Legislature(2007 - 2008)
04/11/2007 07:14 AM House W&M
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
April 11, 2007
7:14 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Kelly
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"An Act relating to the accounting and payment of contributions
under the defined benefit plan of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska, to calculations of contributions
under that defined benefit plan, and to participation in, and
termination of and amendments to participation in, that defined
benefit plan; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 206 (W&M) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
limiting appropriations from certain mineral revenue, relating
to the balanced budget account, and relating to an appropriation
limit.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 206
SHORT TITLE: PERS CONTRIBUTIONS; UNFUNDED LIABILITY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/07 (H) W&M, FIN
03/28/07 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/28/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/30/07 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/07 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/02/07 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/07 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/04/07 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/07 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/11/07 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNETTE KREITZER, Commissioner Designee
Department of Administration(DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 206.
KATHLEEN LEA, Retirement Manager
Division of Retirement and Benefits (DRB)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 206 and provided
information on retirement and benefit issues.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR MIKE HAWKER called the House Special Committee on Ways and
Means meeting to order at 7:14 AM. Present at the call to order
were Representatives Hawker, Fairclough, Wilson, Roses, Seaton,
and Gruenberg. Representative Cissna arrived as the meeting was
in progress. Representative Kelly was also in attendance.
7:14:39 AM
HB 206-PERS CONTRIBUTIONS; UNFUNDED LIABILITY
CHAIR HAWKER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 206, "An Act relating to the accounting and
payment of contributions under the defined benefit plan of the
Public Employees' Retirement System of Alaska, to calculations
of contributions under that defined benefit plan, and to
participation in, and termination of and amendments to
participation in, that defined benefit plan; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
7:15:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that one of the chief components of
a cost share system should be to structure a mechanism by which
all employers are on "an equivalent basis" when they enter the
system. He said he believes that the one-year hold harmless
provision as currently proposed under HB 206 is not sufficient
to keep some employers in the system. He suggested that
fairness requires some kind of equity among employers as they
enter a cost share arrangement. He referred to a document
titled "Hold Harmless", dated April 10, 2007, which was provided
to the committee. He reminded the committee that "there is no
wording in [HB] 206 that provides the hold harmless." He
suggested that his approach could be described in a letter of
intent which could be sent to the House Finance Committee.
7:18:06 AM
CHAIR HAWKER asked whether Representative Seaton's approach
could be considered a conceptual amendment to HB 206.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that his suggested approach to the
hold harmless issue could be considered a conceptual amendment
to HB 206. He reiterated his belief that employers must be at
an equivalent place when they enter the cost share pool. He
opined that the current proposal to set employer contributions
at approximately 32 percent will cause many employers to drop
out of the system as it is much too high a rate. His proposal
is based on information from the Alaska Municipal League (AML)
and other entities that municipalities "could stand" an employer
contribution rate of 22 percent. He went on to say that a 22
percent employer contribution rate is reasonable, while a rate
as high as 31.86 percent is "unworkable." He suggested that to
get to a rate of 22 percent, there will need to be a reduction
in the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL), whether by
pension obligation bond (POB), or other mechanism. He
summarized that this approach establishes how much of the
unfunded liabilities will be paid to allow for an employer
contribution rate of 22 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that some municipalities are paying
at 10 percent, therefore, a mechanism is needed to bring them up
to an equivalent unfunded liability of 22 percent by paying part
of their rate for the first several years. If an employer is
paying at a higher rate, he suggested that there needs to be a
mechanism to divert funds for payment of PERS liability in an
amount sufficient to bring that employer's contribution rate
down to 22 percent.
7:24:56 AM
CHAIR HAWKER summarized that the aforementioned approach appears
designed to establish parity whereby the unfunded liability for
every employer is 22 percent and the consolidated employer rate
is also 22 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the aforementioned
summarization and set forth it would require two different
calculations to the set the rate at 22 percent. He noted that
the rate chosen could be different than 22 percent. He offered
that his proposed amendment is not so much about the actual rate
as about establishing a mechanism to bring all employers to
parity with regard to their unfunded liabilities.
7:26:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted that employers who pay into the
system to "make themselves whole" sooner will have less of an
obligation. She asked if that possibility had been considered
when preparing the scenarios presented by the proposed
conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that details of payment and
interest rate accrual would still need to be considered, but
reiterated that his approach requires the determination of
unfunded liabilities at a particular point or "snapshot" in
time. The actuarial rates for each employer are determined
based on the amount of unfunded liabilities. The hold harmless
provision's purpose is to work out a mechanism to bring all the
employers, with their differing rates and unfunded liabilities,
into a cost share system on an equitable basis.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH suggested that there are many details
to be worked out due to the differing situations of some
employers, noting that some are over-funded, while others owe
quite a bit.
7:28:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that there will need to be
adjustments made to address issues that will arise as the state
moves to bring employers to an equivalent basis. He explained
the calculations necessary to arrive at a consolidated rate of
22 percent. To arrive at this figure, one must calculate the
difference between the past service cost rate and the normal
cost rate. This difference will set the amount the employer
must pay to towards its past service cost. The difference
between the past service cost and the employer's rate will
determine the amount of the state's contribution towards the
past service cost. If a consolidated rate of 22 percent is the
goal, the employers will take responsibility for 41.7 percent of
the UAAL and the state share will be 58.3 percent of the UAAL.
He said that the mechanisms for payment, whether through
employment taxes, POBs, or other methods, will need to be
determined. Using the 22 percent rate as an example would
result in the employers being responsible for $1.83 billion and
state responsible for $2.56 billion.
7:32:49 AM
CHAIR HAWKER requested an explanation of the linkage between the
calculations that determine a consolidated rate of 22 percent
and the actual amount of UAAL the employers and the state are
responsible for.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that one must look at the past
service cost rate and the normal cost rate. The difference
between those sets 7.52 percent as the amount necessary to pay
off the past service cost. This difference is divided by the
past service cost rate to determine the employers' share of the
UAAL.
CHAIR HAWKER summarized that the consolidated rate of 22 percent
is being used to explain a possible mechanism for a hold
harmless provision. Using 22 percent as the consolidated rate,
one first determines how much that figure exceeds the normal
cost rate to establish a cap amount of 7.52 percent. That cap
amount is a percentage of the total past service cost rate, in
this example, 41.7 percent. The 41.7 percent is applied to the
overall liability to determine the proportionate amount of the
liability in conjunction with the proportionate amount of the
payment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the above summary and reminded
the committee that the 22 percent figure is for discussion
purposes. He opined that the current proposed employer
contribution rate of approximately 32 percent to pay off the
UAAL over 25 years will not work for the system. His proposal
calculates how much of the unfunded liability the employers will
be responsible for if a contribution rate of 22 percent is
forecast for a 25 year period. As a result, the employers will
pay 41.7 percent and the state 58.3 percent of the UAAL, which
must be reduced somehow, he indicated.
7:36:54 AM
CHAIR HAWKER offered his understanding that this proposal
assumes a fixed employer contribution rate. He asked about the
effect of future actuarial changes to the past service cost
rate.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that the current system presents
a known problem of employer rates that are too high and
unpredictable medical costs. This proposal suggests a way to
fix the known aspects of the problem of unfunded pension
liabilities.
CHAIR HAWKER sought further clarification by setting forth his
understanding that the 22 percent is a fixed variable, and all
other calculations are based on that rate. He indicated his
understanding that the proposed mechanism would work regardless
of changes to other variables, such as the past service cost
rate. In that case, the amount the state is responsible for may
increase or decrease annually.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that 18.03 percent is the
calculation for the past service cost rate amortized over 25
years.
CHAIR HAWKER pointed out that the past service cost rate will
change based on the annual actuarial valuation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that the past service cost rate
would change but perhaps not by much unless there are large
changes in the state's total liability for medical and
retirement benefits. However, he reiterated his opinion that to
move to a cost share system without some mechanism to lower the
projected employer contribution rate of 32 percent will cause at
least half of the employers to leave PERS.
7:42:53 AM
CHAIR HAWKER summarized his understanding that this approach
sets a fixed amount for the consolidated rate that all PERS
employers will pay. Once that fixed amount is determined,
calculations are done to determine the state's share of the
unfunded liabilities, while the communities are held to the
consolidated rate for employer contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that POBs or other methods could
be used to reduce the state's share of the UAAL.
7:44:03 AM
CHAIR HAWKER contrasted Representative Seaton's proposed hold
harmless approach with that currently proposed in HB 206. He
offered his understanding that the fixed element in HB 206 is
the amount of the calculated UAAL as of June 30, 2006, which is
"multiple billions of dollars." Under the bill, the state would
pay 65 percent of the known UAAL to determine the dollar amount
the state would be responsible for. The PERS employers would
share the risk of future rate adjustments with the state.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Commissioner Designee, Department of
Administration (DOA), clarified that the amount of the UAAL
calculated as of June 30, 2006 is 8.6 billion, which she stated
is a more accurate determination of the amount of unfunded
liabilities.
CHAIR HAWKER explained that Representative Seaton's approach is
"much more akin" to the structure currently being considered by
the House Finance Committee. This debate is very relevant to
section 7 of the bill, he indicated.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that when communities opt out of
PERS, their termination costs are based on an actuarial
calculation of that employer's share of the unfunded liabilities
at the time of termination. He asked whether there is any
ability for DOA to adjust the termination costs if it is later
determined that the costs attributed to the employer were not
accurate.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE KREITZER said she believes that once the
opt out rate is set, DOA cannot go back and change it.
7:51:45 AM
KATHLEEN LEA, Retirement Manager, Division of Retirement and
Benefits (DRB) Department of Administration explained that
termination liability is determined based on a present day value
calculation arrived at through an actuarial projection of an
employer's future costs. She said that amount, once determined,
is not adjusted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES offered his understanding that the finality
of the termination cost decision applies regardless of whether
actual liability was over- or under-assessed.
MS. LEA agreed that the aforementioned understanding is correct
because the actuary uses assumptions to determine costs, so if
the actual costs vary from the assumptions the amount of an
employer's actual liability will adjust accordingly.
7:53:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the law could be amended
to allow some flexibility in making these determinations
regarding opt-out procedures.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE KREITZER said she would be willing to
consider any amendment, but offered that she does not see a way
to structure opt-outs to allow the state to go back and adjust
the determined opt-out costs. She agreed that there is an issue
when opt-out costs turn out to not be accurate, but opined that
it would be difficult to craft a solution to fix the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH offered that there could be a method
to provide an opportunity for communities to come together and
issue a POB to pay off their liabilities all at once. She
opined that those communities who do not participate would pay
interest.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated he is supportive of methods that
would help communities enter a cost share system on an equal
basis.
7:58:31 AM
MS. LEA reminded the committee that each employer's liability is
valued annually. She pointed out that termination liability is
different from an employer's unfunded liability and generally
far exceeds the employer's unfunded liability. If an employer
opts out, the remaining employers are valued on their own pool
of employees and retirees.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if employers pay less if they stay
in the PERS then if they opt out.
MS. LEA reiterated that termination costs are significantly
different from an employer's unfunded liability and that it is
important for communities to understand that.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE KREITZER opined that some communities will
find it less expensive to stay in PERS then to terminate their
participation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES suggested that one reason for establishing
a consolidated rate is because there is no mechanism by which to
allocate employer assets and responsibilities once those funds
are transferred to the retiree reserve account. He suggested
that if there is a fixed rate, any future savings or additional
liabilities could be accurately allocated to the state. Under
the current system, the state has shouldered responsibility for
the "lion's share" of costs for the PERS and Teachers'
Retirement System (TRS). If a fixed rate is established, the
employers will have the ability to incorporate into their
budgets an approach to reducing their unfunded liability.
8:02:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON addressed the issue of how to determine
rates for communities that have over or under paid their pension
liabilities. He said that currently 63 employers pay an
employer contribution rate of less than 22 percent. Under his
approach, those employers whose rates would increase to 22
percent will receive a contribution from an asset pool to help
them get up to the 22 percent contribution rate. This approach
would help those employers arrive at the 22 percent rate over a
number of years. For employers that are now paying more than 22
percent, their total employer contribution rate, minus 22
percent, is calculated to determine the "Y percent", which is
then multiplied by the employer's wage base to arrive at a
dollar amount. That dollar amount is transferred to PERS from
the community dividend revenue sharing payment. He suggested
that the amount paid out of revenue sharing be capped so that
communities with a large unfunded liability will still receive
some revenue sharing during the time payments are being made to
bring their contribution rates down to 22 percent.
CHAIR HAWKER summarized that when the determination of the
amount of the unfunded liability is made, it would result in
funds being transferred so that every employer's share of the
unfunded liability would be adjusted to 22 percent.
8:07:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that is how he proposes to assure
that all employers become equivalent partners in a cost share
system. He offered that there are many possible methods by
which to accomplish this goal.
CHAIR HAWKER asked how this approach would benefit any employers
who are currently paying below 22 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that the system would pick up the
difference between the employer's current rate and the 22
percent rate until the employer's actuarially unfunded liability
equals 22 percent. He opined that there is a real advantage to
being in PERS as it offers stability.
CHAIR HAWKER asked whether an employer's contribution rate would
be calculated annually as if there was no cost sharing program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the calculation would be
made to determine the dollar amount difference between the
unfunded liability portion and each employer's share. This one-
time calculation would determine the payments to be made over
the years.
CHAIR HAWKER reiterated his concern that this approach does not
seem to provide a benefit to any employer whose current
contribution rate is below 22 percent.
8:11:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that under a cost share system, all
the employer contributions will be in one pool. He said that
cost share pool will use off-setting contributions to pay the
difference between the current contribution rate and the pool
rate of 22 percent.
8:12:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES suggested that the bill has an effect
similar to Representative Seaton's suggested approach since all
communities' rates would be 31.89 percent under HB 206. He
clarified that his understanding of HB 206 is that an employer
with a rate below 22 percent would continue to pay at its lower
rate. However, he said that under his understanding of the
approach put forth by Representative Seaton, that employer would
not have to make payments until such time as their rate would
equal the 22 percent.
CHAIR HAWKER opined that, if correct, the aforementioned
characterization would require an ongoing dual calculation of
the employer's liability.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH clarified that at one point in time an
amortized payment schedule would determine how long an employer
whose current rate is below 22 percent would not have to pay
into the system. Once that amortized credit is exhausted, the
employer would pay into the system at 22 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said that some employers have over paid
into the system.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the proposed cost share
plan does not take into account the differing employer histories
that affect liabilities and rates. He offered that his approach
presents a mechanism to allow for the fact that some employers
have under paid, while others have over paid into PERS.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH suggested that if a municipality
currently does not pay 22 percent it will be hard to suddenly
make their payments at 22 percent. She suggested that cities
must remain judicious in their payments so that they are ready
to assume payment at 22 percent when necessary.
8:20:01 AM
CHAIR HAWKER offered that a key difference between
Representative Seaton's approach and that currently in HB 206 is
creating surety for individual employers. The administration's
proposal lets the employers' rates fluctuate. He indicated that
there is some concern that communities will be unable to absorb
large rate increases. He suggested the committee could
formulate a letter of intent to express its concern that the
administration's proposal does not provide the desired surety of
a fixed or capped rate. If rates continue to increase, the
legislature will have to continue to address the fiscal burden
on communities, he opined.
8:23:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that the point is
not so much to establish a set rate, but to come up with some
method for employers to enter a cost share system at an
equivalent point.
CHAIR HAWKER reiterated that the 22 percent rate was picked as a
convenient number for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that a fixed consolidated rate allows
for some long range planning by employers, but does not alter
their obligation to pay their unfunded liabilities.
8:27:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated some concern with tying this
approach to revenue sharing. She opined that it may be
preferable to fix the system at a set point in time, and offer
incentives to encourage communities to use bonds or other
methods to reduce their liabilities. She reminded the committee
that some communities receive very little revenue sharing funds.
CHAIR HAWKER suggested that the letter of intent should identify
the main issues raised and also set forth that any approach
resulting in a "winners and losers" system needs further
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that HB 206 has no language about how
to address the issue of "winners and losers" that will occur if
the state adopts a cost share approach for PERS. He suggested
that a preferable approach may be to forward something more
detailed to the House Finance Committee for its consideration.
8:30:41 AM
CHAIR HAWKER expressed some concern that the approach discussed
today is so different from HB 206 that it is really a separate,
competing piece of legislation which would require further
vetting. However, he reiterated his willingness to proceed with
a letter of intent that will encompass the committee's concerns
with HB 206.
8:34:21 AM
CHAIR HAWKER moved to adopt a letter of intent to the House
Finance Committee encapsulating the main points of today's
discussions as conceptual Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection and there being no
further objection, conceptual Amendment 3 to HB 206 was adopted.
8:38:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Amendment 2, 25-GH1074\A.1, Wayne,
4/10/07, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 8, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) Notwithstanding AS 39.35.255, added by sec.
5 of this Act, an employer that made employer
contributions under former AS 39.35.270 for the period
beginning July 1, 2002, and ending June 30, 2006,
that, when combined, exceed the minimum required of
the employer for that period by former AS 39.35.270
shall receive a credit equal to the excess and may
apply the credit toward payment of employer
contributions under AS 39.35.255 for subsequent
years."
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected.
8:39:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 2 allows
employers to receive a credit for excess contributions. He said
that if the House Finance Committee adopts some kind of
mechanism to account for overpayments, Amendment 2 would not be
needed. However, if no mechanism to account for overpayments is
adopted, then Amendment 2 provides a mechanism to determine a
credit amount for those employers who have made extra efforts to
pay their unfunded pension liabilities. The time period chosen
is the time for which the unfunded liability was determined. He
noted that 22 communities made extra payments towards their
unfunded liabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH suggested that Amendment 2 should be
inserted in a different section of the bill then stated in the
amendment.
8:43:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Amendment 2 and offered
conceptual Amendment 2 which would have the same wording as
Amendment 2, but would be inserted in the most appropriate place
in HB 206.
CHAIR HAWKER objected for discussion purposes. There being no
further objections or discussion, Chair Hawker withdrew his
objection to conceptual Amendment 2 and it was adopted by the
committee.
8:45:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered Amendment 1, 25-GH1074\A.4,
Wayne, 4/09/07, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, following line 31:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 39.35.260(b), enacted in sec. 7 of
this Act, is repealed July 1, 2008."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 28:
Delete "Sections 15 and 16"
Insert "Sections 16 and 17"
Page 8, line 29:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 19"
CHAIR HAWKER objected for discussion purposes.
8:45:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that there are many variables to
consider when determining the merits of a cost share system. He
stated his opinion that the legislature should be able to
revisit these issues, and that Amendment 1 would provide that
opportunity.
CHAIR HAWKER said he has some concerns regarding Amendment 1.
8:48:01 AM
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE KREITZER opined that the provisions in
Amendment 1 may force DOA to renegotiate at a time that may not
be appropriate. She suggested that the legislature has the
ability to re-visit issues at any time, and that a one-year
sunset provision would actually be more constraining by setting
a specific time to re-visit the issues covered by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG set forth that he is not committed to
the approach in Amendment 1, but suggested there may be some
need to follow up on how the cost share provisions are working.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE KREITZER suggested that legislative
committees with jurisdiction over DOA could request that the
Commissioner appear to present information on the progress of
the PERS\TRS issues.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated she opposes Amendment 1 as it
will sunset section 7 of HB 206 possibly before debate on the
issue is closed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 1.
CHAIR HAWKER reminded the committee that the PERS liability is
one of the paramount issues facing the state and it will likely
remain in public view.
8:54:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved to report HB 206, Version 25-
GH1074\A, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying indeterminate fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 206 (W&M) was reported from the
House Special Committee on Ways and Means.
[Patrick Shier, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits,
was introduced to the committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was adjourned at
9:03:26 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|