Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/2010 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR2 | |
| SB237 | |
| SB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2010
9:17 a.m.
9:17:14 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:17 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras; Senator Kevin Meyer; Carl Rose,
Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Board;
Carol Comeau, Superintendent, Anchorage School District;
Mary Francis, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators; Tim Benintendi, Staff, Senator Olson; Randy
Bates, Director, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management,
Department of Natural Resources; Marilyn Crockett,
Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association; Pete
Slaiby, Vice President, Shell Alaska; Wayne Stevens,
President, Alaska State Chamber; Paul Laird, General
Manager, Alaska Support Industry Alliance; Kathie
Wasserman, Executive Director, AML. Mayor Edward Itta,
North Slope Borough;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Marlene Campbell, City and Borough of Sitka; Maureen Mr.
Campbell Crea, Self, Anchorage; Tom Lohman, North Slope
Borough; Steve Borell, Alaska Miners Association.
SUMMARY
HCR 2 IN-STATE GAS PIPELINE
HCR 2 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal
note from the Senate Finance Committee.
SB 4 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SB 4 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 237 SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DEBT REIMBURSEMENT
SB 237 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Requesting the governor to provide energy security for
all Alaskans by pursuing development of a natural gas
bullet pipeline from the North Slope to the Cook Inlet
region; and requesting the governor to identify and
negotiate with one or more persons capable of
producing natural gas from the Gubik area, and other
areas on the North Slope if necessary, in sufficient
quantities to support a bullet pipeline project.
Senator Huggins MOVED to ADOPT work draft 26-LSO264\M. Co-
Chair Stedman OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS disclosed that this was the
second hearing of the resolution by the Senate Finance
Committee. He commented on the issue's maturation.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the changes made in the CS.
Representative Ramras explained the changes in the CS. He
commented on Line 14 and discussion regarding jeopardizing
the supply to consumers relying on production from the Cook
Inlet region. He highlighted Page 3, Lines 19-22 which
reflects the Senate Resource Co-chairs studying gas to
liquids programs. He informed that Fischer-Tropsch projects
were large for the Alaskan marketplace. He claimed that the
technology is now advanced and appropriate.
9:21:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asserted that Representative Ramras was
detailing the CS.
Representative Ramras explained the CS through sectional
analysis. He noted that Alaska now has a standalone gas
Pipeline project advanced by the plan created by Harry
Noah. He discussed Line 14, which mirrors some of the
aspirations in HB 369. He commented on Line 17 through Line
20 concerning a precipitous decline in the taps line
necessitating alternative revenue sources for the export of
lesser priced energy for those Alaskans living along the
Yukon River. Line 21 and 22 recognize two imminent open
seasons. He highlighted Lines 23 through 26 that recognize
a heavily conditioned open season for the pipeline. The
open season would provide the most efficient method of
delivery for the least expensive gas to Alaskans, which is
impossible if the project is so heavily conditioned to be
delayed for an indeterminable amount of time. He continued
with Line 27 through 29 which reinforces the concern
regarding moving forward into the construction phase for a
large diameter gas pipeline. He discussed Page 5, Lines 5
through 10 which addressed necessary permits, right of
ways, and specifications. He mentioned Lines 11 through 17
and the two facilities discussed including the importance
of maintaining the existing export license for the Conoco
Phillips Marathon Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility. The
export permit is the only one of its kind in the United
States and serves as an industrial anchor for the purpose
of establishing an instate gas pipeline. He expressed
concern for a project without an industrial anchor as it
becomes simply a concept and no longer a project.
9:28:49 AM
Representative Ramras discussed Lines 18 thorough 21, which
reinforce the need for the administration and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to pursue the renewal
of the license issued by the Department of Energy (DOE). He
mentioned the instate gas caucus which enjoys a membership
of 17 members in the state legislature. He recognized the
continued negotiations with the commercial working group.
He stressed the need for a robust discussion amongst a
commercial working group of buyers and sellers to encourage
the governor and the stand alone pipeline team to continue
those discussions. He stressed the importance of a gas to
liquids program.
9:31:34 AM
Co-Chair Stedman removed his objection. Version M was
adopted.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for an explanation of HCR 2.
Representative Ramras responded that global market place
dynamics have changed. Version M is recognition of the fact
that the dynamics of shale gas and of equatorial tide water
projects have changed in the last year. He thought it
better to take advantage of Japanese Crude Cocktail, which
is a barrel of energy equivalent price computation. He
stressed mindfulness about the necessity of acting quickly
to export natural gas. He felt a responsibility for
determining means of delivering energy to all communities
including the Railbelt. He stated that an economy built on
inexpensive and abundant energy is exemplified by
Anchorage. He noted the initiatives to move in-state gas
forward.
9:37:12 AM
Senator Ellis asked about the interplay between hydro and
natural gas. He commented on the interest in instate
natural gas. He asked about the tradeoff between the two
options.
Representative Ramras responded that Alaska is referred to
as a state in civil war. He noted that one project competes
against another. One project, the Susitna, is large. The
interior comprises the largest coldest community in the
circumpolar globe still tethered to diesel. He noted that
the transportation tariff makes electric heat unlikely. He
opined that HCR 2 speaks to the commercial working group in
addressing the component of demand. He spoke to the likely
hood of a transportation tariff if the proposed pipeline is
only partially full. He stated that he did not see a
contest between large scale hydro and instate gas. He
calculated that the contest was the gathering of a
commercial working group to match buyers and sellers and
create enough demand to allow for a reasonable
transportation tariff. The state's future is in hydro power
and the benefit of hydrocarbons and gas molecules is the
bridge fuel for the next 50 to 100 years.
9:41:10 AM
Senator Huggins commented that the inside support in the
governor's office is helpful. He observed that the process
expressed by Representative Ramras was sound. He agreed
with the various alternatives. He opined that the
psychology of Alaska selling gas was important especially
in-state gas. He underlined that the issue was not only
about the Railbelt, but the logistical distribution system
that allows transport of gas products to remote areas is
important. He asked about key elements concerning the
package and the timeline to allow the project to move
forward. He stressed that the final decision or solution
must be economically viable.
9:43:34 AM
Representative Ramras stressed the importance of the
project's sanction date. He believed that the state could
see a sanction date in a year or two. He elaborated that
Alaskans are interested in the short term plan. He noted
that HCR 2 recognizes that if the state does not proceed
with the project it must consider the importation of gas
into the South Central region. He cautioned that Cook
Inlet's gas supply is depleted and expanding communities
and businesses will have to employ diesel as a fuel source
for the next 10 or 20 years. He advocated for a discussion
between buyers and sellers in the commercial working group.
He advised that the governor's office, administration, and
the Department of Natural Resources engage in the extension
of the export license for the Marathon Conoco Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) facility. He encouraged the members of
both legislative bodies to seek alignment.
9:50:00 AM
Senator Thomas appreciated the resolution as a
comprehensive solution. He expressed support for the
instate gasline. He guessed that if Alaska were to lose
their export license it would be their last leading to
dependence on gas importation.
9:51:18 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about Page 2, Line 22 of the CS. He
wondered about the date of 2016 for transport of natural
gas along the pipeline. He inquired about the optimistic
timeline and wondered if it was a print error.
Representative Ramras opined that Alaska would not see a
large diameter gas pipeline until after the year 2016. The
focus of the resolution is an in-state gas pipeline.
9:52:30 AM
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one zero fiscal note from the
Senate Finance Committee.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report SCSCSHCR 2 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCR 2 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note from the
Senate Finance Committee.
9:55:42 AM
SENATE BILL NO. 237
"An Act extending the deadline for authorizing school
construction debt reimbursed by the state."
9:55:51 AM
Co-Chair Stedman explained the intent to bring SB 237 back
to the committee for the second time and reopen public
testimony by invitation only.
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER stated that he had no additional
comments and supported the amendment by Co-Chair Hoffman.
Co-Chair Stedman reported that the request for a breakdown
by the department of school construction funding for urban
and Regional Education Attendance Area (REAA) schools over
the last twenty years was provided as requested during the
bill's last hearing. He asked Senator Meyer for a brief
synopsis of the bill.
Senator Meyer explained the legislation. He elaborated that
SB 237 extends the debt reimbursement program. The program
is typically renewed for two year periods and is currently
nearing sunset. The program is very important to the urban
schools.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one fiscal note from Department
of Education and Early Development (DEED) showing the cost
of debt reimbursement beginning in FY13 at $3,700,000. He
observed an additional fiscal note just delivered from DEED
reflecting changes in the CS, but he preferred to review it
prior to passing it out to committee members.
Co-Chair Hoffman noted that a ruling by the third judicial
district stated that the system in the current debt
reimbursement system was unconstitutional due to the lack
of focus on rural Alaska. He explained that he was
searching for a funding mechanism for both urban and rural
Alaska.
9:59:57 AM
CARL ROSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA SCHOOL
BOARDS, testified unanimous support of the legislation by
the Association of Alaska School Boards. He recalled the
General Obligation (GO) bond that cleaned up the major
maintenance list eight years ago which lacked a formula to
treat the grant and bonding programs with equity. He noted
the large imbalance regarding the needs of both urban and
rural Alaska. The bill provides a great beginning in
providing a formula for both the grant and bonded debt.
CAROL COMEAU, SUPERINTENDENT, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
testified in support of the legislation. She believed it
fair to have rural Alaska receive funding as she recognized
their needs for new construction as well as the backlog of
deferred maintenance. She applauded the Senate Finance
Committee for bringing this forward.
10:03:46 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman noted the dialog of a sunset for the
legislation. He stated that he was not interested in the
sunset.
Ms. Comeau declared strong support for the elimination of
any sunset date for both the debt reimbursement and the
proposal for the rural funding.
10:04:37 AM
MARY FRANCIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS testified in support of the legislation. She
noted that the bill allows a process to address the needs
of schools for those unable to bond locally. She suggested
an audit for school buildings statewide to allow for better
understanding of the maintenance and school construction
needs.
10:06:10 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman appreciated the testimony on the
contentious issue.
SB 237 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management
program; and establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board."
10:07:00 AM
Senator Olson delivered the sponsor statement.
In 2003, HB 191 instituted significant changes to the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). It unduly
impacted local participation in development reviews
and approvals affecting both state and federal actions
in the coastal zone. Prior to 2003, the program was
not felt to be significantly problematic. Currently,
there are 28 management districts either approved, or
under review for approval. For a list of current
districts, see the Alaska Coastal Management Program
website at
(http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/district/html/progress
final.htm). To identify a community within a
particular coastal district, see
http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/explore/communityindex.
pdf .
The authority for a Consistency Review Process, used
to implement the ACMP, is found at 11 AAC 110. This
process reviews proposed development activities for
conformity with state laws and regulations, federal
laws and regulations, and district enforceable
policies, such as exist now. Under this bill,
districts would be authorized to generate enforceable
policies as they see fit. Two other regulations play
prominent roles, 11 AAC 112 deals with statewide
standards, and 11 AAC 114 deals with the district plan
approval process. The governing statutes are AS 46.39
and AS 46.40.
With the changes from 2003, regulations adopted by the
Department of Natural Resources severely limited the
ability of coastal districts to establish enforceable,
locally-generated policies regarding the eventual
effects of development on coastal resources and uses.
So dramatic were the changes that the federal Office
of Oceans and Coastal Resource Management formally
reviewed state actions for compliance, and took two
years to determine acceptance.
Since the 2003 changes, Alaska's coastal districts
have dealt with controversy and delay by DNR where
achieving suitable district management plans are
concerned. Formerly, disputes over approval of
district plans were resolved by the Coastal Policy
Council. This bill would restore that option to a
new Coastal Policy Board. Disbanding the Council
under HB 191 concentrated all decision-making power
within DNR.
CSSB 4 (CRA) would establish the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board within the Department of Natural Resources, and
restore an authoritative role for local residents, one
that was working acceptably prior to 2003. The new
board would be much trimmer than the pre-2003 panel of
seventeen members. Nine members would compose the new
board, including five public members appointed by the
governor. One of the five would be at-large from any
of the coastal districts, and the others would be
appointed from four defined regions: Northwest
Alaska, Southwest Alaska, Upper Cook Inlet, and
Southeast Alaska. Filling out the board membership
would be the commissioners of DEC, F&G, DNR, and CCED.
DNR would continue to provide day-to-day management
and support.
With the governor appointing five public members and
with four commissioners having seats by definition,
the contention that substantial influences would shift
away from DNR is arguable. Disbanding the Council
under HB 191 concentrated all decision-making power
with the Commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources, and has since shown the changes to be
excessive and less productive.
CSSB 4 (CRA) would also reinstate authority for
locally-generated enforceable policies, streamline
project reviews, provide Board approval of agency-
generated regulations, provide for district management
plan approvals, allow for receiving grants and other
monies, and empower the Board with other
administrative authorities.
The primary thrust of CSSB 4 (CRA) is to return a
measure of authority to local district residents,
through their district organizations, by sharing power
over the Alaska Coastal Management Program
10:09:59 AM
TIM BENINTENDI, STAFF, SENATOR OLSON explained that SB 4
amends the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) by
providing a fair and reasonable approach to coastal
development, which would encourage participation of local
coastal districts, state agencies and project applicants.
The legislation would establish the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board, remove the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) carve-out, and allow coastal districts to establish
meaningful and enforceable policies. He continued that SB 4
streamlines the board size from a 17 to a 9 member board. A
new board would represent coastal districts and all state
resource agencies. The new board would operate on a
consensus basis for nearly all decisions. All members would
be appointed by the governor and DNR would provide support
services to the board. The administration has cautioned
against changes that would make the program more cumbersome
and costly for project developers. He explained that SB 4
does not restore the ability for citizen law suits or
petitions.
Mr. Benintendi continued that local enforceable policies
cannot override state or federal regulations or statutes
and must be clear and concise. Subsistence usage is
identified as a value and is already in coastal
regulations.
10:15:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about Page 13, Line 9 and the
activities within the coastal zone inland. Mr. Benintendi
answered that the provision for review of a project in the
inland area if deemed to impact the coastal zone would be
subject to review by the panel. He explained that a mine
up-land even a dozen miles from the coastal area is subject
to review under the coastal policy board.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if timber harvests were included. He
referred to Page 18 and the US code 1453. Mr. Benintendi
offered to present answers at a later date.
Senator Huggins directed attention to a letter in the
committee packet referring to off shore permit
stipulations. Mr. Benintendi offered to address the issue
at a later date. Senator Olson noted that the letter was
addressed to him and he understood that all communities are
subject to federal law.
10:18:12 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for further discussion on the board.
He was interested in necessary qualifications for board
appointments and public positions. Senator Olson understood
that the board appointees must be residents of one of the
28 coastal districts.
Co-Chair Stedman referred to Page 3, Line 5 and the board's
quorum with the board delegating one or more of the members
the power to hold hearings. He asked about the term "hold
hearings."
10:20:57 AM
Mr. Benintendi suggested that the reference was to
subcommittee hearings.
Co-Chair Stedman noted two fiscal notes, one from DNR for
$165 thousand in general funds to cover the cost of travel
and supplies for the coastal policy board as well as
contractual funds for DNR and draft regulation and another
from DEC for $118,700 for interagency receipts for one
additional person needed to serve as the department's
coastal management coordinator.
Senator Huggins referenced Page 3, Line 24. He asked about
the adoption of regulations to be approved by the board.
Mr. Benintendi thought that the department would draft
regulations and the board would have the option to review
them. Senator Olson clarified the board has the same
authority as they did prior to 2003.
10:23:15 AM
MARLENE CAMPBELL, CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA (via
teleconference), testified in support of SB 4 to
effectively enable Alaska's coastal communities to
participate in the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
Senator Olson requested an outline of the relationship
between Sitka and DNR since 2003. Ms. Campbell recalled an
arduous multiyear process with the city attempting to
revise their coastal program which was gutted by the
proposed changes. She noted that a program was finally
approved in April 2007, which resulted in a lack of
opportunity to comment on the coastal plan.
10:28:25 AM
MAUREEN MR. CAMPBELL CREA, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference) testified in support of the legislation.
She commented that SB 4 addresses several significant
problems in the current Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP). She believed that an effective coastal management
program facilitates development while protecting valuable
uses and resources of the coastal zone through an open and
public process.
10:32:59 AM
TOM LOHMAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He agreed that
areas inland of the coastal zone could be impacted by the
legislation. The board issue allows for public members with
knowledge of the program. He spoke to the fear of restoring
some limited meaningful role for local communities in the
program. He opined that all districts had greater abilities
to adopt local policies before 2003. He argued that
districts could adopt policies that would conflict with
state or federal law and Section 14 prevents them from
doing so.
10:37:01 AM
STEVE BORELL, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (via
teleconference) testified in opposition to SB 4. He
disagreed with the method of establishment of the ACPM
board. He stated that the board's power does not include
the numerous checks and balances that are imposed on the
DNR and would eliminate the requirement for district plans
to meet statewide standards. He claimed that SB 4 would
allow the coastal policy board to define the boundaries of
coastal districts as far inland as they wished, which would
give the coastal districts authority over any activity in
the state.
10:40:00 AM
MAYOR EDWARD ITTA, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, testified in
support of SB 4. He believed that the legislation strikes a
reasonable balance. He asserted that the program is not a
permitting program, but instead one of coordination. He
stated that the program does not create new obstacles to
slow down development projects, but instead establishes a
process for resolving conflicts between project applicants,
agencies and local districts.
10:42:44 AM
RANDY BATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COASTAL AND OCEAN
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, testified that
the department has concerns about the CS for SB 4. The
initial concern is the creation of a new oversight body for
the coastal policy board and vests the body with the
ability to approve enforceable policies that would override
agency authority, effectively rendering the legislative
establishment of laws relative to resource management and
protection moot. The second concern is that the bill is
specific to the issues of a group of ACMP participants but
is not a bill of balance. He opined that the legislation
changes the structure of the ACMP from one of local input
to one of local control. The legislation would allow
enforceable policies to be more restrictive, stringent, and
more prescriptive than existing state and federal laws by
allowing modification of standards and authority of
resource agencies. He stressed recognition that the ACMP
will be subject to a program audit by Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee this year as a result of a sunset
provision within the statute.
10:46:00 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman requested that the department submit a
reasonable address to the expressed concerns.
MARILYN CROCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OIL AND GAS
ASSOCIATION declared strong concerns with the legislation.
She opined that the legislation provides conflicting
requirements, consistent disagreement between local
districts and state agencies about the particular
requirements of a coastal management program.
PETE SLAIBY, VICE PRESIDENT, SHELL ALASKA, testified in
opposition to the legislation. He valued the needs of the
stakeholders in the communities involved. He stated that
Shell Alaska made 250 visits into communities to explain
their intentions. He stated that the existing legislation
at the state and federal levels covers the concerns voiced
by stakeholders. He provided an example regarding public
comment received by Shell Alaska regarding air permits. The
concern with the bill is the series of regulations.
10:52:28 AM
WAYNE STEVENS, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER, testified
in opposition to the legislation. He shared that
significant questions have been insufficiently addressed in
the legislative debate. He opined that SB 4 attempts to
solve a problem that may not exist and has not been well
defined. Without compelling evidence that the current
program does not adequately protect Alaska's coastal
resources or allow for substantial public participation,
the state chamber questions the wisdom of adding complexity
to the permitting process.
10:54:36 AM
PAUL LAIRD, GENERAL MANAGER, ALASKA SUPPORT INDUSTRY
ALLIANCE, testified in opposition to the legislation. He
examined that Alaska's oil and gas industry lost 1500 jobs
in the last year due to a hostile tax environment and
global economic conditions. He opined that SB 4 would
further delay investment and destroy jobs and businesses in
Alaska's resource industries.
10:56:18 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE (AML) testified in support of the legislation. She
explained that the support of SB 4 by AML is in an effort
to restore their ability to regain a meaningful seat at the
table.
Senator Olson concluded that the bill's impetus was lack of
movement or compromise on behalf of the opposition to
rectify the situation.
SB 4 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsor Stmt HCR 2.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 2 |
| SB 237 Sponsor Statement.docx |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| SB 237 Sectional SFIN.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| SB 237 Kasayulie Ruling.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| SB 237 DEED Capital Projects.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| sb237 Sectional Analysis[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| sb237 Program Funding_Historical and Projected[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| SB4 Index Map[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 Sectional Analysis[2].doc |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| SB 4 Bill Packet[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| 2009 SB 4 CRA opposition RDC.PDF |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| 2009 SB 4 CRA opposition RDC.PDF |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| HCR 2 SCS FIN 032910 Version M.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 2 |
| SB 4 ACMP SFIN 03 30 10.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| SB004CS(CRA)-DEC-CO-3-29-10.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| SB 237 Maintenance Reimbursement 2010.pdf.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| SB 4 AOGA letter 03 30 10.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| 2009 CSSB 4 CRA sponsor statement.doc |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| 2009 CSSB 4 CRA sectional analysis.doc |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| SB 4 Shell Testimony SFIN 033010.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| SB 4 AK Miners Assoc. SFIN 032910.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
| SB 237 ACSA Position Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| SB 4 Mayor Itta SFIN 033010.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |