Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/04/2023 10:30 AM 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 | |
| SB98 | |
| HB19 | |
| SB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 4, 2023
10:35 a.m.
10:35:56 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:35 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe (via teleconference)
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
ALSO PRESENT
Tim Grussendorf, Staff, Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair,
Senate Finance Committee; Representative Louise Stutes,
Sponsor; Glenn Haight, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission; Tracy Welch, Executive Director, United
Fishermen of Alaska.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Deven Mitchell, Executive Director, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation; Pam Leary, Director, Treasury Division,
Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY
HB 19 REGISTRATION OF BOATS: EXEMPTION
HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CSSB 98(FIN)
AK PERM FUND CORP. & PCE ENDOWMENT FUND
CSSB 98(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 98(FIN)
"An Act requiring the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to manage the power cost equalization
endowment fund; requiring the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to publish certain reports relating to the
power cost equalization endowment fund; relating to
the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation's management and
investment of the power cost equalization endowment
fund; and providing for an effective date."
10:36:50 AM
TIM GRUSSENDORF, STAFF, SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN, CO-CHAIR,
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Senate Bill 98: Power Cost
Equalization Fund Management," dated May 4, 2023 (copy on
file). He relayed that the bill did not change the Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) program but changed the management
of the fund. He addressed slide 2 titled What Does SB 98
Do:
The Power Cost Equalization Endowment Fund has about
$1 billion Currently, it is managed by the Department
of Revenue
S898 would transfer management to the Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation (APFC):
The APFC would manage the money alongside their own
assets.
The PCE would be exactly as diversified as the
Permanent Fund.
(This is what they currently do for the Mental Health
Trust fund.)
Regular reporting to the legislature regarding asset
value and income.
Mr. Grussendorf informed the committee that the fund will
still be house in the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
Mr. Grussendorf discussed slide 3 titled "Why Change it:"
Why change it?
More diversity: the Dept. of Revenue's managers can
only invest in stocks and bonds, and not the various
alternative investments used by the Permanent Fund.
More stability: the PCE fund has changed it's
earnings goals and investment allocation at least
three times in the last four years.
OFund lost close to $200 million in FY2022 (-16%)
Less liquidity: managers moved much of the fund out
of equities in early FY2021 expecting there would not
be a "reverse sweep" at the end of that year and
missed big market gains.
oPCE fund made 14% in FY 21, while the Permanent
Fund made 29%. That premature liquidation may
have cost the fund $150 million.
oCourts later determined fund wasn't sweepable.
Mr. Grussendorf elaborated that the inception of the
legislation transpired after an overview by the Department
of Revenue (DOR) and by the APFC during a Senate Finance
Committee hearing. The committee members were concerned
over the how the fund was managed and the limitations on
investments by the current managers; DOR. They discovered
that the answer was more diversity, more stability, and
less liquidity. He explained that the Department of
Revenue's managers could only invest in stocks and bonds
and not the various alternative investments used by APFC.
10:40:41 AM
Mr. Grussendorf advanced to slide 4 titled "How would it
change the PCE fund and program:"
It would not.
The same 5% of fund value would be available
each year to fund the programs described in
statute.
The same "waterfall" of priority would be
funded:
1.The PCE program itself
2.Costs of managing the fund
3.If the previous year's earnings are
more than what is needed for #1 and #2, 70%
of the remaining earnings may be used for:
1.Community Assistance (up to $30
million)
2.Renewable Energy Grant Fund, Bulk
Fuel Revolving Loan Fund, or Rural
Power system upgrades (up to $25
million)
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Grussendorf to review the
sectional.
Mr. Grussendorf read the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: AS 37.13.310 gives the Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation (APFC) management of the PCE
endowment fund and manage the fund with the same
Investment objective and asset allocation that they
currently have in place.
(b) Adds the power cost equalization endowment and its
current reporting requirements to the Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation statute.
Section 2: AS 42.45.080(a) Makes the change in the PCE
statute that the corporation will manage the fund
under AS.37.13.310. by Creating a new section in
article 2 management of other assets for the APFC to
include the PCE fund.
Section 3: AS 42.45.0S0(c) reporting timing makes it
clear that there is a lag when determining the value
of the fund and earnings of the fund by using a June
30 verses July 1.
Section 4: conforming language changes Commissioner of
Revenue with Corporation
Section 5: AS42.45.099 Definitions. Adds Corporation
definition in the PCE statute.
Section 6 is repealed no longer necessary.
Section 7 adds transition language.
Section 8 is the effective date.
10:43:08 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked if the legislature wanted to add
another category to the waterfall it would not be
prohibited by the change made by the bill. He exemplified
using excess earnings to help communities that were having
difficulties with the scoring system for Village Safe Water
(VSW). Mr. Grussendorf replied in the negative and added
that it would not prohibit any changes from being made to
the waterfall, which fell outside the scope of the bill.
Representative Hannan asked if the idea behind SB 98 had
been contemplated in the past. Mr. Grussendorf replied that
Senator Hoffman had contemplated the idea in the past, but
it had not been offered until PCE had lost roughly $200
million. Representative Hannan shared a concern regarding
page 2 of the bill and the provision to diversify PCE
exactly the same as the Permanent Fund. She elucidated that
throughout the years, the PF had been managed using a more
liberalized diversified portfolio, which provided the
opportunity for larger gains but also the potential for
larger losses. She remarked that APFC had invested in
things like Alaskan entrepreneurial endeavors decided by
its board. She inquired whether the investment decisions
for PCE would be made entirely by APFCs board or if there
were any sideboards against risk.
10:46:13 AM
Mr. Grussendorf answered that in his discussions with the
Senators, they were comfortable with the way APFC managed
the PF. He offered that the fund was consistent, and the
track record of the corporation spoke for itself. He
believed APFC management removed some of the politics out
of the issue. He did not believe there would be a problem
for the PCE fund. He noted that PCE was well established
and could withstand a down year or two and was designed to
backfill in the good years. Representative Hannan indicated
that currently the PCE portfolio had a fairly conservative
asset allocation of stocks and bonds. She wondered if the
fund would be rebalanced to the PFs asset allocation and
how it would happen; slowly or immediately. Mr. Grussendorf
believed APFC would manage the fund like its other assets.
He deferred to the corporation for more detail.
Representative Ortiz referenced Mr. Grussendorf's statement
that the fund would remain with the Alaska Energy
Authority. He wondered what authority AEA had over PCE. Mr.
Grussendorf responded that AEA would continue to manage the
PCE program, and nothing would change. He delineated that
the 5 percent of the fund would be distributed as needed
through AEA and anything remaining would be redeposited
into the PCE fund. The corporation would report to AEA on
how it managed the fund, its balance, and the 5 percent
amount.
10:49:31 AM
Representative Ortiz asked if there would be any change in
management costs or expenses to the state if the change was
made. Mr. Grussendorf responded that there would be an
added expense due to DOR. He reported that they used some
of the management fees for staffing and did not want to
lose the individuals. The department wanted some state
General Funds (GF) to backfill their losses.
Co-Chair Edgmon supported the bill and thought it was a
smart move. In the prior year, the legislature adopted SB
243 [SB 234 - PWR Cost EQ: Raise, Endow Fund Investment,
Chapter 39 SLA 22, 07/15/2022] that moved the fund from a
traditional endowment management scheme of low risk and low
return to the realm of the prudent investor rule, which
guided the PF and its asset allocation approach. He
believed that SB 98 supported that action. He stated that
the PCE endowment was a huge part of the energy portfolio
for Alaska and needed to remain that way into the future.
He underscored that it made sense to put PCE into the hands
of APFC who when compared to other mammoth trust funds like
the California Trust Fund, only lost 3.2 percent of its
value. He reiterated that the bill was a good move
especially in another high earning year. He thanked Senator
Hoffman for bringing it forward.
10:52:22 AM
Representative Josephson recounted that in 2019 the
governor did not support capitalized funds and believed
that the funding should be approved each year. In addition,
there had always been a concern that someone would try to
reappropriate the funds in declining revenue years. He
asked if the bill prevented those types of actions. Mr.
Grussendorf replied in the negative. The fund was housed
under AEA and was still available for appropriation.
However, the PCE fund was determined as not sweepable.
Representative Josephson acknowledged that there was a risk
of reappropriation and supporters of the fund would need to
remain hypervigilant. Mr. Grussendorf answered in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative Coulombe was
online.
Representative Coulombe stated her support for the bill.
10:54:27 AM
Representative Stapp echoed comments made by Co-Chair
Edgmon. He hoped the PCEs asset classes mimicked the
Permanent Fund asset allocation. He supported the bill. He
referenced a Department of Revenue fiscal note [FN2 (REV)].
He pointed to the management fee of $2.5 million that was
based on basis points. He noted that basis points ebbed and
flowed, but the fiscal note was static in the outyears. He
asked if the investment fees would be the same.
Mr. Grussendorf deferred the answer to APFC.
DEVEN MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION (via teleconference), responded that the fiscal
note was partly due to the expectation there would be
relatively modest short-term fluctuations in value. There
would need to be modifications over time in contractual
costs that would increase or decrease in a like manner.
10:56:45 AM
Representative Cronk supported the bill. He discussed the
waterfall in the current program. He thought the first
listing on the waterfall, Community Assistance and the
second listing, Renewable Energy Grants were backwards. He
deduced that the purpose of PCE was to lower energy costs
and also continue building anything that lowered costs. He
believed that the state would want to do everything
possible to reinvest in less expensive energy everywhere.
He thought the renewable energy grants should be the first
priority after paying PCE. He inquired how much was paid
out in community assistance versus addressing the high cost
of energy first. He was favorable to an answer in writing.
Mr. Grussendorf responded that he had been present when the
waterfall had been decided. He recounted that community
assistance was universally popular when the waterfall
provision was developed. At the time, PCE was in a period
of high earnings, but the community assistance program
shrank from $180 million to $60 million and even less. The
program had to be back funded and was consistently short
funded. The idea behind it being first on the waterfall was
that excess PCE earnings could be shared because community
assistance had been short funded.
10:59:27 AM
Representative Hannan directed her question to APFC. She
supported the bill. She reiterated her question about the
expected timeline it would take to rebalance and match the
Permanent Fund asset allocations. Mr. Mitchell answered
that rather than trying to transfer securities the
corporation would ask DOR to liquidate the current assets
and transfer the amount to the corporation. He elaborated
that the corporation had annual cash flow needs and would
incorporate the cash to its projections on how the money
would be reinvested in the portfolio. Since money was
fungible, it would not necessarily be specific PCE dollars
that ended up in certain investments, but rather money that
could be used to fulfill the percent of market value (POMV)
transfer to the state. Representative Hannan asked how it
would be determined that the full and true current value of
PCE was transferred when liquidated. She wondered whether
he was concerned. Mr. Mitchell was not concerned that any
value would be lost. He elucidated that currently the fund
was held in public securities and was in very liquid asset
classes. He added that from a cash flow perspective in
aggregate from the state, any cash allowed the corporation
to retain investments at the corporation in similar asset
classes across its portfolio, there was a cost setting
effect to any liquidation that could occur. He summarized
that the short answer was no.
11:02:53 AM
AT EASE
11:05:13 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster perceived that there was support for the
bill and was inclined to move it from committee. He asked
for a review of the fiscal notes. He referenced the DOR
APFC fiscal impact note [FN3 (REV)] in the amount of $60
thousand for auditing services and asked for comment.
Mr. Mitchell confirmed that APFC estimated the need for
approximately $60 thousand per year for financial audit
services for the Fund.
Co-Chair Foster moved to the next fiscal impact note from
DOR APFC in the amount of $2.5 million for the management
fees based on 25 basis points. He asked for further
comment. Mr. Mitchell commented that the appropriation was
for a combination of things that included external and
internal managers adding up to the 25 basis points, which
was an estimate that would not be exceeded. He added that
if PCE experienced exceptional performance in the markets
there would be an increased need for investment fees,
however that would be a positive outcome.
11:09:15 AM
Co-Chair Foster turned to the fiscal impact note for DOR,
Taxation and Treasury [FN1 (REV)] and read the analysis as
follows:
SB 98 transfers the responsibility to manage the
investments of the Power Cost Equalization Endowment
Fund established in AS 42.45.070 from the Commissioner
of Revenue to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
(APFC). The Power Cost Equalization Endowment Fund is
currently budgeted to fund $1.179 million towards
Treasury's FY24 budget. The Treasury structure allows
it to efficiently manage numerous funds at low cost.
Transferring the Power Cost Equalization Endowment
Fund to APFC will not reduce Treasury's budget because
Treasury allocates all of its costs among the $48
billion in state and retirement investment funds it
manages. As such, transferring fund management from
the Treasury will result in increased funding from the
general fund.
Mr. Mitchell deferred to DOR for comment on the fiscal
note.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Pam Leary, Director, Treasury
Division, Department of Revenue should speak to the fiscal
note, and she was not available.
Mr. Grussendorf relayed that the $1.1 million fiscal note
was for the management of the fund and not for transfer
costs. He delineated that DOR would not receive $1.1
million in management fees from the PCE fund any longer and
wanted to switch the fund source to Undesignated General
Funds (UGF) even though they were no longer managing the
fund.
11:11:47 AM
Representative Ortiz understood that there would be a
consistent request of $1.1 million UGF annually. He asked
what the funding would go towards. Mr. Grussendorf
responded that he was not certain of the purpose. He knew
that there were DOR personnel who were paid out of the PCE
investment fees. He deferred to DOR for further answer.
Co-Chair Foster decided to recess the meeting in order to
request that the someone from the department address the
fiscal note at the continued meeting.
11:13:34 AM
Representative Josephson had the same question as
Representative Ortiz.
Representative Stapp echoed the prior comments. He
supported moving the bill but wanted DOR to discuss the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for 1:00 p.m. on
the same day.
CSSB 98(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to the registration of commercial
vessels; and providing for an effective date."
11:14:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE STUTES, SPONSOR, introduced the bill.
She read from prepared remarks.
Thank you, House Finance Co-Chairs, members of the
committee.
For the record, Representative Louise Stutes,
representing District 5, including Kodiak, Cordova,
Seward, and many smaller coastal communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to present House Bill
19. House Bill 19 would exempt active commercial
fishing vessels from duplicative registration
requirements created by the passage of Senate Bill 92,
the "derelict vessel bill", in 2018.
SB 92 aimed to provide State and local municipalities
with a searchable database containing details of
vessels and ownership. That database exists for
commercial fishing vessels in the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC). The database is updated in
real time and operators are required to register
yearly. The database is publicly accessible, and the
information is provided under penalty of perjury.
• The information includes:
• the legal owner of the vessel and a contact
person if not the same person as the
applicant.
o permanent and mailing address,
o SSN,
o phone numbers,
o DOB, and
o email address.
Members and the public can find copies of the relevant
forms on BASIS. Further, House Bill 19 institutes an
annual $8 fee for documented, CFEC-registered vessels.
Currently, vessels owners pay a $24 fee to DMV. HB 19
waives the fee for those vessel owners who have paid
the $24 to DMV in the past two years. This is NOT an
additional fee for commercial fishermen.
Representative Stutes interjected that currently documented
fishing vessels were required to have both a CFEC and D
sticker. The rationale for the requirement was to provide
the state and local municipalities with a state-maintained
database of who owns and operated vessels. She summarized
that the legislation removed the requirement to obtain a
DMV sticker if the vessel operator had a CFEC sticker.
However, documented vessels without a CFEC sticker were
still required to obtain a DMV sticker. She informed the
committee that for the prior 4 years, in conjunction with
the bill sponsor, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had
not enforced the dual sticker requirement.
Representative Stutes reviewed the sectional analysis (copy
on file):
Section 1: Amends AS 05.25.055(i) to exempt U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) documented vessels with a valid license
issued by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) from the requirement to register with the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
Section 2: Adds new subsection (e) to AS 16.05.475
that requires CFEC to assess an $8 registration fee
for USCG documented vessels upon a renewal or issuance
of a license beginning on January 1, 2024. This fee is
in lieu of the current 3-year, $24 registration or
renewal fee collected by DMV. Adds new subsection (f)
to AS 16.05.475 specifying that fees collected in
subsection (e) will be accounted for as provided in AS
05.25.096(b), to be made available to the Department
of Administration, the Department of Commerce
Community and Economic Development, and the Department
of Natural Resources.
Section 3: Adds a new section to uncodified law that
requires CFEC to waive the $8 registration fee for
years that USCG documented vessels have already paid
through the 3-year, $24 registration fee with the DMV.
Section 4: Adds a new section to the uncodified law
that makes Section 1 of this act retroactive to
January 1, 2023.
Section 5: Establishes an immediate effective date for
the remainder of the bill.
11:20:54 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon provided some historical context for the
bill. He reported that the issue of derelict vessels was a
longstanding issue in the state. With the passage of SB 92
[SB 92 - Vessels: Registration/Titles; Derelicts, Chapter
111 SLA 18, 10/11/2018], "the derelict vessel bill," in
2018, an oversight occurred resulting in duplicative
registration. He believed that the bill was common sense
especially in small communities with one small Division of
Motor Vehicle (DMV) Office. The issue also created more
complications for the commercial fishers. He characterized
the issue as a small oversight and hoped that the
committee passed the bill out of committee.
Co-Chair Johnson recalled hearing the bill the previous
year. She asked about Coast Guard licensed vessels not
licensed by CFEC. She asked for comment by the sponsor
regarding allowing for other types of boats licensed by the
Coast Guard.
Representative Stutes was unsure about the question. She
explained that vessels registered by the Coast Guard had a
federal registration. The bill created a state registration
for vessels.
11:24:31 AM
GLENN HAIGHT, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION, understood the question to mean that all
documented vessels would register with the CFEC. He thought
that it would not be practical. He explained that when the
CFEC licensed a vessel a metal plate was issued, and each
subsequent year was given an updated decal to display. He
furthered that for non-commercial vessels that were
involved in other endeavors it would be difficult to
distinguish for enforcement. The documented vessels that
were not involved in commercial fisheries would continue to
register with the DMV, which allowed for a state
registration and accompanying data base.
Representative Stutes interjected that there was an effort
to combine the CFEC database and DMV database into one.
Co-Chair Foster asked for closing comments.
Representative Stutes had received no opposition to the
legislation.
TRACY WELCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA
(UFA), related that UFA was in full support of the bill and
viewed it as a cleanup measure.
HB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 98(FIN)
"An Act requiring the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to manage the power cost equalization
endowment fund; requiring the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to publish certain reports relating to the
power cost equalization endowment fund; relating to
the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation's management and
investment of the power cost equalization endowment
fund; and providing for an effective date."
11:27:06 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the DOR fiscal note.
PAM LEARY, DIRECTOR, TREASURY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE (via teleconference), reviewed the fiscal note
request of roughly $1.2 million in UGF. She explained the
reason for the change. She shared that the treasury
efficiently managed a variety of funds at a low cost and by
transferring the Power Cost Equalization Endowment Fund to
APFC it would not decrease treasury's budget and would
necessitate reallocating all of its costs. She furthered
that because treasury had limited resources the division
would need some UGF to fully fund the division. One less
fund would not change its staffing requirements because of
how efficiently the funds were managed.
Representative Ortiz asked for more detail on what Ms.
Leary meant by cost reallocation related to the $1.2
million annual need. He asked why the department needed the
funding. Ms. Leary answered that the division's budget
funded all of its staffing and if it managed one less fund,
they still had the same costs that needed to be reallocated
to other fund sources. She indicated that PCE was one of
the larger funds and currently was charged 10 basis points
of the assets under management. A loss of the funding
source meant the need to replace the funds with UGF.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that the
department needed the funds in order to retain staff. Ms.
Leary replied in the affirmative and related that the
department still needed the same number of staff to manage
all the other funds and its costs would not be reduced.
11:30:34 AM
Representative Stapp asked for clarity. He understood that
the department currently took 10 basis points to manage its
funds and deduced that the division would lose about $1
billion under management. He wondered why she could not
increase the basis points to 11 instead of requesting $1.2
million UGF in perpetuity. Ms. Leary answered that the
divisions cost allocation plan was based on assets under
management; a typical way to charge investing fees. She
delineated that treasurys cost allocation plan had 2
components. First, the division allocated assets under
management to all of its funds and certain endowment like
funds were charged a minimum of 10 basis points. Many of
the funding sources were GF and the division did have
funding sources from funds like the Public School Trust and
PCE, but other funds did not have other revenue sources
besides UGF. There would be a relative increase to the
amount charged to other funds but primarily UGF would carry
the bulk of the lost funding.
11:32:44 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked if Ms. Leary was available to return
at the 1:30 p.m. meeting and offered to accommodate the
time she could be available.
CSSB 98(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the afternoon.
ADJOURNMENT
11:34:05 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 98 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
SB 98 |
| SB 98 slide deck.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
SB 98 |
| HB019 Research AAHPA Resolutions 4.24.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Research CFEC Vessel License, Number Plate, and Decal 1.26.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Research CFEC Public Database 1.25.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Research CFEC Vessel Licensing Forms 1.26.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Research DMV Registration FAQ - CFEC June 2019 1.25.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Research USCG Documentation and Tonnage Brochure 1.25.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.14.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Sponsor Statement ver A 4.14.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Documents 4.20.23.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 10:30:00 AM |
HB 19 |