Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/24/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Municipal Impacts from State Budget Actions by Alaska Municipal League | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 24, 2021
1:33 p.m.
1:33:25 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Nils Andreassen, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal
League.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: MUNICIPAL IMPACTS FROM STATE BUDGET ACTIONS
BY ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
^PRESENTATION: MUNICIPAL IMPACTS FROM STATE BUDGET ACTIONS
BY ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
1:34:01 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE (AML) (via teleconference), introduced the
PowerPoint Presentation: "Condition of Communities." He
looked forward to walking through AML's perspective on the
connection between state and municipal government,
especially the budget intersections. He would provide a
sense of the condition of the communities he represented.
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 2: "The Basics." He would be
reviewing the basics relating to local governments and the
state budget He would also discuss how Covid-19 and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
funding had impacted local decision-making. He thought it
was important to know how governments were structured. The
state had 165 cities and boroughs out of 224 communities.
He indicated there were 19 boroughs made up of 11 home rule
boroughs, 1 first class borough, and 7 second class
boroughs. He relayed that out of 145 cities there were 11
home rule cities and 18 first class cities. The remainder
were second class cities. He noted there was 1 municipality
that was organized under federal law, Metlakatla.
Mr. Andreassen indicated there had been conversations in
the news about what a home rule government was and what a
general law local government was. The difference was that
the home rule community was allowed to do anything that was
not prohibited by law. General law communities were only
allowed to do things allowed by law. The home rule
governments were the minority of the 165 cities and
boroughs. However, their residents incorporated under a
charter and had driven the level of government that they
wanted as part of their lives. All other first and second
class boroughs were considered general law governments
following Title 29.
Mr. Andreassen continued that there were three required
powers for boroughs including education, planning/platting,
and taxation. Regarding education, the same requirement
applied to first class and home rule cities outside of the
organized borough. He reported that local governments
served all Alaskans. He suggested there was more than the
population of the state, as there was overlapping authority
between boroughs and cities. Local governments were major
employers. He reported just under 8,000 Alaskans were
employed by local governments. If the number was combined
with schools and enterprise organizations the number would
increase to 20,000 employees that worked for local
governments.
Mr. Andreassen relayed that over the course of the previous
year, there had been a drop in employment of about 3,400
jobs. In terms of their financial tax revenues, cities and
boroughs had experienced static numbers from FY 18 to
FY 19, around $1.8 billion for a combined total revenue of
approximately $2.5 billion. The difference was
intergovernmental transfers and grants. The annual
expenditures were around $2.5 billion. He wanted to provide
some context on how the information fit into the state's
budget. The Department of Revenue (DOR) had presented a
slide showing where state revenue lined up: 48 percent
federal; 20.8 percent investments; local governments fell
in the middle; 19.7 percent petroleum; and 11.4 percent
other revenue. He remarked that local governments fell in
the middle between what the stat brought in from its
investment earnings and from petroleum or oil taxes. He
indicated that state and local revenues equated to a total
of $10.5 Billion.
1:39:34 PM
Representative LeBon noted that there was one first class
borough in the state. He asked Mr. Andreassen to identify
the borough and queried what powers it chose not to have.
Mr. Andreassen responded that it was the Municipality of
Skagway. It was a consolidated government combining its
city and borough structures into one. It was different than
the City and Borough of Juneau. It had the same
responsibilities as a home rule.
Representative LeBon asked if the home rule cities and
boroughs could choose to have their own police powers. Mr.
Andreassen responded in the affirmative.
Representative LeBon asked how many of the 11 home rule
boroughs had police powers. Mr. Andreassen could look up
the answer. He suggested a different approach to the
legislator's question. He reported that there were 40 local
governments with police departments. There were 70 local
governments out of the 165 that had police powers with some
level of law enforcement either a police department or a
village police officer. He estimated that just under half
of all local governments had police powers. He added that
every city and borough had some level of police authority
to ensure public welfare.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the 3,400 job losses occurred
since the onset of Covid-19. Mr. Andreassen responded,
"That's correct."
Representative Edgmon asked how 825,000 Alaskans were
served when the population of Alaska was only 730,000 to
740,000. Mr. Andreassen indicated that he was looking at
layers of government and some of them overlapped. For
instance, the Mat-Su Borough had the City of Wasilla and
the City of Palmer. He was double counting those numbers
because both levels of government had some responsibility
to residents.
Representative Wool referred to the box on the right side
of slide 2 where it showed state/local revenues. He asked
why local governments were listed third. He wondered if the
box showed sources of state and local revenues. Mr.
Andreassen suggested that if thinking in terms of local
governments as political subdivisions of the state, then it
made sense to look at the combined revenues of those
bodies. Therefore, the state plus local government revenues
totaled approximately $10.5 billion all of it being
leveraged in the public's interest on behalf of Alaskans in
some form or another. He pulled the percentages from a
slide from DOR that mapped the different buckets for the
state. He provided some sense of where local governments
fit into the overall combined revenue picture of Alaska
government.
1:43:53 PM
Representative Wool asked if $10 billion was the combined
total revenue of the state and local governments. If the
state brought in $5 billion, he wondered whether the local
governments brought in the other $5 billion consisting of
taxes such as sales, bed, and cruise ship taxes. He asked
about the composition of revenues. Mr. Andreassen responded
that generally Representative Wool was correct. He noted
that the revenues included federal dollars. He thought the
state level was closer to $9.5 billion. He was only adding
the tax revenue of local governments to the amount. He was
not including the transfers from the state to local
governments so that he was not double counting. The box was
provided to give an idea of how money was being expended
and what was available.
1:45:21 PM
Mr. Andreassen continued to slide 3 to review local
government revenues. In FY 19 revenue totaled $2.5 billion
and was made up of a variety of sources. The state
constitution gave local governments sole taxing authority
outside of state government. Prior to statehood school
districts also had that authority. He reported that for 15
of 19 boroughs and 21 cities there was a total revenue of
$1.6 billion. He noted the state had a property tax in the
form of a minimum requirement of a local contribution for
education in the amount of $256 million. He reported that
95 cities and 9 boroughs had a sales tax which generated
about $260 million. There were a variety of other taxes and
fees ranging from tobacco, raw fish, car rental, and bed
taxes adding up to $146 million. He noted that there had
been dramatic decreases in local taxes such as passenger
vessel taxes and raw fish taxes which was definitely
impacting local governments.
Mr. Andreassen continued that outside of tax revenues state
and federal transfers equaled about 20 percent of local
government budgets. Examples included the the federal
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program, the Secure Rural
Schools (SRS) Program, the state's Community Assistance
Program, and a number of other intergovernmental transfers
and grant dollars that supplemented local budgets. He
reported that all of the revenue he mentioned was less the
state's mandatory exemptions including the mandatory senior
citizen and disabled veteran property tax exemption. The
value was $95 million for the current year, applications
having doubled over the prior 10 years, and the amount
significantly increasing. The amount had not been
reimbursed for more than 20 years and should have been
according to law.
Representative Josephson asked if the law stated "shall."
He wondered if the state should have helped with the
exemptions it imposed on local governments. Yet,
legislators were the ultimate appropriators and were not
appropriating the money. He wondered if the legislature was
relying on it as a trump card. Mr. Andreassen responded,
"That's correct."
1:49:16 PM
Mr. Andreassen detailed local government expenditures on
slide 4. Local governments had balanced budgets. The total
revenues for FY 19 were $2.5 billion and total expenditures
were $2.5 billion. He reported that 5 percent of the
expenditures was paid into the state's pension system ($130
million). The local governments also carried a total of
$4.2 percent in bond debt. A large portion of their
expenditures went to repay their own bond debt.
Municipalities contributed a total of $486 million as the
local education contribution or 20 percent of total
expenses of local governments. He clarified that it was
really about 36 out of the 165 cities and boroughs making
the local contribution. Municipalities contributed slightly
more than 25 percent of the state's overall obligation to
public education. Some of the numbers might include local
impact aid which was from the federal government to local
school districts. However, because of the equalization
formula of the state, it was used by the state against its
own contribution.
Mr. Andreassen continued that the required local
contribution in FY 18 was $256 million. Local governments
gave beyond what was required, they gave $230 million.
Another area of spending for local governments was for
public safety. There were 40 police departments for local
governments with combined budgets of $75 million more that
the Department of Public Safety budget. He suggested that
it was worth exploring the level of public safety being
delivered by local governments.
Mr. Andreassen continued to report on slide 4. He noted the
importance of keeping communities whole. There were many
communities with pools, libraries, recreation and youth
centers, and parks which make communities livable stemming
outmigration. He indicated another bucket of municipal
expenditures had to do with public facilities, works, and
transportation infrastructure. Some expenditures included
water and sewer, landfills, roads and transit, and ports
and harbors. He pointed out that public safety, education,
and public works were the largest expenses of local
governments. He reported that local expenditures had been
reduced over the prior 7 years, since FY 13. He highlighted
the chart on the right of the slide which showed
expenditure had decreased as less revenue had been
available. At the state level municipal budgets had
adjusted accordingly which had resulted in a different
level of expenditures in each of the priority programs for
municipalities.
1:52:58 PM
Mr. Andreassen advanced to slide 5 to discuss the state
budget and municipal implications. In broad scope he noted
that when the state considered reductions to the budget it
really meant cost-shifting to local governments. It did not
happen equally to all local governments although they were
all impacted. He reported that in FY 20 cost-shifting
equated to $900 million which fell on about 20 local
governments. He argued that the state's budget should not
be balanced on the backs of local governments. He spoke of
the basic services provided by state and local governments
essential to the functioning of communities keeping them
whole. He noted some communities having to shut their doors
a couple of decades previously. It took a significant
amount of time for them to reopen having to reestablish
their base level of funding. The base funding level kept
the lights on and allowed small cities to address items
such as landfills, electricity, and elections.
Mr. Andreassen surmised that there were other things that
impacted local governments including expenditures on public
radio or tv, the ferry system, or other building blocks to
livable communities. He suggested that if communities were
not livable through some of the state support, it made it
challenging for residents. His final comment on the slide
was that when budget reductions or cost-shifting were
proposed, there were very few options at the local level.
The first option was not to raise taxes in an attempt to
keep communities whole and livable. However, it did happen.
He reported that, within the first year or two following
community assistance going away, many jurisdictions imposed
increased or new taxes. Another response to state budget
reductions was the reduction of the provision of services.
Many governments had delayed their capital investments and
maintenance protocols. Finally, local governments looked to
reduce their government which meant eliminating programs
and laying off staff. He argued that none of the responses
were positive developments for municipalities and suggested
they should be avoided.
1:56:22 PM
Representative Wool referred to the FY 20 reductions of
$850 million for 20 local governments. He asked if it was
fair to say that a large portion of that money was the real
estate property tax on the oil properties on the North
Slope. He wondered how much of the amount would be oil
pipeline related. Mr. Andreassen thought that it was a
combination of the petroleum property tax, school bond debt
reimbursement, and reductions to the University of Alaska
and the Alaska Marine Highway System. Research would argue
that reductions in certain services would have direct
impacts on local governments in the form of increased
economic activities. He suggested that it was a combination
of things that added up. Representative Wool clarified that
he was wondering if one factor was disproportionate to all
the rest.
Mr. Andreassen moved to slide 6 to review the vetoes in FY
20 and FY 21. In reviewing all of the vetoes enacted over
FY 20 and FY 21, there were some specific groupings that
were concerning for local governments. Many of the vetoes
affected public health programs including behavioral and
mental health. A large portion of them impacted local
governments and schools. A large portion of them impacted
things that communities depended on such as the unified
court system, fish and game management, and transportation.
Mr. Andreassen suggested that an approach to governing
through vetoes meant that local governments and
stakeholders had little time to plan or prepare for how to
adjust to the vetoes. Those that were enacted came in the
middle or the end of a budgeting cycling making it very
difficult to respond to them. Communities were left
scrabbling to adjust in a very short amount of time. He
noted that for FY 21 several of the vetoes were made
thinking that CARES Act funding could make up the
difference. However, it was not the case based on the
federal guidelines that were released. He mentioned losing
school bond debt reimbursement, community assistance,
funding for K-12 education, municipal port and harbor
reimbursement, and matching grants which all destabilized
local governments at a time when they needed stability in
support of responding to an economic and public health
crisis.
2:00:01 PM
Mr. Andreassen advanced to slide 7 to discuss a short list
of state budget priorities for local governments. He
included a quote from the Office of Management and Budget
from 2017. He asserted that one of the reasons there was a
direct connection between state and local governments was
the shared tax base. There were some portions of it that
were restricted to the state. The state's Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) memo from 2017 explained what
that was and why there were different expectations of the
state when it came to certain budget items than might be
seen in other states. He would review each of the
priorities.
Mr. Andreassen moved to the topic of school bond debt
reimbursement on slide 8. School Bond Debt Reimbursement
was one of the largest priorities for municipalities. He
explained that school bond debt reimbursement was a deal
made between state and local governments to address the
state's constitutional obligation to fund public education.
It was a mechanism that made sense whereby local
governments went through a bonding process with a
commitment by the state to reimburse for some portion of
it. In the current case, it was approximately 30 or 40
percent depending on the year of the bond. The
municipalities had experienced reductions to the
reimbursements through the veto process over the past
couple of years which had been a point of contention.
Mr. Andreassen explained that some communities had dropped
off the school bond debt list since FY 20. Others would
continue to drop off the list as they paid down their debt.
By FY 26 he would be having a very different discussion
with the legislature when the amount to be repaid each year
changed to approximately 50 percent of full reimbursement.
There was still $800 million in local government debt
outstanding with the expectation that some portion would be
repaid by the state.
Mr. Andreassen relayed that school bond debt reimbursement
was a useful tool to the state. It placed less pressure on
other funding mechanisms. He would discuss the school
construction and grant program and the grant maintenance
program later in his presentation. He highlighted that the
debt made a significant difference in construction and
maintenance of the state's obligation related to public
education. The moratorium had placed more competition
within the grant program between Regional Educational
Attendance Areas (REAAs) and municipal school districts.
Recently, the Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development reported the need for multiple funding
mechanisms to fully meet the state's obligation.
Mr. Andreassen pointed to the table that showed a
combination of the school bond debt and the senior
exemption which was mandatory and specified in law. He
reported that about 25 communities were heavily impacted by
state decisions for large portions of their budget. He
included the percentage of tax revenues on the chart which
made sense in some instances and, in other instances
caveats were added. The Northwest Arctic Borough was
different because it had a payment in lieu of tax
structure. Some municipalities relied on a fish tax versus
a property tax potentially making things more complicated.
He reasserted that the combination of shifting school bond
debt reimbursement (or not reimbursing for it) and not
reimbursing for the senior exemption made it challenging
for municipalities. It shifted costs to other tax payers in
the cities and boroughs.
2:05:14 PM
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 9 to review community
assistance. Community Assistance had been a longstanding
program. He had included the original formula used in FY
70. It was originally established as a contract or
cooperative agreement between state and local governments
for the provision of certain essential services that the
state could not provide. It had evolved over time and had
gone through multiple iterations. As part of the evolution,
and considering values adjusted for inflation, local
governments had less available and were doing less than
they had been. He suggested that when looking at whether
the local governments could pick up the difference for
public safety, schools, or road maintenance, the state had
reduced its contributions and had left communities in a
tough circumstance.
Mr. Andreassen hoped the flow chart on the slide conveyed
that the failure to recapitalize community assistance had
left community assistance in a precarious position.
Communities were expecting an automatic formula driven
transfer to occur in the current year in the amount of
about $22 million ($7.5 million less than the $30 million
that should go out). The community assistance amount would
decline precipitously over the following few years. Once
the state's contributions to communities were reduced to
less than $20 million and the formula changed according to
population in significant ways, by FY 24 only $12 million
was expected to be distributed. He thought it would result
in some communities being forced to shut their doors,
reduce services, or look at new or increased taxes to make
up the difference.
Representative Josephson hoped he had a reputation of
someone who was very sympathetic to local governments and
their needs. He noted a headline in the Anchorage Daily
News. He wondered how a legislator could make sense of
revenue and what amount was sufficient. The federal
government had come to the rescue in the current year.
Mr. Andreassen thought it ended up being a matter of scale.
It was insufficient for many communities. He had been
talking with the City of Newhalen who was happy to receive
$33,000. If there were ways to juxtapose the City of
Newhalen's $33,000 with the Municipality of Anchorage's
$100 million it was per capita, the level of service, the
scale of the services that the governments were delivering
to communities and their population sizes. He would address
the question further on another slide.
2:09:55 PM
Mr. Andreassen addressed the question of why the state
should invest in the Alaska Marine Highway System (slide
10. Over the prior year through the reshaping working group
process he had heard a number of arguments about many
communities that were not accessed by the AMHS. They
suggested that many of these communities would be just as
well serviced by air. He thought legislators should be
looking at what kind of communities they wanted in Alaska.
The other question was what contributions from these
communities did the state need at a time it was facing its
own fiscal policy decisions. He reported for the 33 ferry
system communities, there were very strong contributions
into the state's pension system, into the state's
obligation for education, into carrying significant bond
debt, and receiving very little from a program like Power
Cost Equalization. On the other side in looking at the 106
cities simply served by air, they did not contribute
significantly. The ferry system communities had economies
of scale, a tax base, and were doing well with the building
block the state provided in the form of a ferry system.
Mr. Andreassen suggested also looking at resolutions
communities only serviced by air to put them on equal
footing. He noted that overtime the state's contribution to
the ferry system had decreased significantly since FY 07.
At the time there were significantly shortfalls at the
state level. Even at the time, the communities were making
important investments in the system. The ferry system did
not just benefit the 33 port communities or even the 106
communities served by air. He was talking about the vast
majority of Alaskans who benefited from a ferry system that
was intact and adequately providing service to the
communities it served.
Representative Wool asked about the 33 port communities. He
wondered if the number of communities the ferry system
served had decreased recently. He was aware of some
communities losing service temporarily. Mr. Andreassen
thought the number had fluctuated over time. He indicated
there were a couple of communities that had been removed
from the list. He was aware that a number of communities
had incorporated post ferry system. Many were in existence
because of the transportation link of AMHS. Communities had
thrived with the system supporting them.
2:13:54 PM
Representative Carpenter noted that there were 106 cities
served only by air. He noted the picture of Alaska on
slide 10 and the area covered in blue showing port
communities. He wondered about the 106 communities only
served by air. Mr. Andreassen replied that the data came
from a McDowell Group report that talked about the economic
impact of AMHS. The map included a list of communities that
benefitted indirectly and directly from the ferry system.
It showed port communities but was much more expansive. He
had not included those communities that were not included
in the McDowell Group report.
Representative Carpenter asked if the 106 cities were
cities in Southeast Alaska that did not have a port. He
asked what entities comprised the 106 cities. Mr.
Andreassen could provide a list of the 106 communities.
Many of them were on the coast represented in grey on the
map.
Representative Carpenter was curious how many cities were
on a river network that were served by barges, for
instance. He wondered if the 106 communities were truly
only served by air. Mr. Andreassen thought Representative
Carpenter was talking about state-supported infrastructure.
Representative Carpenter noted that it was Mr. Andreassen's
slide and comparison. He was confused about the comparison.
Representative Thompson asked about the 33 port communities
serviced by AMHS. He asked if all of those communities were
also served by air. Mr. Andreassen believed the majority of
them had air service. He offered that the point of the
slide had more to do with the contributions the communities
were making to the state. He was thinking about whether the
state was seeing a return on its investment into the AMHS.
He further clarified his point.
2:18:34 PM
Mr. Andreassen continued to slide 11: "PERS: Actuarial
Determined Contribution Rate." The state pension was a
critical issue for local governments. The sixty-four
municipal employers made up 18 percent of the state's
pension system. He reported that of the municipal payroll
about $130 million went towards the 22 percent capped at
the employer rate. A substantial investment would be needed
to make up the difference between that and the actuarial
rate.
Mr. Andreassen reported that there were two concerns within
the state's pension system. First, it was not fully funded,
and funding levels continued to decrease. He reported
funding levels at 64 percent for pension benefits. The
second concern was that a large portion of payroll was
going into PERS. The contribution, whether 22 percent or 30
percent, made it difficult to recruit and retain employees.
He reported that for defined benefits employees for pension
benefits, it was 28.89 percent. The normal cost was 2.58
percent and the past service rate (what was necessary to
address the unfunded liability) was 18.31 percent.
Additionally, for defined benefits employees, the
healthcare benefits percentage was 3.12 percent, and there
was no past service rate it was currently overfunded. The
defined contributions employee plan had a percentage of 6.1
percent. It was all four of those elements that combined to
make up the total rate of 30.11 percent. He indicated there
was a total of about 15,000 defined benefits employees in
the system and about 29,000 defined contributions employees
in the system. He claimed that pension obligations made up
a significant portion of local government budgets which
they had no control over and no representation within the
Alaska Retirement Management Board (ARMB). He hoped that
the state would keep the cap in place. He also hoped for
further discussions about how to get to a better type of
pension system that addressed the unfunded liability, the
additional state contribution, and how to bring the rate
down so that employers could be more competitive relative
to others in the nation.
2:21:53 PM
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 12 to address keeping up
with education. He pointed to the graph at the top right of
the slide. He indicated the state had kept up with its
education funding. It had remained flat if adjusted for
inflation. The amount was not adjusted for pupil. He
pointed out that the ADM count over the past 10 years had
increased overtime. However, spending had not kept up with
the ADM but had with inflation. The base student allocation
(BSA) had not kept up with inflation. He pointed to the
bottom right chart which showed how the BSA had declined
over time. In many ways schools were being asked to do more
with less.
Mr. Andreassen continued that since the majority of school
districts were municipal, AML was concerned with whether
the state was spending enough on education. There was an
adequacy test within the system. He mentioned past
litigation, the Kasayulie Case that looked at inadequacy
relative to rural communities. He noted the Moore Case
related to adequacy and the Mat-Su Case related to
operations versus instruction. He also mentioned a
Ketchikan case that looked at public education that could
be relitigated according to a public education clause. The
fundamental question was whether the state was meeting its
constitutional obligation to deliver a system of public
education to Alaskans. The Alaska Municipal League was
concerned at a local government level in partnership with
schools whether the state was meeting its obligation.
Mr. Andreassen discussed community and regional jails on
slide 13. Similar to school funding, jails had tried to
keep up with inflation. If community and regional jail
funding was adjusted for inflation, the state was at FY 02
funding levels. Funding had been static at $7 million over
the previous 6 years. The current year proposal was also
$7 million. He opined that the amount was inadequate. In
order to provide services for the state so the Department
of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) did not have to add to their budget, local
governments were picking up as much as 50 percent of
expenses in some places. If things did not change, there
was a real possibility that jails might not be maintained
and costs would get shifted back to DOC and DPS.
2:26:21 PM
Mr. Andreassen advanced to slide 14 to address the question
of how to look forward. He had mentioned inflation
throughout the presentation. He tried to think about what
it meant for local government. The graph on the left was
OMB's inflation adjusted 10-year plan with a baseline in
the current year that was slightly different than it should
be if the proposed funds source changes were taken into
consideration. A nominal 1.5 percent was applied to the
10-year budget. He did not know if it accounted for
everything but it accounted for the things the state
tracked for inflation-proofing. If the budget was adjusted
to where it should be without items being paid for out of
AHFC or AIDEA the number would be different. There would be
an increase between the current year's budget and the
budget in FY 32.
Mr. Andreassen commented that the numbers for the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) and for PERS reflected a
growth of expenditures over the following 10 years. He
wondered what it meant for programs important to local
governments. He asserted that mostly, inflation had not
been addressed within almost any formula program that
transferred out to local governments. While there might be
some accounting for inflation for some state programs such
as payroll or agency work, elsewhere, he did not see the
same increase play out over time. There would be very
different numbers presently if, going back to FY 07, the
state had invested differently in the programs. He
mentioned a spending cap. The constitutional amendment
passed in 1982. He speculated that if the state had
adjusted for inflation the state's budget would be
$12.9 billion or 26 percent above what was proposed in 2017
during periods considered high spending overall. He
contended that if the state was not accounting for
inflation, then it was requiring that its partners do less
with less in terms of the services they were providing on
behalf of the state.
2:29:43 PM
Mr. Andreassen reviewed slide 15: "Stabilizing State
Budget." He hoped the legislature would look at how to
stabilize the budget. The budget, as proposed, was
insufficient in many ways in terms of meeting the needs of
local governments and other partners. He included a list of
several items that had necessary funding levels that, if
not funded, would be destabilizing and have negative
impacts to local governments. He argued that the
legislature needed to recapitalize community assistance
fully returning to the $30 million distribution. He
indicated $32 million would necessary. He also asked for
additional funding for the public safety system. All of the
needs at a community level added up. He relayed that the
proposed FY 22 budget was short by about $600 million. He
admitted the request was not minimal.
Mr. Andreassen discussed addressing an infrastructure
deficit on slide 16. He argued that it was critical to
address the state's infrastructure deficit. The list on the
slide totaled $22 billion but was not a request for the
current year. He thought the state should be looking at its
infrastructure needs. He mentioned DEED's 6-year plan for
school construction and major maintenance that totaled $1.6
billion to $2.3 billion. He indicated that Indian Health
Services (HIS) maintained a list water and wastewater needs
of $1.9 billion. There was probably an equal need at the
urban level. There were capital lists from at least 50
local governments totaling around $4 billion. There were
also port and harbor needs. The state maintained its list
of deferred maintenance and STIP. The broadband need was
likely underestimated on the slide. He also hoped to
improve the jail facilities and infrastructure. He
requested that legislators be cognizant of needs at the
local level. Maintaining a list and prioritizing was
critical.
2:34:01 PM
Mr. Andreassen moved to slide 17 to review school
construction and major maintenance grants. He indicated
that one of the infrastructure needs was school
construction and major maintenance. He had spoken earlier
about the school bond debt reimbursement program. All that
was left was the school construction and major maintenance
grant program. The history of the grants was not inspiring.
He thought it was a little scary that the state had only
funded 14 percent of the total need since 2011. He reported
that for maintenance projects, only .07 percent had been
funded over a 10-year time horizon. He indicated that of
just over 1000 schools about 75 percent were owned or
maintained by municipalities. Almost half were older than
40 years which was the time to start worrying about the
health of the infrastructure.
Mr. Andreassen stated that the requests in the currently
proposed budget were not being met. The need for school
construction was estimated to be $162 million. There was a
request of $187 million for major maintenance: $119 million
for municipal schools and $68 million for REAAs. He pointed
out that the current maintenance compared to that of FY 15
provided a sense of the reversal that had occurred since
school bond debt went away. Municipalities were more likely
to apply for assistance relative to REAAs and the
competition between the two. The need at the municipal
level had increased over time. The grant programs weighed
the requested needs against the investments that might be
necessary in REAAs.
Mr. Andreassen continued that the 6-year plan would require
about $1.6 billion and the FY 22 need was $500 million. If
looking at the total eligible state share, the amount of
need should be calculated differently and would total about
$2.8 billion since FY 11. He noted that 16 districts did
not submit any project need requests. The Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development's facilities
report indicated that the state's total deferred
maintenance was $9.4 billion. In order to address that need
the legislature would have to appropriate $283 million
annually. The amount was significant and under-addressed in
much of how the legislature had approached the state's
constitutional obligation. He suggested that only 48
percent of the forecasted need was being addressed in the
budget.
2:37:55 PM
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 18: "Municipal Roads -
Transportation." Another area of infrastructure important
to look at was municipal transportation. It was one of the
three or four buckets of funding in which local governments
contributed. Local governments managed about the same
number of road miles at DOT, approximately 5500 road miles.
Municipal transportation budgets added up to about $190
million a large portion of which went towards maintenance.
Municipal projects were not reflected well in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). He thought there
were some process questions about how the state fully
accounted for the transportation needs of its roads. There
were 6 municipal airports. Also, there were many local
governments that maintained state airports through
contracts.
Mr. Andreassen also included information regarding ports
and harbors. He reported that the majority of state ports
and harbors were owned by municipalities. Many of them had
been transferred by the state to local governments, as the
state did not want the responsibility of maintaining them
or thought local governments were in a better position to
manage them. Resulting from the transfers came the harbor
matching grant program. However, the program was outside
the traditional operating or capital budget. Over time the
state had contributed annually to the matching grant
program. It was a deal that was made similar to school bond
debt reimbursement the state would help along the way
with the ports and harbors if local governments took them
and managed them for the state.
Mr. Andreassen continued that within the STIP there was no
funding for ports and harbors because they were not state
owned. There were some ferry terminals included. For ports
and harbors he had an early estimate from members in 2010
of a total need of $595 million determined through a Corps
of Engineers study. He highlighted the table on the bottom
right of the slide. It showed those municipalities who
responded to the survey. The full need of $595 million was
not reflect on the table. The need for those communities
that responded had doubled. He mentioned a port and harbor
project assessment that was either planned or where there
was need totaling about $2 billion. He noted having made
agreements under a previous program (noted on the top right
of the slide) under TIDSRA/HB528 municipal projects. The
state made the agreement that if municipalities bonded for
the projects listed, the state would reimburse them for
some portion. The funds had been vetoed or otherwise not
appropriated in recent years. He concluded his snapshot of
transportation needs.
2:42:17 PM
Mr. Andreassen addressed the funding needs for municipal
water and sewer on slide 19. He pointed to the pie chart on
the right representing the rural Alaska sanitation fund
need of $1.8 billion. Indian Health Services managed the
list and the state provided funding through two forms; the
revolving loan fund and the village safe water program.
Ther revolving loan program went to some cities in the
unorganized borough and more likely to cities and boroughs.
Local governments could borrow from the program at low
interest rates (1.5 percent interest) but were required to
pay the money back. The state provided matching dollars
through the village safe water program to be able to access
a much greater amount of federal funding. Most of the
projects associated with the village safe water program
were within small communities in the unorganized boroughs.
He thought the state, the federal government, and local
governments should work together to address the need.
Mr. Andreassen continued to slide 20: "COVID and Limited
Relief." He would address where the state was at in terms
of how it had been impacted by Covid, the CARES Act, and
the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). He indicated that the
goal of local governments and hopefully the state was to
stabilize government making sure there was continuity in
operations to ensure that resident received what they
needed in challenging times. He reported that in talking
with mayors they were very focused on economic recovery
that included public health and targeted relief with some
big lifts at the state and local level. For some local
governments, even with COVID funding, they could not be
made whole.
2:45:58 PM
Mr. Andreassen advanced to slide 21 to discuss Covid's
impacts. Covid impacts had been diverse across communities.
The financial impacts of Covid included significant vetoes,
reductions to the previous year's budget, lost revenue
during hunker down orders and mitigation measure, and the
additional activities taken on by local governments. There
was a multitude of decision points or inputs that affected
how local governments responded. Every local government
approached the issue by asking how to make sure that
residence had what they needed during the pandemic. It was
the primary goal among other decisions. There were nine
points he included on his slide worth reviewing:
In response to the pandemic and impacts of vetoes,
local governments have maintained fiscal stability
and:
• Implemented furloughs or reduced staff hours
• Eliminated or reduced programs or services
• Increased or added new taxes
• Waived fees or other normal charges
• Accessed grant programs or took out loans
• Reduced capital budget
• Spending down of emergency reserves
• Eliminated travel and training
• Adjusted prior year appropriations
Mr. Andreassen reported there had been a variety of
responses from communities. There were a number of health
mitigation strategies implemented. At the heart of local
government response was state-level guidance that expected
decisions at the local level. Some local governments
partnered with public health experts to manage through the
emergencies. Emergency operations centers were stood up
across the state, and every local government had an
incident commander and a public information officer. He
reported that 165 counsels and assemblies met weekly to
evaluate where they were at in dealing with the pandemic.
There were a number of health mitigation measures that were
put into place at the local level. He relayed that one of
the things that stood out in the pandemic was that local
governments set up resident support systems to ensure that
residents had what they needed through the crisis.
2:50:54 PM
Mr. Andreassen continued to slide 22: "CARES Act." He noted
how appreciative he was of the governor's and the
legislature's decision to move CARES Act funding from the
state to local governments exactly as the U.S. Treasury
advised at 45 percent of the state's allocation. It made a
huge difference for fine tuning the relief communities
needed. He pointed out that out of the total expenditures
of local governments during the period, economic support in
the form of resident grants or business was number one in
how they were expended. Payroll funding went to emergency
operations and public safety. Another portion went to
public health. Most local governments did not have public
health powers. Therefore, they were not providing public
health like other counties around the nation. However,
entities worked together to be able to address public
health and medical issues.
Mr. Andreassen continued that the majority of local
governments had received their CARES Act funding. He noted
that of his members, only 8 communities had not requested
CARES Act funds for their communities for various reasons.
Some were uncertain of eligibility and did not know about
repayment. Some communities had not been significantly
impacted by the pandemic. The vast majority of entities
needed the funding and had spent 90 percent of their
funding. He thought the state would have only reached 98
percent by the original date had it not been extended. Most
communities had made quick decisions in the last week of
2020. He reported that $552 million of the federal funds
had been distributed. The Alaska Municipal League had
collaborated with OMB and the Division of Community and
Regional Affairs (DCRA) among others. Local governments
worked with AML to make sure they were in proper compliance
at the state and federal levels to use the funds most
effectively. He thought it was a success story.
Representative Merrick recognized that Representative
Johnson had joined the meeting.
2:54:30 PM
Representative Wool thought the anonymous mayor quoted on
slide 20, "We're hosed" was referring to ARPA. He suggested
one could argue that some of the smaller communities faired
disproportionately well with the first disbursement
compared to some larger communities. He wondered if Mr.
Andreassen agreed. Mr. Andreassen asked Representative Wool
to restate his question. Representative Wool restated his
question.
Mr. Andreassen agreed that the quote was in reference to
ARPA. However, nothing was easy about the implementation of
the CARES Act funding, nor was the funding a windfall for
communities. Most communities had to jump through hoops to
build capacity to figure out how to be compliant with the
federal guidelines that changed frequently and state
reporting requirements. Most communities were limited with
how the funds could be spent. Although the quote referenced
ARPA, it was important to know how challenging it was for
local governments to use the CARES Act funds. It was
challenging for both large and small communities to manage
through CARES Act implementation.
Representative Wool agreed with Mr. Andreassen comments. He
hoped that some of the state ARPA money could help some of
the smaller communities such as Skagway and the Denali
Borough who were heavily affected by the lack of tourism.
2:57:29 PM
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 23: "COVID's Impact." The
slide contained a rough list of how local governments had
been impacted. Every local government was different in how
COVID and the economic crisis impacted their finances. He
could provide detailed numbers for each of the communities
if anyone wanted them. Some of the impacts included lost
taxes like sales taxes and fish taxes. Those communities
that relied on ports, fishing, cruise ships, or tourism
were most disproportionately impacted. He argued that no
community stayed whole through the pandemic. Some
communities' sales tax stayed flat and managed through the
crisis. Some hub communities continued to see some domestic
tourism. He indicated smaller communities reliant on
revenue generating activities such as bingo and pull tabs
were shut down. He noted that some communities had utility
waivers through the pandemic. Municipalities did everything
they could to avoid adding to residents' and businesses'
burdens. They also stood up emergency operations. He
indicated that for the majority of communities, they were
negatively impacted financially. Although CARES Act funding
helped, they could not be used for revenue replacement.
3:00:44 PM
Mr. Andreassen reviewed ARPA on slide 24. He reported that
although the numbers were not final, they were a good
assessment of where things were headed. He indicated that
cities were split into two different groups and everything
was based on a community development block grant (CBDG) or
a U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant. Anchorage
was the only metropolitan area in Alaska. They received a
direct appropriation, approximately $45 million. All other
cities, because they were CBDG non-entitlement cities, had
to go through the state and the legislature before going
through distribution similar to the CARES Act funding. The
city portion was about $88.5 million. Boroughs and census
areas on the same list would receive about $142 million.
Out of the census areas it was up to the state to develop a
distribution methodology for unorganized boroughs.
Anchorage would appear on both lists. He reported that the
$100 million that was reported earlier was the combined
amount between its city allocation and its borough
allocation. Some communities were on both lists and others
were not. The Alaska Municipal League had argued with the
U.S. Treasury that some communities should be on both lists
to help those that were most disproportionately impacted.
He suggested that there was a huge opportunity to meet the
needs of Alaskans by collaborating. He mentioned partnering
with different entities to respond to economic impacts and
the health emergency, to stabilize government through a
lost revenue provision, and to make investments in water,
sewer, and broadband. He had already initiated
conversations about what collaboration for water and sewer,
broadband, and child care might look like.
3:04:42 PM
Mr. Andreassen turned to slide 25 to discuss federal
relief. He thought there was a formula for figuring out
those local governments that had not been made whole. He
suggested adding up lost revenues from fees and taxes,
vetoes, and additional expenses incurred due to the COVID
public health emergency. He would look at the allowable
expenses under the CARES Act and consider what could be
shifted within the CARES Act guidance. He would also look
at the anticipated funding from ARPA. Taking into
consideration all of those things he would look at whether
communities were made whole. The CARES Act restrictions
meant there were limited benefits to local governments. If
federal relief was not sufficient to meet resident or
business expectations, Alaskans might look to the state to
provide additional relief or for local governments to
provide continued levels of support. He thought there would
be limited capacity for most communities to do so. As a
result of federal relief, he speculated that most
communities would come out even and some might be in a
position to focus more on economic recovery. He relayed
that the Alaska Conference of Mayors had a champaign
related to a race to recovery. There would communities
disproportionately impacted. He argued that federal relief
was wholly insufficient. The slide provided a quick list of
communities that were significantly impact and did not come
close to being made whole. Most of the communities relied
on tourism and travel. He was only providing a look back.
There were communities in which ARPA funding would be
insufficient. Communities were already considering laying
off staff, reducing services, delaying capital projects,
spending down reserves, and otherwise addressing revenues.
He thought working together would be necessary to maximize
relief.
3:08:29 PM
Representative Rasmussen noted the Denali Borough was
seeking $4 million to $7 million. The other communities had
more specific numbers. She wondered why the borough's range
was so significant. Mr. Andreassen responded that AML had
estimates for the Denali Borough from the previous and
current year. The borough's losses from the prior year were
$4 million and $3 million in the current year. It was not
just about the prior year but what was anticipated in the
following year.
Representative Josephson asked Mr. Andreassen to clarify
the meaning of wholly inadequate. He wondered if direct
funding was wholly inadequate. He noted the other
opportunities with assistance listed in his outline. He
asked if he was accurate. Mr. Andreassen responded that the
other funding that was coming through the ARPA could be
applied on behalf of those communities. There was nothing
else that provided direct relief that was formula driven.
Everything else was either competitive in the form of a
grant or through the state. Unless there was a contribution
with a formula from the state it would not go to fill the
whole. Rather it would fill other parts of their budget.
Representative Josephson noted there were no provisions in
the CARES Act, Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act (CRRSAA), or ARPA that allowed the
funding to be used to replace lost revenues for
communities.
Mr. Andreassen responded, "Not specifically." There was
something added within ARPA for Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) or Secure Rural School (SRS) communities. He thought
public lands communities would have access to some
additional formula. It was pretty minimal in terms of what
was included in ARPA, and there was no formula. The only
other thing within ARPA that was specific to would
disproportionately impacted communities was through the
U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). It was
unclear whether or how it would come to Alaska.
Representative Josephson thought that the panhandle would
argue that it was a public lands community because of the
Tongass National Forest. He recalled some trade dollars
coming to the Southeast through congressional authority
about 5 years prior in lieu of some harm that came from a
trade act. He asked if Mr. Andreassen knew what he was
talking about.
Mr. Andreassen was uncertain of what Representative
Josephson was specifically talking about. However, he
thought the representative was right that it would be the
public lands, boroughs, and cities. They were all PILT
recipients. He did not know how the monies would be
allocated.
3:13:29 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz pointed to Hoonah on the slide. The
community thought it would be receiving $183,500. However,
in order to make them whole they would need $2.7 million
from the state. He asked if he was correct.
Mr. Andreassen relayed that the slide captured what the
difference was between the funding they were receiving and
the amount that would make them whole. He thought a
conversation would be necessary to discuss how to address
the communities that were most disproportionately affected.
He wondered if there was a formula or mechanism that could
be developed to offset a portion in the coming months.
3:15:02 PM
Representative LeBon wanted to look ahead at the final
slide regarding the eight stars of gold. He wondered about
the relationship between the state and local governments
whether boroughs, cities, or municipalities and where the
responsibilities begin and end. He represented a district
that rested entirely within the city limits of Fairbanks.
The residents of Fairbanks paid for their public safety in
the form of the Fairbanks Police Department. He commented
that none of the eight stars of gold on the slide suggested
that public safety should be shared at least some element
of responsibility to pay for public safety among all
organized communities. He asked if AML had a position on
the responsibility towards public safety shared by all
communities. Mr. Andreassen asked a clarifying question to
Co-Chair Merrick.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Mr. Andreassen could answer the
question.
Mr. Andreassen replied, "Yes, to some extent." He noted
that the eight stars of gold were not necessarily AML's
eight stars of gold. From an AML perspective on state
fiscal policy, a large part was to look at devolution of
state powers, responsibilities, authorities to local
governments that had the capacity to do so. He thought AML
would be open to discuss the right formula mechanism
relating to public safety or any other power as long as the
local government had a tax base that could support it and
the capacity to implement it. Implementation would not be a
quick directive. Rather there would be a process in which
capacity was built at the local level to incentivize taking
on the additional responsibilities. He continued that the
eight stars of gold were an attempt to highlight the
following:
1) State spending was insufficient in some ways for some
constitutional and other obligations.
2) The state needed an economic rebound post-pandemic and
in general.
3) The state had an infrastructure deficit.
Mr. Andreassen concluded that some combination of the eight
stars of gold needed to happen in the current legislative
session. The stars represented what a comprehensive plan
could or should look like and agreed to by the governor and
the legislature. There were other areas or aspects that
could be included.
3:19:21 PM
Representative LeBon pointed out that one of the eight
stars of gold was to implement a broad-based tax and
revenue measure. He commented that it would be tough to
tell his constituents the there would be a broad-based tax
and they would have to continue paying for police
protection. He was unwilling to bring that message to his
constituents. He assumed that the eight stars of gold
represented the positions of AML. He asked about the PFD
formula changes versus the community assistance program. He
wondered if Mr. Andreassen was suggesting that the
legislature reduce the PFD formula in some material way to
make room for more community assistance.
Mr. Andreassen thought Representative LeBon had good
questions. He was unsure what approach the representative
would or should take with his constituents. He indicated
the eight stars of gold were items that needed to be
negotiated between a variety of different programs. The
Alaska Municipal League had not taken a position on the
amount of the PFD or the formula. There was a recognition
that there was an emerging consensus that something needed
to change within the dividend formula to make sure the
state could pay for things in the budget and could fulfill
its constitutional, debt, and statutory obligations. He
thought all of the items would be negotiated in the process
with the legislature and the governor. The eight stars
represented what had emerged over the previous few years of
debate around fiscal policy.
Representative LeBon appreciated that one of the goals was
to ensure a sustainable draw from the Permanent Fund. He
assumed AML would not support an overdraw of the Earnings
Reserve Account (ERA) to enhance community assistance or
any other shortfall Mr. Andreassen had addressed in his
presentation.
Representative Wool assumed, as did Representative LeBon,
that the eight stars of gold represented AML's position.
His constituents supported some kind of broad-based tax. Of
the 165 communities, many already had a sales tax. He asked
if AML's communities had a preference of a type of
broad-based tax. Mr. Andreassen responded that AML had a
resolution in support of an income tax. He thought the
resolution included that AML was open to a discussion about
a sales tax that would not negatively impact a local sales
tax. He thought an income tax might not be feasible
currently. He noted that only the stat could implement one,
as it was preempted for local governments. The state's tax
base preempted its resource base from being taxed by local
governments. He reiterated that AML supported a broad-based
tax.
3:24:56 PM
Representative Johnson referred to ARPA and direct aid
versus pass-through money. She asked if municipalities had
any coordinated effort to find the ARPA money. She wondered
if Mr. Andreassen was helping find that money. Mr.
Andreassen replied that AML previously had a CARES Act
coordinator and thought the position would evolve into an
ARPA coordinator that assisted local governments in
managing ARPA funds and maximizing them in their
communities.
Representative Johnson was glad to hear Mr. Andreassen's
response. She remarked that sometimes the federal
requirements were difficult to meet. Smaller cities had
limited resources to track those requirements. She wondered
if he had heard of smaller cities having trouble meeting
the federal requirements. Mr. Andreassen mentioned earlier
about the collaboration that AML and communities had had
with OMB and DCRA which was still in place. The state was
the primary recipient of the funds. Therefore, the treasury
action in relation to any of the communities had to go
through OMB. Thus far, there had been good cooperation in
the accounting.
Representative Johnson noted that ARPA had a spending plan
through 2024. She asked if Mr. Andreassen had an opinion on
how he would like to see the funding dispensed. She had
heard the funding might be dispensed once per year for 3
years. Mr. Andreassen indicated AML was waiting for federal
guidance. He thought funding for local governments would be
dispensed in two tranches one within the following 60
days (the state had 30 days to dispense it) and one the
following year. The funding would be spread out to some
extent over the following few years.
Representative Johnson referred to the eight stars of gold
of which only 7 were discussed. She thought adopting a
reasonable spending cap was an interesting idea. She
wondered if AML had something specific in mind. Mr.
Andreassen indicated that the eight stars of gold were
factors AML believed would or should be part of a package
to get the state on the right footing to stabilize state
government. He did not have anything specific about a
spending cap. In the past AML had not wanted a spending
cap. However, AML realized that a spending cap was part of
the formula that need to a part of the next steps for the
state.
3:30:27 PM
Representative Johnson thanked AML for its work.
Representative Rasmussen asked how AML saw creating equity
for those municipalities and boroughs who did not currently
pay for certain services when the legislature was asking
for broad-based taxes to support state services. She
thought the legislature should be looking at making
services more equitable so that certain communities such as
hers and Representative LeBon's who have a sizable tax base
and supported their own police or supported more of their
education or school costs were not disproportionately
impacted and double-dipped what they were asked to
contribute. She invited Mr. Andreassen to comment.
Mr. Andreassen responded that he would follow up in written
form due to time constraints. He remarked that the things
Representative Rasmussen brought up were things he hoped
could be negotiated. He thought it would require bills to
be introduced and discussions to be had. All entities
needed to be at the table working through what equity might
mean and how to fulfill the state's constitutional
obligations to public health, welfare, education, and
public safety. He would follow-up with a more detailed
response to the representative's inquiry.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:32:50 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AML - HFin - Condition of Communities 032421.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| AML _ HFin response040121.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| AML 8-stars Response to Q HFIN 040121.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| AML Andreassen Response to HFIN Q.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| AML Response to HFIN Q 8stars outline.docx o4o121.pdf |
HFIN 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |