada Hess funds for capital projects.
JANE DALE, PALMER, spoke on Mayor John Comb's behalf in
support of the funding to lessen congestion between Palmer
and Wasilla. She noted that the area has doubled in size
since the 1990 Census. A second route would facilitate
everyone using the growing retail available in Wasilla and
accessing the growing technical and professional end in
Palmer.
GARY DAVIS, ROAD SERVICE DIRECTOR, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH,
voiced appreciation for the bond approach. He shared a
story about the importance and value of bond initiatives.
He noted that the Kenai Borough is primarily interested in
Channel Kalifornski Beach road repair, an alternate access
highway to the southern peninsula. Setbacks and delays have
been due to federal highway funding problems.
2:31:49 PM
MARK BEGICH, MAYOR, ANCHORAGE, commented on the need to
relieve traffic congestion in Anchorage because it is
becoming a safety concern. He explained the Tudor/Lake Otis
relief package and the Glenn Highway Corridor project and
why they are needed. He noted that the Lake Otis and Tudor
intersection was not included in the package and is a
concern. Another $7 million is needed to finish that
intersection. He spoke about the need for improvements in
the Glenn Highway/McGraw intersection, which has a growing
number of commuters going into the MatSu valley. Relief in
that area would allow other projects to go forward. He
expressed support for state funding and acknowledged the
debate over the funding mechanism. He emphasized that
transportation issues need to have a long-term stable
funding mechanism and observed that 48 percent of
Anchorage's roads are state-owned.
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Ms.
Frasca clarified that $26 million for the Anchorage Mid-Town
Improvements includes: $7 million for Tudor and Bragaw and
$19 million for Dowling East Extension
Mayor Begich stressed the need for the Lake Otis/Tudor
intersection funding. Traffic flow in the area will
continue to grow without the intersection project. He
pointed out that Anchorage would provide $7 million in local
funds for the project. Southbound traffic continues to be a
problem, especially for truckers.
Representative Croft questioned why it is not a better
solution to avoid the intersection. Mayor Begich observed
that it would suffice for northbound traffic, but southbound
traffic to downtown and eastbound traffic would remain a
problem. Most of the commercial development is closer to
Lake Otis and drivers are cutting through neighborhoods.
Representative Weyhrauch referred to the memorandum from
Commissioner Condon (copy on file.) He observed that the
legislature is free to repeal the statute that is
sequestering the funds. Commissioner Condon expressed the
concern that oil and gas companies will maintain that a fair
trial cannot be obtained. He asked if there was anything
that would preclude the legislature from repealing and
reenacting the legislation.
Ms. Frasca acknowledged the right of the legislature to
change the settlement agreement in the manner referred to by
Representative Weyhrauch, but expressed concern that the
state would lose industry trust.
Representative Weyhrauch referred to page 16, number 5
regarding a downgrade of state credit rating. He expressed
frustration with the idea that the state does not have a
fiscal plan. He emphasized that even if CBR funds are
spent, the earnings reserve account is tapped, ANWAR is
developed, and the gas pipeline goes through, there will
still be a fiscal gap between now and when those events come
online.
Mr. Boutin spoke to the credit issue. The structure would
successfully separate the funds from the general fund as to
not jeopardize the credit rating since the earnings are
distinguished well enough.
Representative Weyhrauch stressed that he is really
addressing a philosophical issue regarding how to educate
the public and get buy-in by the legislature about a fiscal
gap. He termed it a difficult disconnect.
Mr. Boutin emphasized that the funding structure would bring
immediate benefit to Alaska. Ms. Frasca said she
appreciates the disconnect and noted the Administration's
work in regards to a fiscal plan. The question is should
the state go on hold for state needs while a fiscal plan is
being developed. She agreed that it sends a mixed signal to
the public and the legislature, but the Administration
decided "it needed to take action instead of treading water
for another year or two."
Representative Weyhrauch noted that the issue has been
around for a while, but that the information is only coming
to light in the current year. He questioned how many more
funds are out there waiting to be tapped. Ms. Frasca
stressed that the Administration spent a great amount of
time on how to structure the proposal so as not to impact
the state's debt rating.
2:54:54 PM
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Stoltze, Ms. Frasca
replied there is nothing in the bill for the proposed
Capitol project. She added that funding for a new Capitol
would be an appropriate use of bond proceeds.
Representative Croft asked about the nature of the debt and
why the $343 million does not require a public vote. Mr.
Boutin clarified that the earnings that are contemplated to
be the source of the debt service are subject to
appropriation. If the revenues of the fund were going to be
pledged, then it would require going to the voters.
Mr. Mitchell added that there would be an annual
appropriation on an operating lease to provide for a
transfer from the Alaska Capital Fund Account to the Alaska
Capital Corporation. Representative Croft asked if it is
debt of the corporation and not state debt. Mr. Mitchell
concurred. Mr. Boutin further clarified that if Amerada
Hess had been appropriated through the general fund, then
credit rating analysts would consider it state debt.
3:00:36 PM
Ms. Frasca added that the governor's concern is to protect
the state's bond rating. She indicated that the tobacco tax
used the corporate structure and did not need voter
approval. Representative Croft inquired if this had gone to
the general fund, and the state tried to bond its way out of
the fiscal gap, if that would create the "wall street
problem". Mr. Boutin said yes. Representative Croft
wondered if the $343 million in bonding would replace Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and Alaska Student Loan
Corporation money in the capital budget, and, in that sense,
replace general fund holes in the budget.
Ms. Frasca explained that are $121 million in proceeds from
AHFC, student loans, and general funds in the capital
proposal. She explained that the bond earnings would add to
what is available for capital funds.
Representative Croft questioned the disqualification of
Alaska courts and the use of the Amerada Hess money for
capital projects. Mr. Boutin replied that is a question for
legislative legal.
3:06:12 PM
Representative Croft referred to a "moral obligation" so
risk would not affect the bond rating. Mr. Boutin explained
that moral obligation is a term of art, a level of
commitment used for a variety of different kinds of debt.
He termed it a backstop because the earnings rate can't be
guaranteed. He noted that as of June 30, 2004, there was
over a billion dollars worth of State of Alaska moral-
obligation debt outstanding.
Representative Hawker paraphrased Representative Croft's
point that "the legislature may appropriate" would put this
in the category of moral obligation debt, not general
obligation debt, which would require a vote of the people.
Mr. Boutin agreed and added, "and not general fund debt."
Representative Hawker clarified that is also not state
guaranteed debt, like AHFC debt. Mr. Boutin agreed.
Representative Hawker summarized that there is a new source
of general fund revenue that would not impact the state's
credit rating. Mr. Boutin agreed that is the basis and it
would not affect the state's credit rating. He explained
that he has not heard the Amerada Hess funds called new
general fund revenues, and the fact that they are not
general fund revenues is the basis upon which this borrowing
is not general fund debt.
Mr. Wallace further explained that the funds would never go
to the general fund, but to a sub-account in the earnings
reserve.
Representative Hawker argued that Amerada Hess is part of
the permanent fund. Mr. Boutin agreed that it is.
Representative Hawker stated that Article IX, Section 15 of
the Alaska Constitution says that all income of the
permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund. He
asked if that makes it general fund earnings.
Mr. Burns pointed out that statute says it must be
reinvested in the principal. Representative Hawker asked if
Amerada Hess earnings automatically go into the general
fund. Mr. Burns said it is done automatically by previous
statute.
3:15:02 PM
Ms. Frasca referred to the fiscal summary worksheet and
asked if Representative Hawker was suggesting that the
transaction be moved to the general fund column.
Representative Hawker replied that the fiscal summary is
only a worksheet and does not reflect the real transaction.
Representative Hawker pursued the idea that if other new
general fund earnings were identified, could they also
support new bonded debt with inconsequential impacts on the
state's credit rating. Mr. Boutin, speaking hypothetically,
answered yes.
Representative Hawker pointed out that in the past two
legislative sessions, new general fund revenues in excess of
$30 million were imposed. He inquired why this source of
money had to be used, rather than continuing to use past
methods to raise money. No one could answer that question.
Representative Hawker continued to question. "Do you truly
believe that taking these earnings is the highest and best
use of this asset that sits within the permanent fund?" Ms.
Frasca responded that the Administration thinks that this
proposal advances some opportunity in the infrastructure in
a way that has not been possible for a long time. She noted
the Administration is open to other ideas the legislature
may have.
Representative Hawker asked if the money completes all
projects or will require more funds in order to complete
them. He mentioned the science complex in Anchorage as an
example of a project that will require more funding. He
asked where the funds would come from to sustain and
complete these projects.
3:19:33 PM
Ms. Frasca said an analysis would have to be done. She
noted that it is part of the tradeoff when determining a
capital budget. She opined that there are other ways to
finance some of these projects. She offered to provide the
information Representative Hawker requested.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed it would be good to see which projects
would require future funding. Ms. Frasca replied that the
Administration wants to invest in the future and is willing
to take the first step to initiate funding.
Representative Croft referred to page 12 in the handout and
asked if the $343 million is bonded and paid out over the
next six years. Mr. Boutin noted that is one example of how
it could work. He pointed out the volatility of the earning
stream.
Representative Croft referred to page 18 and asked how the
proposal squares with the governor's proposal to not touch
the permanent fund without a public vote. Ms. Frasca agreed
that it accurately represents OMB's official interpretation
of the governor's commitment.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|