Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/10/1995 08:17 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 1995
8:17 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eileen MacLean
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SJR 12: Relating to the United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service; relating to the United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
strategic plan known as "Reinvention of the Forest
Service"; and advocating that implementation of the
plan be suspended pending Congressional review and
consultation with local governments.
HCS CSSJR 12(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 191: "An Act relating to the management and disposal of
state land and resources; relating to certain remote
parcel and homestead entry land purchase contracts and
patents; and providing for an effective date."
CSSSHB 191(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 279: "An Act relating to a municipal river habitat
protection tax credit."
CSHB 279(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 93: "An Act relating to the disposal of state land along
the Dalton Highway; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
JACK PHELPS, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3215
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed changes on SJR 12
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 191
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 191
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 420
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 279
TOM BOEDEKER, Attorney
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 N. Binkley
Soldotna, AK 99669
Phone: 262-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 279 and answered questions
regarding HB 279
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Phone: 465-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 279
SENATOR MIKE MILLER
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 125
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-4976
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor SB 93
DEE HOFFMAN, Director of Planning
North Slope Borough
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, AK 99723
Phone: 852-0320
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 93
RANDY MAYO, Chief
Stevens Village Council
Stevens Village, AK 99774
Phone: 478-7228
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 93
GEORGE YASKA, Director of Wildlife
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue, Suite 600
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-3755
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 93
TERESA SAGER, Legislative Assistant
Senator Mike Miller
State Capitol, Room 125
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-4976
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 93
SARA HANNAN, Representative
Alaska Environmental Lobby, Inc.
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 93
SAM KITO, Legislative Liaison
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3904
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 93
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 12
SHORT TITLE: U.S. FOREST SERVICE PLAN
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 81 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 81 (S) RESOURCES
02/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/14/95 266 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
02/14/95 267 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
02/20/95 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/22/95 367 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/22/95
02/22/95 368 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/22/95 368 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/22/95 368 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y8 N11 A1
02/22/95 369 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
02/22/95 369 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 12(RES)
02/22/95 370 (S) PASSED Y18 N1 A1
02/22/95 370 (S) HALFORD NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/23/95 386 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/23/95 390 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/27/95 479 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 479 (H) RESOURCES
03/03/95 575 (H) WTR REFERRAL ADDED
03/21/95 (H) WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 203
03/22/95 850 (H) WTR RPT 3DP 1NR
03/22/95 851 (H) DP: MULDER, PHILLIPS BARNES
03/22/95 851 (H) NR: KUBINA
03/22/95 851 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
2/14/95
03/27/95 947 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS
04/05/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
BILL: HB 191
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/22/95 448 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/22/95 448 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/15/95 741 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-
REFERRALS
03/15/95 741 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 741 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/22/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/31/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/07/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 279
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL RIVER HABITAT TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS,Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/95 896 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 896 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/07/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 93
SHORT TITLE: DISPOSAL OF LAND ALONG THE DALTON HWY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER,Green,Sharp; REPRESENTATIVE(S)
James,Kott
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/21/95 350 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/21/95 350 (S) RES, FIN
02/23/95 386 (S) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/27/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/28/95 418 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/28/95 418 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR #1)
03/15/95 617 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 2NR (RES)CS
03/15/95 618 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DNR #1)
03/15/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/16/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/20/95 697 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/20/95
03/20/95 704 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/20/95 704 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/20/95 704 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/20/95 704 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 93(RES)
03/20/95 705 (S) PASSED Y12 N6 E2
03/20/95 705 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/21/95 726 (S) RESCINDED ACTION IN PASSING UNAN
CONS
03/21/95 726 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE IN THIRD READING
03/21/95 726 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN
CONSENT
03/21/95 726 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y6 N12 E2
03/21/95 727 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/21/95 727 (S) PASSED Y14 N4 E2
03/21/95 728 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y12 N6 E2
03/21/95 728 (S) RESCINDED ACTION FLG TO ADOPT EFD
UNAN C
03/21/95 728 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y16 N2 E2
03/21/95 729 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/22/95 833 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/22/95 833 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/03/95 1009 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): JAMES
04/07/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/11/95 1270 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): KOTT
04/12/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-47, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Green at 8:17 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, and Kott.
Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Davies, MacLean, and
Nicholia.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN apologized for those committee members who
cannot seem to arrive at the committee meetings on time. He said
committee members took an oath that they would do their best for
the state, and part of that is being on time for those people who
are at hearings on time to testify.
SJR 12 - U.S. FOREST SERVICE PLAN
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN WITHDREW his MOTION to MOVE SJR 12 out of
committee made at the last hearing.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION was WITHDRAWN.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSJR
12(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
JACK PHELPS, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS,
stated the change contained in HCS CSSJR 12(RES) is found on page
3, lines 5-7. He recalled at the last hearing, there was
discussion about employees compensation and the cost of living
allowance for employees being reflective of timber production. He
explained HCS CSSJR 12(RES) changes the language to affect the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief and each Regional Forester
of the U.S. Forest Service. He said the point is now directed at
the policy makers rather than the working people.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSJR 12(RES) with
attached fiscal note out of committee with individual
recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
HB 191 - MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, PRIME SPONSOR, noted the work draft
committee substitute (CS) before the committee is version G, which
contains several changes, including those discussed at the last
hearing and those which came as a result of the working group. He
reviewed those changes. He said Section 8 is a technical amendment
from Section 7 of the sponsor substitute of HB 191, which was
needed to conform with changes in the remote cabin permit program.
Section 12 is a modification of version F, which conforms with
amendments made in Sections 22 and 23. Section 21 is an amendment
made by the House Resources Committee (HRC). He explained Section
23 states the term of the lease is no more than five years which
means a renewal of one additional five-year period. Section 24 is
a result of a suggestion by the HRC to eliminate the term "permit."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Therriault to address the
change made on page 5, lines 25-30.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied that change removes the remote
cabin permit program and inserts lease program.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that language is not necessary because
there are no more permits.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that is correct.
Number 145
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN noted he has concerns regarding
Section 25. He said this section had been discussed several times
and he thought it was going to be changed. He stated this section
removes a section which has been used for years on the shore leases
and puts the leases back up for public auction. He pointed out
during the working group's discussion, he was told this section
would only apply to new leases but noted it had not been changed.
He told committee members he reads this section to say that when
existing leases come up for renewal, they can go up for public
auction.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained when an existing lease comes up
for renewal, that lease will go to a fair market value lease but
will not have to go up for public auction. He noted in Section 27,
the language was changed to address the concern. He said an
existing lease would come up for renewal under subleasing and
renewals of leases. Therefore, the only time there would be a
competitive bid situation is when there is a new area identified
and competing people want the same parcel. He stressed if a person
has an existing lease, has kept up his or her payments and has not
allowed the lease to lapse, he or she would be able to extend that
lease or keep control of that piece of property under a renewal.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN shared Representative Austerman's concern.
Number 202
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (DNR), stated a person with an existing lease, as long as
payments are being made and the lease is on good terms, has the
right to renew under AS 38.05.102, which is an existing statute.
He said that statute says, "If land within a leasehold created
under AS 38.05.070 - 38.05.105 is offered for sale or long-term
lease at the termination of the existing leasehold, the director
may, upon a finding that it is in the best interest of the state,
allow the holder in good standing of that leasehold to purchase or
lease the land for its appraised fair market value at the time of
the sale or long-term lease." He reiterated as long as the lease
is being paid, the person has an automatic right of renewal if it
is in the best interest of the state. He noted if the person is
making payments and is still open for fishing, it will be in the
best interest of the state.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN observed person A has a site, has made his
payments, and is a reputable person but perhaps an irritant to the
commissioner. The commissioner may renew that lease if it is in
the best interest of the state. He clarified it would be automatic
for that person to have first right. He wondered if the word
"shall" should be used instead of the word "may."
MR. SWANSON thought using the word "shall" would create a
constitutional problem because a preference right is being given.
He stressed if people make their payments, the leases are renewed.
He said hopefully personalities are not an issue.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted the last sentence in Section 27 says
"and conditions prescribed by the commissioner". He clarified that
language does not mean the ground rules are being changed.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded that language refers to the
negotiation on what is fair market value and the requirement for
setting that payment would be the terms and conditions of the
lease.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked which statute existing leases are
covered under currently.
MR. SWANSON replied AS 38.05.082.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled Mr. Swanson had said earlier that
existing leases are covered under a statute. He clarified that
statute is AS 38.05.082.
MR. SWANSON said leases issued today are under AS 38.05.082 but
when they come up for renewal, they are covered under AS 38.05.102,
which is an existing statute.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that AS 38.05.102 is the general
language in statute which allows for renewals of leases.
Therefore, that statute is there for all leases.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified the word "may" is in the statute as it
is written now and has not been a problem in the past.
MR. SWANSON replied that is correct.
MR. THERRIAULT asked the committee to consider making one more
change. He suggested on page 11, line 29, delete "person holding
a permit", insert "lease held" and on page 11, line 30, delete
"renew that permit", insert "be renewed". He said this suggestion
changes the wording so it does not apply to permitting where it
talks about a lease.
(Representative DAVIES joined the committee.)
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSSHB 191(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSSHB 191(RES) on
page 11, line 29, delete "person holding a permit", insert "lease
held" and on page 11, line 30, delete "renew that permit", insert
"be renewed".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said this change is suggested in order to take
out the word "permit".
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the motion.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified AS 38.05.082 is used to set up
shore fishery leases.
MR. SWANSON replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified it is not possible that it might
be misconstrued that subsection (b) would apply to the leases he is
concerned about.
MR. SWANSON responded no. He explained once a lease is issued, as
long as it is in good standing, the lease will be renewed. He said
this would only kick in on the original application or if the lease
expires and there is a new applicant. He reiterated once a lease
is issued, it is renewable.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that any renewal would take place
under AS 38.05.102.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted subsection (b) does not refer to
new.
MR. SWANSON said the word new is not included because the person
may assign or sell the lease.
Number 405
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the leases are sellable.
MR. SWANSON replied the leases are sellable and assignable upon
approval of the state. He stated the person has to have a limited
entry permit and cannot sell the lease to someone who does not have
one.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the original applicant no longer
wants to use a lease, why does the state not put the lease back up
for auction again.
MR. SWANSON said when a person holds a lease, they can do what they
want with that lease.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that a limited entry permit and a
good shore lease site goes together as a package. He said it is
not desirable to inadvertently impact the value of the limited
entry permit by taking away a good site. He noted that is the
reason he wanted to go to a fair market value because it goes along
with the limited entry permit and does have a value. He stressed
he wanted to ensure that the state is getting at least fair market
value while the lease is being used.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked how this section affects the guide
industry.
MR. SWANSON replied the bill does not affect the industry at all as
they are issued under existing leases under Title 38 already. He
stated this section only deals with shore fish and aquatic farm
leases.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the policy that the leases are
renewable and sellable is in regulation.
MR. SWANSON stated that policy is in statute AS 38.05.102.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSSSHB 191(RES), as
amended, with attached fiscal notes out of committee with
individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
HB 279 - MUNICIPAL RIVER HABITAT TAX CREDIT
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, PRIME SPONSOR, stated last year the
legislature passed HB 306 which allowed municipal governments to
offer a tax credit to property owners along the Kenai River who
improved their property to the degree that it enhanced or protected
the habitat value or corrected a previous development that was not
conducive to habitat value. He explained HB 279 makes an
improvement to that legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS told committee members HB 279 deletes the
requirement that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
develop regulations to implement the tax credit provisions for
habitat protection on the Kenai River. The proposed language
mandates that any proposed municipal ordinance developed to
implement this law will include the regulatory aspects of the
legislation. He stated the ordinance must be approved by the ADF&G
before it is adopted. Improvements which will qualify for tax
credits will be included in the ordinance. He said ADF&G is also
required to respond in writing to the municipality within 60 days
of receipt of an ordinance by approving or giving the basis for
disapproval.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated Section 1 deletes language that
requires credits be certified by ADF&G. A credit may be granted
for an improvement that has been constructed in compliance with
state and federal laws. He said Section 2 adds subsection (d)
establishing that a municipal ordinance is the vehicle for
certification of the tax credits. The commissioner of ADF&G must
approve or disapprove the ordinance within 60 days after receipt.
He explained Section 3 repeals subsection (c) of an existing
statute which required ADF&G to establish regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said HB 279 is taking the establishment of
regulations related to a tax credit within the Kenai Peninsula
Borough and giving that authority to the Borough to do it by
ordinance. He noted the more local involvement and authority there
is, the better off the citizens are.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the purpose is of the language on
page 2, lines 14-16, "without regard to the scope of the protection
or restoration that would be achieved by the improvements."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied when an ordinance is drafted and the
department is reviewing whether or not the ordinance meets the
requirements of an improvement to the habitat, there are varying
degrees of improvement. He said if a person owns 100 feet of Kenai
Riverfront property and makes an improvement, the improvement could
include a 20 foot boardwalk or it could include a complete 100 foot
boardwalk. He explained the ordinance the department will be
required to improve will not have any degree. He noted the
department also has concern about the clearness of the language.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he is concerned about the word "scope"
and how it relates to the authorized aid in protecting or restoring
habitat.
Number 545
TOM BOEDEKER, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ATTORNEY, testified via
teleconference and stated last year the legislature passed a bill
that provides for an optional tax credit for protective measures
and improvements to the river in regard to habitat. He said during
the last year it has become apparent that perhaps the regulatory
aspects of the legislation and the requirement to adopt regulations
may have been an unwieldy tool. HB 279 has been requested to ease
that problem.
MR. BOEDEKER said one problem is the existing legislation requires
the definition of what is a protective measure to be adopted by
regulation, which involves a long drawn out process. He stated it
is easier and better to have the assembly take first crack at what
it was wanting to give credit for and what it thought would be a
protective measure. He explained the process would involve having
the commissioner of ADF&G review that and say yes or no as to
whether or not they are truly protective or improvement measures
regarding the habitat. He noted that would be a check on the
process so if the assembly went off in left field and said an
improvement measure was to build an office building, the
commissioner could say that does not improve habitat. He stressed
the objective of having the review is to ensure that truly
protective or improvement measures are being given a credit.
MR. BOEDEKER stated the language regarding the scope was to
specifically address the question of local policy versus
departmental policy on what is a wise activity to give a credit
for. He said perhaps boardwalks are the choice of the local
assembly to give credit as an improvement to protect the bank area
but perhaps a boardwalk does not fit with ADF&G's policies and
objectives as to what they would like to see. He noted without
regard to the actual benefit received from the project, the
department's determination would be based on whether or not a
project is a protective measure or not. He explained the cost
benefit analysis and the worthiness of the project to give a credit
would be a local option, which would probably be best decided by
the assembly without having to involve ADF&G in the process.
MR. BOEDEKER said HB 279 would also take ADF&G out of the loop in
regard to each individual project. He stated ADF&G felt with the
existing legislation, they would be required to review each project
to determine if it met the definitions and actual construction. He
stressed it is the desire to see that administration function at
the local level and to not place any additional burden on ADF&G,
especially since ADF&G does not have a full time habitat person in
the area.
Number 590
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the local assembly wants to
authorize anything having a positive benefit but does not want to
make any limitations as to what fraction that benefit may represent
of the ideal possible improvements that could be taken.
MR. BOEDEKER replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern that the word "scope" can
be misread to say ADF&G cannot even make the determination as to
whether the project is beneficial or not.
MR. BOEDEKER said he understood Representative Davies' concern. He
noted there had been proposed additional language when the bill was
drafted but legislative drafting thought the language would not
work. He stressed it is not desired to have the cost benefit
analysis done at the state level because if the commissioner does
the reviewing, it is almost certain that regulations will be needed
to set criteria for his decision in order to avoid a legal
challenge against his decision. The criteria will be worked out at
the local level. He thought it would be redundant to do that at
both levels. He felt there probably is better language but he did
not know what that might be.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested the following language, "without
regard to the percentage of the total protection or restoration
that could be achieved by ideal improvement measures".
MR. BOEDEKER thought that language might work.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS expressed concern about the common definition
of the word "scope". He said perhaps "scope" is the right word.
He asked Mr. Boedeker if he has a definition of what "scope" is
commonly understood to mean.
(Representative NICHOLIA joined the committee.)
MR. BOEDEKER replied "scope" would generally apply to all aspects
of the coverage--how far it goes and the means of implementation
--but it is generally focused on the overall coverage as opposed to
the details. He said the word "scope" was used in the original
draft as an additional identifier (indiscernible). He stated the
word "scope" is less precise.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified in using the word "scope" value does
not ordinarily jump out.
MR. BOEDEKER said value can be included but it is not the first
thing that leaps out when using the term.
Number 667
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if HB 279 could potentially give a
business that owns property on the Kenai River, looking for a good
tax write off with the borough, the ability to do a lot of nice
improvements to enhance their business on the waterfront in the
name of habitat protection and get a real good tax break.
MR. BOEDEKER said that question was discussed. He said in earlier
versions of the bill, the credit was not allowed if the project was
primarily for commercial benefit. The discussion was it does not
really matter if the project is protecting the river if it is an
incidental benefit to commercial versus private and it should not
matter if the project is going to protect the river. It was
determined at that time, the objective was to protect the river,
not go against commercial versus private. He noted the application
of this would be up to the local assembly as to whether or not they
would give a particular item a credit or not.
MR. BOEDEKER noted under existing legislation, if ADF&G identifies
19 items as qualified, they would not have to grant the credit to
all of them. He said that has not changed in HB 279. He explained
the assembly determined if commercial was a problem, it could be
addressed at the local level.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought existing legislation also limits the
amount of tax credit to 50 percent of the value.
MR. BOEDEKER said that is correct. He stated the credit is limited
to 50 percent of the monies spent. He explained if the tax bill
was $5,000 and a project cost $10,000, that person would be
eligible for a tax credit of $2,500.
TAPE 95-47, SIDE B
Number 000
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ADF&G, stated in the ADF&G
position paper contained in committee members folders, the
department identified the language being discussed as an item that
needed further discussion so the department was clear as to what
was expected from the department. He felt the discussion the
committee has had and the discussion which occurred in the Senate
Resources Committee has provided the department with a
clarification as to what the department's role is expected to be in
the process.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Mr. Bruce was speaking in favor of the
amendment or in favor of leaving the language as is.
MR. BRUCE replied if the language can be further clarified in
statute, that would be ADF&G's preference. He said if improved
language is not possible, ADF&G has adequate clarification as to
how the process is supposed to work and what the department's role
is.
(Representative BARNES joined the committee.)
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the department feels the proposed
amendment would give more detail to their concern.
MR. BRUCE responded it is the department's understanding that this
language is what is intended--the department is not to make any
judgement on whether a particular proposal achieves a benefit that
has a desirable cost benefit or is better than some other
alternative. He said an example is boardwalks. It could be argued
that the ideal boardwalk would be made out of a metal grate which
would allow sunlight to go through it, allowing growth under the
boardwalk but that would be more expensive than a simple wooden
boardwalk. However, a simple wooden boardwalk would provide some
measure of habitat protection. He noted this language would make
it clear that the simple wooden boardwalk would be an improvement
and something the department would approve without regard to the
ideal benefit that might be secured from a metal grate type
boardwalk.
Number 090
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled in the past there has been some
expensive attempts made to prevent erosion of shorelines such as
the use of huge rocks. He wondered if that was voluntary or
required.
MR. BRUCE stated the department's recommendation, to the extent
possible, is for the natural character of the shoreline be
maintained. Therefore, when the bank is hardened, fish habitat
qualities are lessened. He said a bank hardened by the use of
boulders and other features, giving an even shoreline, is
preferable to a straight wall which provides no fish habitat
protection. He noted that in general, hardening of the banks is
not something the department encourages. Rather, the department
looks at other means such as boardwalks and the use of trees to
prevent erosion of shorelines.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "the reason I brought that up...it seems to
me if that was a requirement there has been some precedence set
that your indication that metal is better because sunlight comes
through, it still provides keeping feet off the bank. Is there a
significant difference in the cost between wood planking and metal
grating that are we doing a half-way measure...that is ultimately
if the wood then begins to deteriorate and we kill the plant life,
are we in worse shape ten years from now than we would have been
now?"
MR. BOEDEKER stated the borough is aware of a number of those
problems and is not trying to dismiss them. Rather, the borough is
trying to get a framework to be able to work with ADF&G to try and
define things while still allowing the local option. He said the
borough has discussed trying to address some of the issues and
ADF&G's concerns. The borough is trying to look forward to the
future to ensure that a credit is not given for things that will be
detrimental on the long term. He stressed the desire is to avoid
burdening ADF&G with a lot of petty administration.
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES recalled it has not been too many
years since the property owners along the Kenai River were required
to use huge boulders to stabilize their riverbank. She wondered if
that requirement was not what it should have been.
MR. BRUCE replied in cases where a land owner or property owner
wants to do something to restrict or impede the process of erosion
along their bank front and their action is below the mean high
water mark, they must get a permit from ADF&G. He said ADF&G
generally works with the land owner to get an improvement which
accomplishes both the purpose the land owner is interested in,
while maximizing habitat protection if possible. He noted boulders
have been approved in the past but he did not think they were
required. Rather, boulders were an option the land owner felt was
within their ability to pay for and was better than some other
solution.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that to do any improvement to the
riverbank, it was required that a specific size of boulder be put
in.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HB 279 on page 2, line
15, delete "scope of the protection or restoration that would be
achieved by the improvements." and insert "the percentage of the
total protection or restoration that could be achieved by ideal
improvement measures."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had no objection to the proposed
amendment.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the
amendment. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 279 with attached
fiscal note out of committee with individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
SB 93 - DISPOSAL OF LAND ALONG THE DALTON HIGHWAY
Number 248
SENATOR MIKE MILLER, PRIME SPONSOR, said last session the
legislature passed SB 210 which provided for the reauthorization of
existing leases in nodes along the Dalton Highway. He explained SB
93 will allow opening up more areas along the highway for
nonresidential disposals. He added the areas are those primarily
where there were pipeline camps. He stated the areas include the
Yukon River Crossing, Coldfoot, Happy Valley, and Franklin Bluffs.
SENATOR MILLER noted there is a proposed amendment. He said the
North Slope Borough had concerns in that they had made some land
selections in Franklin Bluffs and Happy Valley. This amendment
makes it clear that SB 93 would not override their land selections.
He noted there has been concerns expressed about development along
the road. He stressed the highway is open and people will be
traveling the road. He felt unless the state starts putting
services along the road, there will be more problems. He noted the
department supports SB 93.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered with the potential improvements, will
the liability to the state be increased.
SENATOR MILLER replied he did not know. He said SB 93 will help
cut down the long stretches of the highway without services. He
hoped that since the highway is open, the state can begin securing
federal funds to start improving the road.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why the state would have more liability
on the Dalton Highway than it has on any other roads.
SENATOR MILLER said the state would not.
Number 309
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled Senator Miller had talked about
development nodes and clarified those nodes are located in
subsection (b) (2).
SENATOR MILLER stated the Senate Resources Committee also made some
changes because the bill passed last year had problems in the
language and some of the legal descriptions had to be corrected.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was not concerned about the legal
descriptions but what the nodes apply to.
SENATOR MILLER replied Mr. Swanson could answer the question.
Number 342
DEE HOFFMAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, testified
via teleconference and stated the North Slope Borough does have
valid land selections on file for all of Happy Valley and Franklin
Bluffs, as well as parcels at Deadhorse. She said the best way to
handle any need for development at these nodes would be to convey
to the North Slope Borough the lands they have selected. Then the
North Slope Borough would be in a position to exercise maximum
local control in the growth and development of these nodes.
MS. HOFFMAN said the state departments and their respected agencies
have not assured the (indiscernible) coordinating the group that
they will be able to handle the expected traffic on the Dalton
Highway this summer. She noted a couple of newspaper articles, one
of which the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities'
Commissioner Perkins clearly stated the need for more public
participation in the planning and development of the state's
transportation system. Another article was in regard to the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) seeking funds to help fund outhouses,
trash cans, dump stations and other areas of need.
MS. HOFFMAN said the (indiscernible) industry expects to bring
125,000 tourists to Deadhorse this summer and noted that only about
12,000 tourists drove the highway in 1994. She felt it would be in
the best interest of the state to convey to the North Slope Borough
the lands selected and let the borough work closely in the
development of a comprehensive land use plan, so that facilities
and services could be planned and funded appropriately. She noted
the North Slope Borough is currently revising its comprehensive
land use plan, which does encompass planning for services and
facilities in conjunction with state and federal agencies along the
road within borough boundary districts.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked what the North Slope Borough's
position is on SB 93.
MS. HOFFMAN said the North Slope Borough is in support of the
proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if the North Slope Borough supports
SB 93.
MS. HOFFMAN replied yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he can see some real benefit to having the
Dalton Highway open and having amenities along it but he can also
see some problems. He wondered if this will be any different than
any other highway or improvements to a highway and wondered if any
unusual problems are foreseen.
MR. SWANSON said no. He stressed the road is now open and he is
very concerned about providing basic services. He noted currently
there is one gas station halfway up the road. He pointed out the
department is wanting to provide basic amenities, not hotels every
six miles.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated her concern regarding SB 93 is the
costs to the state. She felt the costs are going to fall into the
hands of emergency medical services, public health issues,
landfills for the disposal of garbage and additional sewage
treatment.
MR. SWANSON said the desire is to get private industry to provide
some of these basic services so it is not a burden to the state.
He noted that currently the state definitely has that burden. He
is not convinced it will be possible to get private industry to
provide all the needed services but at least the department needs
the tools to try and do so.
Number 446
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA clarified SB 93 does not authorize payment
for emergency medical services, public health issues, landfills for
the disposal of garbage and additional sewage treatment.
MR. SWANSON said SB 93 allows DNR to issue a lease to private
industry to provide those services and private industry could
charge the public for doing those things. He stressed currently
the entire burden is on the state and partially on BLM. He noted
the department is looking for one more opportunity to release some
of that burden.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered what happens now if there is an
accident, someone breaks down or there is a medical emergency. He
asked if it would be feasible to charge a toll to travel the
highway to cover some of the costs involved as it will take years
to get private development up there.
MR. SWANSON said the road is open and the state has to deal with
it. He stressed the department is looking for the ability to lease
some land to private industry if they desire to provide any of the
services needed.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said with the proposed amendment to SB 93,
which allows the North Slope Borough to take some of their land
entitlements through selecting some of the land along the highway,
it seems the borough would be in a very good position to put in the
amenities necessary because it is a part of the state they are very
familiar with. She felt SB 93 is a good bill.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Swanson if he had read the letter
from Yukon Pacific addressed to Speaker Phillips.
MR. SWANSON replied he had not.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said Yukon Pacific has all the permits in
place to build a gas pipeline. In their letter, they are asking
the legislature to delay action on SB 93 until the issue of whether
or not disposing of the land would be unrealistic, in view of their
proposed needs for development and building another pipeline, is
addressed. He noted the camps along the highway were put in place
to support the construction of the oil pipeline and would be very
useful for the staging of the construction of a gas pipeline. He
pointed out Yukon Pacific's concern is that the state may eliminate
the camps and then another new set of pads would have to be created
for construction of the gas line.
MR. SWANSON stated the concern of Yukon Pacific is very valid. He
said any disposals the DNR does anywhere within the nodes will go
through a planning process and would involve Yukon Pacific.
Number 539
RANDY MAYO, CHIEF, STEVENS VILLAGE COUNCIL, testified via
teleconference and stated the village has many concerns. He noted
even before the Dalton Highway was open, there were many problems
with vandalism, destruction of private property and the loss of
fish and game in a traditional subsistence use area. He said in
the village there is hardly any cash economy except welfare
payments. He stressed the village opposes SB 93 for several
reasons including cultural, spiritual, and economical.
MR. MAYO felt many bills in the legislature are submitted by
business people who live in urban areas. He said the village does
not see how SB 93 will benefit the local surrounding communities.
He stated many existing problems such as law enforcement, trash
along the road, etc., have not even been resolved, yet it is
proposed to build up more. He noted it had been mentioned that the
private sector would possibly provide some of these services and he
wondered if they will be required to build landfills, etc., up to
the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Environmental
Protection Agency standards. He questioned if the costs involved
would be too much for the private sector. He also wondered what
Alyeska's position is on SB 93.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that Mr. Mayo spoke of his concerns
as they relate to the subsistence lifestyle along the Dalton
Highway but he also mentioned that the only cash available is in
the form of welfare payments. She wondered if SB 93 will help the
village corporation get some of the land to put in some sort of
services and help provide a source of cash for the people in the
village to get them off of welfare.
Number 604
MR. MAYO said he is not on the village corporation board but noted
the village does operate a fish camp tour and has a couple of tour
boats. He noted even with those operations, the village has had
problems.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES thought if the road was in better condition
and had better amenities for the driving public, the village would
be able to have more tourists at the fish camp.
GEORGE YASKA, DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE (TCC),
testified via teleconference and stated he is not familiar with the
amendment discussed earlier.
TERESA SAGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, SENATOR MIKE MILLER, said the
amendment would clarify that the lands selected by the North Slope
Borough, as part of their land entitlement but which have not yet
been conveyed, would not be affected by SB 93 once the conveyance
occurs.
MR. YASKA said currently TCC supports SB 93.
TAPE 95-48, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN read the amendment to Mr. Yaska.
MR. YASKA clarified the municipality referred to in the amendment
would be in the North Slope Borough.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN answered probably but not necessarily.
MR. YASKA reiterated TCC supports SB 93 but noted TCC still has
concerns about the large number of people going up the Dalton
Highway and the too few services offered.
Number 058
SARA HANNAN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY, INC.
(AEL), urged committee members to oppose SB 93. She said what
needs to be considered is long-range economic and fiscal
obligations to the state. She agreed the Dalton Highway requires
additional services to be available and the state has an obligation
to provide some services because it is a state-owned highway, open
to public access. She noted the Trans-Alaska Gas Pipeline working
committee and the AEL have been talking a lot about the Dalton
Highway over the past few years and share many concerns from
different perspectives.
MS. HANNAN said the Dalton Highway development corridor was
originally built as an industrial road. She stressed it still is
an industrial road and is not up to the standards of a highway
found anywhere else. She stated the problem with opening the
highway has been that more people use it and the obligation and
liability the state has in regard to the highway is increasing.
She noted the more services available, the higher the liability the
state has to the people who have private property along the
highway. She pointed out that the various problems in regard to
the highway are not adequately being addressed.
MS. HANNAN noted the Anchorage Daily News did an interview with the
new commissioner of the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities and he indicated that currently the Dalton Highway's
maintenance plan will not change. She said ongoing fiscal
obligations to the state accelerate when there is private
development. She stressed the AEL is not opposed to services being
provided along the highway but feels it is premature for the state
to dispose of those lands and discuss putting private Alaskans out
there, with their resources invested in capital investment, unless
the state is able to provide the services a property owner should
have.
MS. HANNAN stated in addition to being able to protect private
property and enforce the laws the state currently has, the state
will have some additional obligations. When there is someone
living on a remote site and six children live there, the state has
a legal obligation to provide education. She reiterated there is
a need to look at the long-range development plan for the Dalton
Highway including the long-range use of it by Yukon Pacific, the
long-range fiscal obligations of the state to protect the private
property currently there, and what will be done with emergency
services and troopers. She stressed the state does not have the
money to put more private property holders with private property
investment in a remote area when the state cannot protect it.
SAM KITO, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION &
PUBLIC FACILITIES, said the department feels having amenities along
the highway would be in the best interest of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that in other areas of the state
which have rural highways such as the Dalton Highway, the amenities
are usually closed down in the winter so there is not the
likelihood of having to provide additional schools, etc., along the
highway. She said if this land was selected by Native
corporations, schools are already provided in the villages where
the children and adults live.
MR. KITO stated Coldfoot is a work camp leased to a private entity.
He said that work camp is more staffed in the summer than in the
winter. He noted there are no children there requiring schooling
in the winter. He pointed out it is the DNR's intent to dispose
land in a similar situation and not create a year-round or
permanent living situation.
Number 220
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked why there was no fiscal note from the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. She noted parts
of the Dalton Highway washes out every year.
MR. KITO stated the department is not anticipating any additional
need for maintenance. He said at this point, the department cannot
anticipate what the volume of traffic increase will be because of
the full opening. He explained the department is projecting it can
get by with its current level of maintenance and rehabilitation of
the roadway.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked when the road washes out, who is
responsible for putting the road back in place, the state or
Alyeska.
MR. KITO replied the road is maintained by the state in agreement
with Alyeska Pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt if more services are provided along the
highway, it follows that there will be more traffic.
MR. KITO said the DNR's contingency is it is not known what the
level of services will be and they would like to be able to provide
for services if the demand increases on the highway. He stated the
allowing of the disposal of this land does not necessarily mean the
land will automatically be leased to private land owners. He noted
there is a BLM plan for the corridor in place and the DNR has been
working with the BLM on creating the amenities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the purpose of SB 93 is to improve
the amenities along the Dalton Highway.
MR. KITO replied the purpose of SB 93 is to allow for amenities
should they become necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said a reasonable person would conclude that
if the state enters into a program of disposing land for the
purpose of providing amenities along the highway that is what will
happen eventually. He asked if the amenities get built and there
is an increase in traffic as a result, would it not follow that
there would be a demand to improve the maintenance on the highway.
MR. KITO replied there probably will be an increased demand for
maintenance and rehabilitation of the highway. He noted the
department is in the beginning stages of providing for
rehabilitation of the highway from milepost zero up to Coldfoot and
beyond that as funding is available through the federal highway
administration on the state's highways program.
Number 289
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the Dalton Highway was transferred
from Alyeska to the state of Alaska in the early 1980s. Since that
time, the state has had an absolute responsibility to maintain the
road. She said the state has not always done the kind of job it
should have and consequently there have been tremendous washouts,
the base has blown away, etc. She pointed out whether or not the
state disposes of this land, the work is going to have to be done,
because the Dalton Highway is the lifeline to the state's oil
patch. She felt whether or not there are 100 tourists driving the
road is irrelevant. She noted by doing it through SB 93, the state
is able to garner more federal funds to help with the upkeep of the
road which is the lifeline of Alaska. She reiterated the state's
responsibility for the road has been there since the early 1980s.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed but felt the responsibility to
maintain the highway is tempered by the state's fiscal abilities
and added that maintaining the highway for the purpose of an
industrial road is adequate for the purpose of the lifeline for the
state but is not adequate for a tourism resource. He said if the
state is going to improve amenities and take actions resulting in
additional people traveling the highway, the state should expect
demands to improve the road to a higher standard than what is
required by the truckers and industry. He pointed out that will
cost money. He thought the suggestion earlier about charging a
toll to help with that incremental demand should be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted he is not opposed to providing more
amenities and encouraging more traffic but is concerned that the
state needs to be more realistic about what the fiscal impacts will
be.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 93(RES) on page
4, after line 12: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 2.
AS 19.40.200 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (e)
Notwithstanding (b) of this section, land described in (b) of this
section is not available for disposal if it has been selected by a
municipality to satisfy a general grant land entitlement under AS
29.65 unless the selection is disapproved by the state in a final
decision." Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said municipalities are concerned about
their Native allotment selections. She wondered how a single
person having a Native allotment would be affected.
MR. SWANSON replied there are no Native allotments along the
highway affected by SB 93. He said the only issue being dealt with
are selections made by the North Slope Borough and those will be
adjudicated prior to any other activity.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA clarified there are no other Native
allotment applicants other than the North Slope Borough.
MR. SWANSON responded that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if a regional corporation qualifies
as a municipality and also asked whether or not there are any
regional corporation claims.
MR. SWANSON said no. He noted there is a lot of federal land but
SB 93 only affects land the state owns. He stated if there is a
conflicting claim by a village or regional corporation, or Native
allotment, that would have a preference over the state selections.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if the amendment affects Yukon
Pacific's ability to set up their pipeline operation.
MR. SWANSON replied no. He reiterated before the disposal of land,
the department has to go through a planning process and Yukon
Pacific would be very much involved. He noted the department
currently has a task force dealing with all of the land selections
up there.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any other objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced SB 93 would be heard again on Wednesday
and noted HB 258 would be heard on Wednesday.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|