Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/24/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB308 | |
| HB375 | |
| HB306 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 375 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 482 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 308 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 24, 2006
2:17 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 2:17:41 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Wendy Lindskoog, Director, External Affairs, Alaska Railroad
Corporation; Gary Bader, Chief Investment Officer, Treasury
Division, Department of Revenue; Tom Boutin, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Jaqueline Tupou, Staff
to Representative Weyhrauch.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Larry Semmens, Alaska Retirement Management Board, Kenai;
Rick Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Mining
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources; John Duff,
Borough Manager, Mat-Su Borough; Ron Swanson, Community
Development Director, MatSu Borough.
SUMMARY
SB 308 "An Act authorizing the Alaska Railroad
Corporation to issue revenue bonds to finance rail
transportation projects that qualify for federal
financial participation; and providing for an
effective date."
SB 308 was REPORTED OUT of Committee with one
previously published, zero fiscal note (#1; CED)
and "no recommendation".
HB 375 "An Act relating to the retirement benefit
liability account and appropriations from that
account; relating to deposits of certain income
earned on money received as a result of State v.
Amerada Hess, et al., 1JU-77-847 Civ. (Superior
Court, First Judicial District); and providing for
an effective date."
HB 375 was HEARD and HELD for further
consideration.
HB 306 "An Act making certain land available for
selection by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough."
HB 306 was HEARD and HELD for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 308
"An Act authorizing the Alaska Railroad Corporation to
issue revenue bonds to finance rail transportation
projects that qualify for federal financial
participation; and providing for an effective date."
2:18:24 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the bill had been heard on Friday,
4/21,2006, and that no amendments were being offered.
WENDY LINDSKOOG, DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ALASKA RAILROAD
CORPORATION provided information on the legislation. She
explained that the federal transit administration funds were
similar to federal highway administration funds. The
railroad qualifies under formula funding, under the FTA.
This is a new tool to bond against revenues and would not
affect highway funds. Responding to a follow-up, she
confirmed that the appropriation would not affect other
agency funds of affect highway funds.
Responding to another question by Representative Chenault,
Ms. Lindskoog noted that this would not affect funding for
other agencies. Only 30 to 50 percent of the FTA funds were
actually used to repay the bond debt, leaving the remainder
of the funds for use in other capital projects.
Representative Chenault MOVED to REPORT SB308 out of
Committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note from the Department of Commerce. There being NO
OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered.
SB 308 was REPORTED OUT of Committee with one previously
published, zero fiscal note (#1; CED) and "No
Recommendation".
2:21:51 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 375
"An Act relating to the retirement benefit liability
account and appropriations from that account; relating
to deposits of certain income earned on money received
as a result of State v. Amerada Hess, et al., 1JU-77-
847 Civ. (Superior Court, First Judicial District); and
providing for an effective date."
2:22:35 PM
Representative Chenault MOVED TO ADOPT Work Draft 24-
LS1467\L.1, Wayne, 4/24/06. There being NO OBJECTIONS, the
Committee Substitute was ADOPTED.
2:23:16 PM
Representative Weyhrauch, Sponsor, discussed the bill. He
noted that it had been introduced by the House Ways and
Means Committee in early February. The bill was created
after nine months of public hearings on the Public Employee
and Teachers' Retirement Systems (PERS and TRS). The bill
sets up an account to hold funds from legislative
appropriations to pay into the unfunded liability of the
system. He explained that testimony had revealed that, while
cash was the easiest way to pay the unfunded liability, the
State could not fund one hundred percent of the current
unfunded liability, and that this might not be wisest
action. He stressed that there were other demands on State
resources.
Representative Weyrauch stated that the account is somewhat
modeled after the Public School Education Fund, which the
legislation has the discretion to fund. He noted that the
Alaska Retirement Management (ARM) Board, the provisions of
SB 141 (enacted in 2005), was tasked with developing
solutions to address the unfunded liability. The Board took
time to develop its recommendations, which was presented in
an appendix provided to Committee members. The Ways and
Means version of the bill adds the provisions contained in
these recommendations.
Representative Weyrauch noted that Mr. Bader worked most
aggressively on the Committee Substitute, as well as Mr.
Semmens.
2:25:35 PM
LARRY SEMMENS, ALASKA RETIREMENT MANAGEMENT BOARD, KENAI,
testified via teleconference. He explained that the board
was established in October, 2005 as a result of SB 141,
which directed the board to prepare recommendations for the
legislature to address the unfunded liability of the State
retirement plan. The Board unanimously approved the final
report, delivered to the House Ways and Means Committee in
[April] 2006. He stated that the proposed bill related
directly to the Board's first priority recommendation. The
Board heard presentations from numerous experts, and
identified funding strategies that would have minimal impact
on Alaskans. He pointed out that a key assumption was that
the ARM Board would accept the FY 2008 employer contribution
rate at the actuarially required rate. He noted that the
combined unfunded liability of both the PERS and TRS systems
had grown from $5.7 billion to $6.9 billion by June 30,
2005. He stressed that delaying action would worsen the
situation.
2:28:55 PM
GARY BADER, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, TREASURY DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE testified regarding the bill. He noted
that the Department was staff to the ARM Board, and stated
that his presentation related to the Board's priority one
recommendation. He referred to a handout prepared for
Committee members. He stated that the first priority was the
ARM Board's strategy for dealing with the long-term approach
to address the unfunded liability of the system. The Board
envisioned that this strategy would be put in place in 2006,
so as to be operative during the FY 2008 budget. This
recommendation did not anticipate an appropriation from the
Legislature in the current fiscal year, but rather set up a
mechanism for amounts funded in the future.
On Page 2 of the report, Mr. Bader pointed out line 3,
showing the increase in the unfunded actuarial accrued
liability. He stated that the reason for the increase
between FY 2004 and 2005, dropping the funded ratio, was
that contributions were not yet taking place at the rate
anticipated by the actuary. The FY 2007 rate that is
currently operational is 26% for the teacher's retirement
system, compared to 42 percent anticipated by the actuary.
He noted the $2.5 billion of unfunded liability which would
lead to a shortfall in the coming fiscal year.
2:32:41 PM
Mr. Bader pointed out the history of the funding ratios in
the Teacher's Retirement System, going back to 1979 (Page 3
of the handout). He noted that, while the State did not need
to eliminate its unfunded liability in one year, it must
establish a mechanism for doing so.
2:33:13 PM
Mr. Bader pointed out that Page 4 gives similar numbers for
the Public Employees Retirement System. The contribution
rate for employers set by the ARM Board was 27%, as opposed
to the amount recommended by the actuary at 32.4%. He noted
two reasons that the ARM board had set the rates as they
are: a current regulation stipulating that PERS could only
increment its employer contribution rates by 5% each year;
the rate was set at October, since that was the rate that
employers had been led to expect in the coming year. The
combination of the unfunded liability is down $4.4 billion
for PERS, resulting in $363 million fewer earnings at 8.25%.
He concluded that not having adequate money in the fund
results in increased costs.
2:34:43 PM
Mr. Bader reviewed Page 5 and noted that the State had faced
these circumstances in the past, but that the unfunded
liability had been addressed through the employer
contribution rate.
2:35:04 PM
Mr. Bader compared contribution rates, and noted an increase
in PERS of 4.24 percent, and for TRS of .36 percent [Page 6
compares data on each fund in fiscal years 2004 and 2005.]
The funded ratio for the liability decreased.
2:35:55 PM
Mr. Bader directed Committee members to compare three
columns: the amortization period; employer contribution
rate; and supplemental contributions [Page 7 lists the
amortization period for TRS]. He explained that, if one
chose a time period of 25 years to fully fund the system, at
an employer contribution rate of 16 percent, $146 million
additional funds would be needed to complete funding. He
noted that, even at the current employer contribution rate
of 26 percent, $90 million would still be needed to fully
fund the system in a 25-year period. He predicted that when
the Board sets its actuarial assumptions, it will set the
amortization at 30 years, bringing the additional
contributions needed down to $71 million at the current
contribution rate.
2:37:58 PM
Mr. Bader reviewed Page 8, which illustrates the
amortization periods for PRS, and observed that $70 million
is needed to eliminate the liability over 30 years.
2:38:45 PM
Mr. Bader noted the use of the term "past service cost rate"
contained in the proposed legislation. Page 9 illustrates
how the past service cost rate is calculated by an
actuarial. He maintained that it was important, not to
master the figures on the page, but rather to understand and
uniformly apply the term when it is written into law. He
pointed out line 4, representing the level of unfunded
liability at the time of cost rate calculation. He noted
that each year the past service cost rate was built based on
the occurrences of the previous year.
2:40:16 PM
Mr. Bader discussed Page 10, which outlines the plan
contained in the proposed legislation. A past service
liability account would be created, requiring an annual
appropriation from the legislature. He observed that TRS
employers, other than the State of Alaska and the University
of Alaska, would be paid from this account, although not
directly into the retirement account. This gives the
employer the ability to assess uniform rates in the case of
an employee who is partially federally funded. He also
stated that if the legislature did not appropriate enough
funds to pay the calculations in the bill, they would be pro
rated. If there remained an excess of funds at the end of
the year, the funds would lapse into the General Fund.
2:42:34 PM
As to the question of why the State of Alaska and the
University of Alaska were not included in this strategy, Mr.
Bader commented that they could easily be included, but the
Board believed that the Legislature could deal with these
two budgets without input from the ARM Board. He noted the
Legislature could choose to fund these personnel services at
whatever actuarial rate they determined was appropriate.
2:43:33 PM
Regarding the question of why PERS and TRS employers were
treated differently, Mr. Bader noted that TRS employers all
have the same rate and system; PERS employers participate
differently in the system at various rates [Page 11
addresses the plan for PERS employers]. He stated that the
ARM Board believed that employers should have a stake in the
liability, however, that a large portion of the support
should come from the State. He pointed out that in a past
piece of legislation, reference was made to an average past
service cost rate. An average past service cost rate sets a
maximum for the State as to the amount of support given to
municipalities and school districts. The proposed
legislation directs the State to "provide the lesser of the
past service cost rate of the employer's three years
earlier".
2:46:05 PM
Mr. Bader explained that the ARM board also desired to
address the fact that some employers have paid more into the
system in the past two years than required. It was felt that
those employers should not be penalized for being pro-
active. He noted that the Board recommends that fifty
percent should be rebated to them. At the time the board was
considering this plan, pension obligation bonds had not been
moved through legislation. He pointed out that the Committee
should be informed about new developments. He noted that an
amendment by Representative Weyhrauch could address this
issue. He proposed that unless the bill was amended, a
greater amount might be returned to municipalities than
intended by the State.
2:48:26 PM
Mr. Bader pointed out that Page 12 gives examples of past
service cost rate calculations. Different communities - like
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other - would cost the State a
variety of amounts, based on their past service cost rate.
He concluded that these cost rates could vary by a great
deal, but that these rates were averaged.
2:50:53 PM
Mr. Bader stated that the Board suggested achieving full
funding over an actuary period of 30 years, and changing the
employer contribution rate to agree with the actuary [Page
13 outlines various goals suggested by the Board in any
solution]. He stressed that they did not wish to cause
disruption in public service, which is why the legislation
would provide additional support to communities. The plan
encourages State participation, as well as accelerated
contributions, providing a means of equitable support, and
minimal supplanting of Federal and other non General Fund
costs.
2:52:00 PM
TOM BOUTIN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
testified. He noted that the ARM board voted unanimously for
the concepts contained in the Committee Substitute, with the
caveat that since this was for funding in FY 2008, it would
not impact the Governor's current priorities. He pointed out
that the fiscal note prepared by the Department of Revenue
reflects no incremental cost for implementation. He observed
that one state had been placed on negative credit outlook,
because their latest actuarial reflected a 60 percent
funding level. He observed that TERS is close to 60 percent,
and proposed that if the State was planning to enter the
credit market, it would be good to have a plan in place to
address the liability.
2:54:07 PM
Representative Joule asked about employers with no past
(cost) service liability and how they would benefit from
this strategy. Mr. Bader replied that if communities had a
past service cost rate of less than five percent, they would
not receive the benefit, since five percent would be
deducted under the calculations. Responding to a follow-up,
he confirmed that if a community had no past cost service
liability, they would receive no support.
Representative Kelly asked how certainly this system would
accomplish a goal at the federal level. Mr. Bader noted that
currently the system set one rate, and all employers paid
this rate.
2:56:12 PM
Representative Kerttula asked why the system operated on
averages and not actual employer's percentages. Mr. Bader
conceded that this was possible, and gave the example of the
cost for fully funding the past service cost rate for all
communities for PERS being at $82 million, as opposed to $47
million with a cost average approach. The Legislature could
choose to fund a level based on a percentage, rather than an
average. He noted that 20 communities paid more than
required and would qualify for fifty percent incentive.
2:57:29 PM
Representative Chenault asked about incentives, and
observed that those communities that have already paid down
their unfunded liability, would be penalized by 50 percent.
Mr. Bader maintained that paying the liability early was a
benefit in itself, and noted that fifty percent was given to
communities last year in the operating budget.
2:58:30 PM
Representative Chenault noted the concern for a
municipality that paid more than required, and proposed that
if the solution were implemented, that community would in
effect be penalized, having not received the same benefit as
other communities.
2:59:15 PM
Representative Chenault closed public testimony on the
bill.
2:59:57 PM
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED Amendment #1,24-LS1467\L.1,
Wayne, 4/24/06. Representative Stoltze OBJECTED.
JAQUELINE TUPOU, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH, deferred
to Mr. Bader to address the amendment.
Mr. Bader commented on the amendment. He observed that the
amendment proposed an incentive of "50 percent or no more
than $3,300,000". He noted that the $3,300,000 represented
50 percent of what a maximum contribution by a community
might have been; in this case the municipality of Anchorage
paid $6.6 million into their unfunded liability that was not
required. In order to prevent communities from accessing the
system for very large sums of money, this amendment set a
limit.
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out discussion about
certain communities that maintained "permanent funds", and
asked how this would interact with the bill. Mr. Bader noted
that this language would restrict those communities who pay
more than $6.6 million in one year from receiving more than
$3.3 million. He pointed out that the ARM board did not wish
a large number of communities to pay down their debt in
order to receive the 50 percent benefit.
3:03:08 PM
Representative Weyhrauch conceded that there existed some
confusion over the proposed system. He acknowledged
questions by Representative Joule, and noted that the goal
was to implement significant portions of the solution to
begin a long-term strategic plan.
3:03:53 PM
Representative Kelly referred to a comment by Representative
Kerttula, and noted that Fairbanks had experienced
unexpectedly large bad outcomes. He asked if there were any
provisions in place to prevent this from occurring. Mr.
Bader expressed his belief that the Legislature wished to
address communities that have experienced the highest level
of past service liability. He proposed that if communities
experienced high levels of liability, language might be
changed and the legislature might make a policy call and
dictate a particular percent.
3:05:24 PM
Representative Holm observed that in the past there had been
forgiveness of liability for some communities and not for
others. He asked how there might be a sense of equanimity
established. Mr. Bader stated that he was unaware of any
forgiveness given. He also noted his understanding that,
while rates set for PERS employers were based on best
efforts by the actuary and the Division of Retirement and
Benefits, there was a certain commonality since not all
employees remain with the same employer for their entire
career. He proposed that if an employee switched to another
employer after many years of service and received a higher
rate of pay, their original employer might face the
liability for their retirement costs. He concluded that
employers might face various liabilities, and
municipalities' debts may not be a result of their own
fiscal policies. This is why averages are suggested, while
at the same time, the legislature is given discretion.
3:08:03 PM
Representative Kelly asked how Amendment #1 would affect the
fairness between communities. Mr. Bader noted that this
would not affect this issue. It would merely set a cap on
the amount reimbursed should a community pay liability.
3:08:56 PM
Representative Hawker noted that the same issue had been
raised in discussion on HB 278. He commented that, in work
with Representative Kelly, the solution determined was not
to create an arbitrary reimbursement amount, but rather
language in HB 278, stating that if any municipality made
extra payments. Payments should not be considered if the
State, through another mechanism, made payments that
benefited multiple employers. He stated that he was more
supportive of that concept than this amendment.
3:10:34 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referred to the $6.9 billion unfunded
liability, and asked how this broke down by local, state,
and federal governments. Mr. Bader did not have these
figures, but stated that the Department of Education website
reflected percent of funding for the operating budget. The
federal and special revenue funds were over 20 percent of
the total amount. He compared this to 10 percent as shown in
the operating budget. He concluded it was difficult to
determine percentages.
3:12:46 PM
Representative Kelly observed that for a community the size
of Fairbanks, taking into consideration the 100 percent
multiplier on the average payroll cost, the $3 million cap
would have an affect. Mr. Bader responded that the cap only
applied to the incentive payments for overpayment.
Representative Stoltze REMOVED his OBJECTION.
Representative Hawker MAINTAINED an OBJECTION. He suggested
while there might be room in this context for a reward to
employers that met their liability, he was not prepared to
support it at this time.
Representative Kelly also expressed that while he was not
against the amendment, he needed to understand how this
affected specific circumstances.
Co-Chair Meyer expressed some discomfort with the amendment.
Representative Weyhrauch noted that the amendment was
developed with the Department. He stated that it does not
preclude other options, but stressed that it was important
to continue moving ahead during the final days of the
legislative session. He acknowledged that the bill was a
"work in progress", and that he was not absolutely committed
to the amendment. He maintained that it was an important
issue that should move forward.
Representative Kelly agreed, but suggested that the step
ought to be refined.
Representative Hawker asked if the chair intended to move
the bill. Co-Chair Meyer responded that it was not the
intent.
Representative Weyhrauch WITHDREW the amendment.
Co-Chair Meyer asked how the unfunded liability compared to
other states. Mr. Bader noted that most states did not
include the medical aspect of their program in the unfunded
liability calculations, meaning that the state of Alaska
might be better well off than the numbers reflected. He
stressed that time was a key factor in the solution.
3:18:02 PM
Representative Weyhrauch observed that experts advised
legislatures throughout the country. He noted that other
states were taking more aggressive means to address unfunded
liabilities created as a result of the economic downturn of
September, 2001. He proposed that Alaska could take a
leadership role in the country.
3:19:19 PM
Co-Chair Meyer expressed concern with the loss of federal
contributions and questioned the fund source. Representative
Weyhrauch clarified that the Amerada Hess funds were taken
out of the legislation. The funding mechanism would be
capital funds. He noted that David Teal, Director,
Legislative Finance Division, could provide more information
regarding the federal liability.
3:21:16 PM
Representative Hawker referred to section (e), which would
require a rebate to municipalities. He observed that it is a
policy call, as to whether the Legislature wants to provide
an incentive. He questioned if the intent is to provide an
incentive and whether section (e) should be deleted. He
added that the Administration opposes the utilization of
Municipal liability bonds, although the Legislature has
allowed the use for TRS. He noted that the same procedure
would be needed for PRS.
HB 375 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
3:24:15 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 306
"An Act making certain land available for selection by
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough."
Representative Stoltze, sponsor, spoke in support of the
legislation. He observed that the Mat-Su Borough requested
the legislation. The legislation would transfer land out of
a public use area as part of the borough's land entitlement
to facilitate a proposed development. The legislation was
amended in the previous committee with the addition of a 600
feet set back on the Little Susitna River and an requirement
of a vote in the MatSu Borough prior to conveyance.
RICK THOMPSON, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING
LAND AND WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, testified
via teleconference in support of the legislation. He
observed that the department worked with the borough to
achieve the objectives set out in the legislation.
In response to a question by Representative Kerttula, Mr.
Thompson noted that the public use area was set aside in
either 1984 or 1986. He thought the margin was approximately
a half a mile. Public use areas sustain all uses and do not
restrict public use for hunting, fishing or other
recreational uses. The ski area activities were not thought
to conflict with the public use at the time of its
conception. He thought that the planned ski area would be
10,000 acres.
JOHN DUFF, BOROUGH MANAGER, MAT-SU BOROUGH, testified via
teleconference in support of the legislation. He observed
that the legislation would convey 200 acres, which would
provide access to other borough properties and is critical
to the success of the Hatcher Pass Ski Area project. The
borough has 3,000 acres immediately west of the 200 acres
being proposed for transfer. The addition would allow for
development on the northern part, supplemental parking for
the alpine ski area, and community picnic area and trails.
The project provides public and private partnership and
fulfills long-term economic objectives for diversification
of the tax base and recreational opportunities. The Hatcher
Pass Management Unit, which is open for public use is
200,000 acres in size. Local and state funds have been used
to provide infrastructure improvements such as electrical
power and parking. The borough has conducted numerous public
hearings on various aspects of the project. The borough
anticipates further public hearings. Northern Economics has
completed an economic assessment, which identified 1,600
jobs would be created and a public and private investment of
approximately $41 million in investments. The legislation
contains lands to be transferred that are critical to the
success of the project.
3:33:58 PM
Representative Kerttula asked how many acres were
developable. Mr. Duffy noted that there are 3,000 on the
south side of Government Peak, where most of the residential
village development would take place. An additional 5 - 10
acres would be used for the lodge. He clarified that they
are only asking for 200 acres at this time. He observed that
the entire area borders the Lower Susitna River. The Hatcher
Pass Management Plan has a setback of 200 feet. The House
Resource Committee added a 600 foot setback, which is the
river corridor.
3:36:13 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if the negotiation price was
public. Mr. Duffy observed that the price has not been
negotiated. There is a joint venture between the borough and
JL Properties, where the borough would provide the real
property assets and JL Properties would provide the majority
of the funding (approximately $31 million) to invest in the
alpine ski area and the south side residential/commercial
development.
3:37:24 PM
RON SWANSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MATSU BOROUGH,
pointed out that the Hatcher Pass Public Use Area was
created in 1986. The management plan was created the same
year, but amended in 1989, in response to a proposal to
build a ski area. The ski area for a seasonal resort was not
considered for three years. The lease area does cover public
use, anywhere from one half to three-quarters of a mile wide
on either side of the river. He maintained that the request
is within their municipal land entitlement and objective of
recreational and economic diversity. An extensive public
process was in its final stages, including two advisory
board public hearings. Any actions will receive scrutiny
from the public. He proposed that the current plan was a
great deal more restrictive than the 1989 plan.
3:40:05 PM
JAY NOLFI, BIG LAKE, testified via teleconference. She
expressed concern about conveying the properties for
economic development. She suggested that designated public
use property was being given to a private company for
development and that this was a case of imminent domain. She
also noted that the longevity bonus was taken due to non
sustainability. She applied this term to the current
situation. She stressed that it was the intention when the
area was designated that it be used for public use and
benefit all people. She stated that the residents of the
area were not in support of the project, and suggested that
the entire project should be placed on the ballot. She noted
that setback projections were not adequate to meet borough
requirements.
3:43:48 PM
Representative Stoltze agreed that these concerns should
be worked out in further public process.
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony on the bill.
Representative Hawker noted that the Alaska Outdoor Council
testified in opposition in the previous Committee.
3:45:00 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the bill would be held until
Wednesday, at which time amendments would be heard.
HB 306 was HEARD AND HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|