Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/31/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR21 | |
| SJR23 | |
| SB104 | |
| SB140 | |
| HB199 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2014
9:07 a.m.
9:07:13 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair(via teleconference)
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Heather Shadduck, Staff, Senator Pete Kelly; Nancy Meade,
General Counsel, Alaska Court System; Diane Barrans,
Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education and Early Development,
Executive Officer, Alaska Student Loan Corporation;
Christine Marasigan, Staff Senator Kevin Meyer; Senator
Fred Dyson; Joshua Banks, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson; Jesse
Logan, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire; Representative Bryce
Edgmon; Captain Steven Arlow, Department of Public Safety,
Anchorage;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Robert Dotson, Self, Cordova;
SUMMARY
SJR 21 CONST. AM: MEMBERSHIP OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL
CSSJR 21(2d FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1(GOV)
and a previously published fiscal impact note:
FN2(CRT).
SJR 23 CONST. AM: STUDENT LOAN DEBT
SJR 23 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact
note from the Office of the Governor and a new
fiscal impact note from the Legislature.
SB 104 APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE DIVIDEND FUND
CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal
impact note from Senate Finance Committee for the
Department of Corrections and with a previously
published zero fiscal note: FN2(ADM), a
previously published zero fiscal note: FN3(LAW),
and a previously published zero fiscal note:
FN6(AMD).
SB 140 AIDEA: ARCTIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM/FUND
CSSB 140(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note:
FN1(CED).
HB 199 VPSO FIREARMS
HB 199 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska to increase the number of members on the
judicial council and relating to the initial terms of
new members appointed to the judicial council.
9:09:18 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ask unanimous consent to RESCIND
the committee's previous action on SJR 21. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:09:35 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SJR 21, Work Draft 28-LS1364\P (Wallace,
3\28\14) as a working document. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
9:10:00 AM
Co-Chair Kelly commented that what the committee had
previously voted on was to increase the number of public
members on the judicial council in order to allow the
practical establishment of more regional diversity on the
council. Secondly, because there were 3 public members and
3 attorney members, there were times when those two groups
had an even split on a nominee; the split put the Supreme
Court Justice in the position of having a conflict of
interest as they voted with one side or the other. He
explained that there were concerns that justices could have
an influence on choosing colleagues that would agree with
their views. He had discovered that the biggest concern
that people had with the state's constitution regarding the
judicial council was that the attorney members were not
required to be confirmed by the legislature; however, the
public members had to go through the confirmation process
just like the other state boards. He thought that there was
support to pass the resolution on the floor with the
previous CS, but that it made sense to address the glaring
concerns regarding the attorney members of the board being
beyond the scrutiny of elected officials; he offered that
having the attorney members be beyond the scrutiny of the
legislature did not sit well "our" way of life and how
almost every other part of our government and constitution
worked. He observed that in the new CS, the Alaska Bar
Association would still appoint the 3 attorney members, but
that the appointees would come before the legislature to be
confirmed. He added there was also language in the CS that
addressed a quorum, but that his staff would speak to those
changes.
9:13:09 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wanted the public to be aware that public
testimony would not be taken on the CS because the
committee had already taken public testimony on the
previous version.
9:13:49 AM
HEATHER SHADDUCK, STAFF, SENATOR PETE KELLY, spoke to the
changes reflected in Version P. The first change could be
found on Page 1, lines 10 and 11:
The three attorney members and six non-attorney
members shall be subject to confirmation be a majority
of the members of the legislature in joint session.
Ms. Shadduck noted that the next change could be found on
Page 2, lines 2 and 3:
The judicial council shall act by a majority vote of a
quorum of at least seven members and according to
rules which it adopts.
Ms. Shadduck explained that the language had been change in
order for a quorum to be more easily attainable.
9:15:02 AM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that the 7 members still kept the
committee's desire to not have the Supreme Court Justice in
the position of having a possible conflict of interest. He
further explained that having 7 members on the judicial
council, instead of 6, removed the need for the Supreme
Court Justice to break a possible tie.
9:15:32 AM
Ms. Shadduck stated that there had been concern that
without a quorum threshold, the judicial council might
conduct business with only 2 members; however, it was not
the sponsors' intent. She pointed out that putting in a
quorum at a higher threshold ensured that all voices would
be heard.
9:16:12 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that the Supreme Court had not given her direction on the
confirmation of attorney members by the legislature. She
pointed out that the issue had not been an oversight in the
constitutional convention; there had been extensive
discussion regarding the decision to not have attorney
members approved by the legislature. She stated that the
reasoning of the constitutional framers was that the
attorney members should be free from any thinking of
whether a nominee would be acceptable to the legislature,
whether republican or democrat. She opined that the
constitutional founders had wanted the attorney members to
be clear of political hurdles so that the bar membership
could put the best people on the Judicial Council without
having the concern of whether that person would pass muster
in the legislative confirmation process. She concluded that
not requiring attorney members to be confirmed by the
legislature was not an oversight, but was a purposeful
decision by the constitutional founders.
Ms. Meade furthered that the court opposed the resolution
because of the imbalance in the number of public members
versus attorney members. The concern was that with the
imbalance, there was substantial potential for public
members to choose applicants to submit to the governor
based on considerations other than the applicant's
qualifications to be a quality judge. She responded to a
previous question from Vice-Chair Fairclough and noted that
the Judicial Council did play a large role in the retention
of judges and not just in the selection and screening
process. She explained that the Judicial Council came up
with recommendations on whether a judge should or should
not be retained and that the information was published in
the voter information pamphlet. She explained that the
council ascertained its opinion of a judge by surveying law
enforcement, court staff, jurors, social workers, volunteer
Court Appointed and Special Advocates (CASA) workers; it
also conducted public hearings and looked at a judge's case
files, performance, and records of reversal on appeal. The
court's concern was the threat of retaliation for any judge
that made a decision that was contrary to the governor's
position. She did not believe that the resolution did
service to the Alaska Court System or Alaskans.
9:21:41 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asserted that the bill dealt with regional
diversification on the Judicial Council. He pointed out
that the only 2 rural members that had been on the council
were both public members; the last rural member was in
1987, from Barrow; and the one before that was 1961, from
Kotzebue. He believed that by adding the extra public
members, the governor would have the opportunity to expand
rural representation. He suggested that the framers of
Alaska's constitution had made an oversight in assuring
adequate representation, for all groups, stretching across
a great expanse. He asserted that even judges should be
held accountable by the public. He warned that the judicial
system should not become arrogant in believing it could
escape the scrutiny of the people of Alaska. He likened the
council to the board of barbers and hairdressers and
believed that its members should be equally scrutinized.
9:27:02 AM
Senator Olson thought that having more members on the
council would increase the chances of having rural members
on the board. He commented there had been two judicial
council members from his district, but none from Senator
Hoffman's district.
9:27:32 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSSJR 21(2d FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSJR 21(2d FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1(GOV) and a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2(CRT).
9:27:51 AM
AT EASE
9:32:10 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to contracting state debt for
postsecondary student loans.
9:32:44 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough related that SJR 23 would add to the
constitution the authorization to issue the full faith and
credit for student postsecondary loans. She related that
Alaska's forefathers could not have contemplated the debt
load or the cost of postsecondary education that currently
existed in the United States. She reported that currently,
the Alaska State Constitution only allowed for the full
faith and credit of the state for capital improvements or
housing loans for veterans. She stated that if the
resolution was passed by a two-thirds majority by both the
House and the Senate, the Alaska Student Loan Corporation
would be able to utilize the best possible financing to
benefit students who accessed loan services from the State
of Alaska. She pointed out that regarding process, if the
resolution passed in the current session and was put on the
2014 ballot, a loan could not be issued until the student
loan corporation made that recommendation and brought it
back to the legislature; if the legislature approved the
resolution at this time, it would be advanced to the people
of Alaska again on. She believed that the issue needed to
be put before voters during the general election of 2014
because waiting until the next legislative session would
disadvantage students even further. She stated that the
current student loan rate for students who accessed loans
in Alaska was 7.3 percent and noted that the federal rate
on loans was 3.86 percent. She thought that if the full
faith and credit of the State of Alaska could be used and
the loans were still repaid, students who took loans
through the state could save 1 percent or greater in the
bond market.
9:35:29 AM
Co-Chair Meyer OPENED public testimony.
9:36:15 AM
ROBERT DOTSON, SELF, CORDOVA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the resolution. He wondered why the State of
Alaska found it necessary to have a 7.3 percent interest
rate on student loans when a less than .5 percent interest
passbook saving could be issued at a bank. He thought that
the high interest rate made it difficult to pay off student
loans. He stressed that Alaska's young people were unable
to buy a home, rent an apartment, or buy a vehicle while
also paying student loans.
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
9:38:38 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that a letter of support from the
Alaska Student Loan Corporation was located in member
files.
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALASKA STUDENT LOAN
CORPORATION, replied in the affirmative. She said that the
corporation had been working with its financial advisor
over the last year in order to identify way in which the
rates that Alaska residents paid on the loans could be
reduced, as well as possible ways to make the loan more
accessible to Alaska students.
9:39:51 AM
Co-Chair Meyer requested an explanation of why the state's
interest on student loans was 7.3 percent.
Ms. Barrans replied that since the establishment of the
Alaska Student Corporation in 1987, the way the loans had
been financed was that debt was issued in the financial
markets that was backed by the assets of the loans. She
reported that the markets had taken a substantial turn for
the worse regarding the pricing of the state's loans as
well as the underwriting criteria that was expected to be
applied to the loans. She related in the current bond
market, the cost of the funds alone for the state using
bonds was around the high 4 percent low 5 percent, without
consideration of the cost of servicing the loans. She
stated that the underwriting criteria had been changed in
2009 because the rating agencies and bond buyers were
exhibiting increased scrutiny of the underlying assets. She
said that borrowers currently had to establish good credit
or have a co-signer with established good credit.
9:41:45 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired whether the default rate among
students had contributed to the high interest rate.
Ms. Barrans replied that the default rate was not a factor
in the cost of funds. She explained that the bond was asset
backed and that the rates had risen in recent years. She
furthered that the default rate came into consideration
when the state was structuring the bond deals themselves.
She said that when examining the amount of assets to the
bonds that were issued, the higher the fault rate in a
portfolio would require an increase in the amount of
collateral necessary.
9:43:00 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired what type of collateral was needed
and whether the parents were required to co-sign.
Ms. Barrans replied that if the applicant did not meet the
credit test, a co-signer would be necessary.
9:43:21 AM
Co-Chair Meyer queried what the default rate was for
student loans.
Ms. Barrans replied that the last published annual rate was
6.4 percent; the rate had been lower in the past but had
risen due to the economic climate on a national level.
9:43:52 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked how Alaska's rate compared on the
national level.
Ms. Barrans responded that the rate was average. She said
that rates varied as to whether or not a co-signer was
required; many alternative education loan providers
required a co-signer.
9:44:32 AM
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the corporation was required
to make money off the loan program and then give a dividend
back to the state. He thought that instead of giving a
dividend to the state the rates for students could be
reduced.
Ms. Barrans replied that in 2001-2002 there had been an
expectation that corporations return funds to the state for
other uses. She said that the corporation's statutes were
amended to indicate that any year that there was net income
a dividend would be provided back to the state.
9:47:02 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired whether the program would be
available for out-of-state students.
Ms. Barrans replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer surmised that the loans could be used a
recruiting tool for the university.
Ms. Barrans agreed.
9:48:05 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the program could result in
additional risk to the state.
Ms. Barrans responded that the objective would be to
structure the loans and bond issues in a way that would
mitigate the risk to the state. Ultimately, the bonds were
general obligation bonds, but the Texas model, used in the
development of the proposal, was based on general
obligation debt and had never resulted in the State of
Texas making repayments.
9:49:37 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired //. Ms. Barrans replied that the
commission promoted the federal loans if the rate was
better///.
Co-Chair Meyer realled that some were income based and
inquired//. Ms. Barrans responded that//.
9:50:39 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if Department of Education and
Early Development required//. Ms. Barrans responded that
that it was not a requirement, but that///.//.
9:50:58 AM
Co-Chair Meyer queried the amount that the student could
receive from the state versus the amount they could receive
from the federal government.
Ms. Barrans said that the commission promoted use of the
federal loans, provided it was a better deal for the
student. She furthered that the commission urged students
to view the loans from the state as supplemental loan used
to fill any gap in tuition payment. She explained that the
annual maximum for an undergraduate student was $8500 per
year.
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the loans on the federal
level were based on income but that the state's loans were
not.
Ms. Barrans responded that the state loans were not income
based. She said that the federal subsidy available to
borrowers was income based. She stated that the federal
loan was an entitlement, anyone could borrow it and certain
benefits were available based on family income.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) was required for the state loan.
Ms. Barrans relayed that if the FAFSA was required by the
school the student would need to complete it; however, it
was not a requirement of the student loan program.
Co-Chair Meyer asked the University of Alaska required the
FAFSA.
Ms. Barrans said that they either required or strongly
encouraged the FAFSA. She suggested that the online form
had become easier to fill out and that completing the
application would help students access all the aid
available to them.
9:51:49 AM
Senator Olson wonders why a student would take out a loan
at 7.3 percent interest when they could receive a loan from
another institution at a lesser rate.
Ms. Barrans thought that if a student could pay for their
education using only the lower rate federal loans then they
should do so.
9:52:41 AM
Senator Olson highlighted the default rate of 6.4 percent.
He wondered how the state would continue to manage the
default rate during unstable economic climates.
Ms. Barrans replied that the bond deals were structured
with overcollateralization; one of the factors the state
considered was what was expected not to be collected on the
loans, either from default or permanent disability. She
asserted that it would not be expected that the state
would, in any way, subsidize the program.
9:53:31 AM
Senator Olson assumed that there would be no dividend paid
to the state as a result of the program.
Ms. Barrans responded that it had never been the
corporation's objective to be able to pay a dividend to the
state.
9:54:22 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered if there would be opposition to
changing the constitution to include the loans.
Ms. Barrans replied that one of the benefits was that there
did not seem to be any opposition other than people not
wanting to alter the state constitution.
9:55:27 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the loans could be limited only
to students enrolled in schools within the state.
Ms. Barrans replied that it would be a policy call. She
thought a reduction in loan volume could be an unexpected
consequence. She said that the number of students already
receiving loans was small. She added that when trying to
scale a program to achieve efficiencies in terms of cost of
servicing, the smaller the program is the more expensive is
for those participating. If the size of the borrowing
population can be expanded then the cost is spread over a
greater number of individuals thereby reducing the cost for
all.
9:56:52 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked the denial rate percentage
Ms. Barrans responded that it was approximately 40 percent.
9:57:14 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that allowing the percentage
rates to drop would allow for the possibility for the
commission to reduce the required credit score.
Ms. Barrans replied that the credit criteria could probably
be moderated. She stated that one of the advantages to
having a general obligation back bond was that rating
agencies looked to the credit of the state that was backing
the bond. She did not think that the credit criteria could
be eliminated, but it could be moderated to be more readily
available to students.
9:58:43 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that the resolution would
benefit the people of Alaska and the state's student loan
program.
9:59:42 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT SJR 23 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SJR 23 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note from the
Office of the Governor and a new fiscal impact note from
the Legislature.
10:00:05 AM
AT EASE
10:03:08 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to appropriations from the dividend
fund; creating the criminal fund; and providing for an
effective date."
10:03:21 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 104, WORK DRAFT 28-LS0847\E (Martin,
3/28/14) as a working document. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
10:03:42 AM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, STAFF SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, spoke to
the changes in the new bill version. She said that the
changes dealt with paying for arrearages and how the fund
would be divided between the priorities that were
originally laid out in the legislation. She explained that
the substantive changes to the legislation could be found
on Page 4, lines 2 through 12. She relayed that the
sponsor's original prioritization that a portion of the
fund went to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board had been
maintained, a percentage had been added as a guideline. The
second priority in the current bill went directly towards
sexual assault response teams and domestic violence
intervention projects that input data into the Alaska
Public Safety Information Network. She added that the
remaining amount would be available to the Department of
Corrections for costs related to incarceration and
probation; monies from the permanent fund's criminal fund
went to pay for healthcare for incarcerated inmates. The
new section offered general guidelines on how the funds
would be distributed.
10:06:05 AM
SENATOR FRED DYSON appreciated the work of the committee on
the legislation.
10:06:29 AM
Co-Chair Kelly expressed discomfort that child support had
been removed from the bill.
10:06:40 AM
Senator Dyson interjected that removing child support had
been a difficult decision. He said that there were tens of
millions of dollars worth of arrearages that had not been
paid. He believed that the intent of the bill had remained
intact.
10:07:43 AM
Ms. Marasigan spoke to the funds that would go towards
arrearages. She said that legislative legal had asserted
that how the money would be dispersed could constitute a
violation to the constitution because it would be relieving
a personal debt. She said that it was difficult to find a
mechanism in which to make it work within the confines of
the legislation. She offered that there were still
arrearages that would need to be taken care at some point
in the future.
10:08:42 AM
Senator Dyson offered that the bill was an attempt to
restore victims to a pre-offense condition. He felt that
the children of criminals were victims. He said that a
perpetrators debt, either to his victim or to his children,
did not disappear with the passage of the bill. He believed
that the issue would be revisited in the future.
10:10:45 AM
JOSHUA BANKS, STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, stated that the
sponsor had tried to work out the child support issue. He
expressed satisfaction with the changes in the legislation
made by the committee.
10:12:09 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSSB 104(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note from
Senate Finance Committee for the Department of Corrections
and with a previously published zero fiscal note:
FN2(ADM), a previously published zero fiscal note:FN3(LAW),
and a previously published zero fiscal note FN6(AMD).
10:12:29 AM
AT EASE
10:16:08 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 140
"An Act creating the Arctic infrastructure development
program and fund in the Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority."
10:16:30 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 140, WORK DRAFT 28-LS1246\T (Martin,
3/29/14) as a working document. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
10:17:01 AM
Ms. Marasigan explained the changes in the new CS.
10:18:12 AM
Senator Bishop noted "shorebased" on page 8 and
inquired///. Ms. Marasigan//.
10:18:42 AM
JESSE LOGAN, STAFF, SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, addressed the
changes in the new CS.
10:19:47 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1(copy on file):
Page 7, line 11
After "fishery"
Delete "or"
Insert "and"
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
10:20:56 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSSB 140(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 140(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN1(CED).
10:21:32 AM
AT EASE
10:23:18 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 199
"An Act relating to Department of Public Safety
regulations allowing village public safety officers to
carry firearms."
10:23:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, introduced HB 199.//.//.
10:26:06 AM
Co-Chair Meyer required an explanation of the fiscal note
that was attached to the bill. Representative Edgmon//.
10:27:02 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the backup did show some
expense//.
10:27:28 AM
Senator Olson though that the bill was a good one and that
all it did was remove the prohibition for VPSOs//.
10:27:49 AM
Senator Bishop supported the bill and noted that///.
10:28:32 AM
Senator Dunleavy inquired where the troopers were in the
bill.
10:28:56 AM
CAPTAIN STEVEN ARLOW, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of the bill.
10:29:46 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:30:03 AM
Co-Chair Meyer liked the bill but indicated that he would
hold the// he inquired if Senator Olson was carrying the
companion bill. Senator Olson//.
10:30:25 AM
AT EASE
10:30:52 AM
RECONVENED
10:31:35 AM
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the following meeting's agenda.
10:32:02 AM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 03 08_UA support of SJR23 and SB195.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 195 |
| Fiscal Note SJR23-LEG-SESS-03-07-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR23supportLttrBarrans.pdf |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR21 Kawerak Testimony.msg |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 21 |
| SJR21 Testimony in Support HJR 33 Larry Wood.doc |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 21 |
| SJR21 opposition - Otte.msg |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 21 |
| SJR21 support - Jones.msg |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 21 |
| SJR21 support - Torrison.msg |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 21 |
| SJR21 support - Zobel.msg |
SFIN 3/31/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 21 |