Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/24/2022 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB25 | |
| SB33 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 24, 2022
1:02 p.m.
1:02:26 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson (via teleconference)
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Click Bishop; SENATOR GARY
STEVENS, SPONSOR; Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens;
Jeremy Woodrow, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Juneau;
Chris Barrows, Pacific Seafood Processors Association,
Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Nicole Reynolds, Deputy Tax Director, Department of
Revenue; Mark Palmer, CEO Ocean Beauty Seafoods, Inc.,
Anchorage; Abby Fredrick, Director of Communications,
Silver Bay Seafoods, Juneau; Julianne Curry, CEO Ocean
Beauty Seafoods, Inc., Kodiak; Haley Paine, Deputy
Director, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural
Resources; Steve Masterman, Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, State Geologist, Fairbanks.
SUMMARY
SB 25 STATE GOV'T FINANCES: WEBSITE
CSSB 25(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
five "do pass" recommendations and with a new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration.
SB 33 SEAFOOD PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
SB 33 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 104 GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
SB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to the establishment and maintenance
of an Internet website providing information on state
government financial transactions and specifying the
information to be made available on the website."
1:03:20 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR stated that the bill
would create an online searchable website of state
expenditures. He stated the state was rated forty-ninth out
of the fifty states in terms of public access to the
states financial information. He shared that the bill had
widespread support and was hopeful that it would quickly
move from committee.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute
for SB 25, Work Draft 32-LS0217\W (Marx, 2/20/22).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
1:04:17 PM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, explained the
proposed committee substitute. discussed the Explanation of
Changes (copy on file):
Page 4, line 30 Page 5, line 9
Rearranges 37.05.215(c)(2) and (3) to clarify the
Department of Administration is to be responsible for
maintaining the portion of the Alaska Online Checkbook
that provides information related to independent
contractors and service procurement contracts.
Page 5, line 24-25
Clarifies the definition of expenditure does not
include salary and wage payments to state employees
and benefit payments to a member or former member of a
state retirement system.
Page 5, line 26-27
Adds new language to clarify that PFD payments would
not be included in the Online Checkbook.
Page 6, line 6
Changes delayed availability effective date to October
1, 2023
Page 6, line 12
Changes transitional provision effective date to
October 1, 2024
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Wielechowski explained the new fiscal impact note
for $250,000 of capital cost.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to REPORT CSSB 25(FIN) from
committee with individual recommendation and attached new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Administration.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 25(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations and with a new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Administration.
1:08:12 PM
AT EASE
1:09:19 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 33
"An Act relating to a seafood product development tax
credit; providing for an effective date by repealing
secs. 32 and 35, ch. 61, SLA 2014; and providing for
an effective date."
1:10:23 PM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation.
He stated that the proposal was a direct economic benefit
policy, which had been used in the past for salmon and
herring. The bill extended the sunset date, and broadened
the scope of the tax credit to include investment
incentives for pollack and prawn products. He shared that
the bill was a partial reimbursements for investments in
hardware, machinery, and infrastructure in the processing
industry.
1:11:26 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, offered background
to the legislation.
Co-Chair Bishop requested a Sectional Analysis.
Mr. Lamkin discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Sec. 1: AS 43.75.035(b)(1) and (2), relating to tax
credits applied to value-added activity for the
processing of salmon and herring products, (1) adds
the fisheries of pollock and cod as applicable for the
tax credit; and (2) extends the sunset of the
applicable tax credits through year 2025.
Sec. 2: AS 43.75.035(c), conforming amendment,
relating to applying a tax credit for investment
equipment used to process salmon or herring, to
include equipment used for processing pollock and cod.
Sec. 3: AS 43.75.035(d), conforming amendment,
relating to a 3-year carry-forward of unused tax
credits for the processing of salmon and herring, adds
the same carry-forward of tax credits to be applicable
for pollock and cod processing.
Sec. 4: AS 43.75.035(e), relating to the 50 percent of
liability cap on applicable tax credits, is legal
drafting statutory clean-up, deleting a duplicative
and redundant clause already contained in Section 1 of
the bill.
Sec. 5: AS 43.75.035(g)(5), conforming amendment,
relating to state claw-back of a carry-forward tax
credit, in the event an asset used for the processing
of salmon or herring to which a carry-forward applies,
if the asset is removed from the state, adds pollock
and cod in determining qualified investment of
processing within the state.
1:16:02 PM
Co-Chair Bishop surmised that the section applied to hard
assets like processing equipment.
Mr. Lamkin agreed. He continued with the Sectional
Analysis:
Sec. 6: AS 43.75.035(j)(3), conforming amendment,
relating to the definition of "qualified investment"
under this tax credit program, adds investment in
assets used for processing pollock and cod products.
Sec. 7: AS 43.75.035(j)(6), conforming amendment,
relating to the definition of "value-added" products
under this tax credit program, adds processing of
pollock and cod byproducts.
Sec. 8-11: Are historical sunset dates and repealers
of this tax credit program, consolidating all of the
various sunset provisions of the program into a single
sunset, occurring now in section 8, and set for Jan.
1, 2026.
Sec. 12: Sets an effective date for the bill of Jan.
1, 2021.
Senator Hoffman wondered why the proposal was only for a
three year sunset extension.
Mr. Lamkin replied that the decision was historically a
policy call, but relayed that the norm was usually a
five-year extension with variations. He agreed to provide
for detailed information.
Senator Hoffman felt that there should be a minimum of a
four or five-year extension. He stressed that there was
such effort to put a bill through the process.
Mr. Lamkin stated that most recent extension for the
program was in 2014, so the original sunset was eight
years.
Senator Olson wondered whether the Coastal Development
Quota (CDQ) groups weighed in on the bill.
Senator Stevens replied that he had not heard from
processors, but felt that it would be nice to hear from
them.
Mr. Lamkin referred to a list of support letters from
various fishing organizations.
Co-Chair Bishop requested a definition of where fish would
fall in the cod family for tax purposes.
Mr. Lamkin agreed to provide that information.
1:21:13 PM
JEREMY WOODROW, ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, JUNEAU,
testified in support of the legislation. He remarked that
after processing, there was leftover product that could add
potential value to Alaska seafood resources. He stated that
fish bone and fish oil currently generates hundreds of
millions of dollars annually for Alaskas seafood industry.
He stressed that there was financial benefit to the
discarded items after standard seafood processing.
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the bill required
that the value added occur in Alaska, or whether the
addition of value could occur outside of Alaska.
Mr. Woodrow replied that he believed the intention of the
bill was for processing within the state.
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the bill allowed for
a tax credit for value added outside of the state.
Mr. Lamkin replied that the bill was intended only for
assets valued within the state.
Co-Chair Bishop felt that Section 6 would speak to the
question.
Mr. Lamkin stated that DOR was available to answer that
question.
1:26:47 PM
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether the tax credit was only
applicable if the asset was used within the state.
NICOLE REYNOLDS, DEPUTY TAX DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(via teleconference), indicated in the affirmative.
1:27:30 PM
CHRIS BARROWS, PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU, discussed his support of the bill. He pointed to
letters of support and research in the members packets. He
shared that the bill would reestablish a longstanding
program and expand its list of eligible species. He
stressed that the expansion was an important addition to
the existing program.
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether it was possible to have
less product discharge after processing with the expansion
of eligible items.
Mr. Barrows replied that the expansion of technology could
have potential for a decrease in discharge.
1:32:38 PM
AT EASE
1:32:56 PM
RECONVENED
1:33:25 PM
AT EASE
1:35:54 PM
RECONVENED
1:36:40 PM
AT EASE
1:38:50 PM
RECONVENED
1:39:03 PM
MARK PALMER, CEO OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS, INC., ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He remarked on the successful track record of
infrastructure investment, which was still currently in
service. He stressed that his company produced value added
seafood products in every area of Alaska.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for opinion on black cod and its
place in the past and future of the seafood economy.
Mr. Palmer replied that his company had a smoked black cod
product with national distribution through Whole Foods and
Costco. He noted that the availability and abundance of
black cod created economic opportunities.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether black cod should be
included in the bill.
Mr. Palmer replied that it was not yet qualified, and
explained that he did not know whether black cod was
included in the bill.
1:45:18 PM
ABBY FREDRICK, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, SILVER BAY
SEAFOODS, JUNEAU (via teleconference), testified in support
of the legislation. She explained that there had been
significant investment in processing facilities throughout
the state, and operated in several coastal communities. She
stated that Silver Bay Seafoods had utilized past versions
of the program.
1:48:59 PM
JULIANNE CURRY, CEO OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS, INC., KODIAK
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She
explained that there was also a letter of support included
in the members packets. She specifically spoke in support
of the inclusion of pollock and cod in the legislation.
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Senator Wielechowski wondered why there was a distinction
in the bill between the words processed and produced.
Ms. Reynolds replied the department interpreted those words
were that the equipment or product needed to be in the
state of Alaska. She stressed that the product or equipment
outside of the state would not be eligible for the program.
Senator Wielechowski surmised that the fish must be from
and processed within Alaska.
Ms. Reynolds responded that she could not speak to the
location of the harvested fish, but believed that the
intent was for the fish to be harvested within the state.
1:55:55 PM
Mr. Lamkin stated that the intent of the bill was for the
credits to cover Alaska resources.
Senator Wielechowski noted that there was a published
fiscal note from April 2021, which showed a revenue loss,
but the new fiscal note had a significant change.
Ms. Reynolds said that the updated FN had taken the Fall
2021 forecast, which had lower fish values than had been
originally addressed in the bill.
Senator Wielechowski asked about the revenue to the state
general fund from the credits.
Ms. Reynolds replied that DOR had not been involved in the
crafting of the note.
Senator Wielechowski was curious about revenue types and
market changes.
Ms. Reynolds agree to provide the information to the
committee.
Senator Wielechowski cited page 12 of the report. He then
noted the report and read from the report about
confidentiality rules.
2:00:55 PM
Ms. Reynolds stressed that there was an intention for DOR
to provide accurate revenue forecasts, and agreed to
explore confidentiality rules.
Senator Wielechowski stated that he was referring to a
report from the Legislative Finance Division (LFD).
Ms. Reynolds agreed to provide that information related to
the question.
Senator Wielechowski queried an opinion on the bill's
possible retroactivity.
Ms. Reynolds replied that DOR did not take a position, and
would support the legislature.
Senator Wilson wondered whether the bill would apply to
vessels that were both fishing and processing vessels, and
queried the number of those types of vessels that reside in
the state.
Mr. Lamkin replied in the affirmative, and differed to the
industry representatives for the information about the
number of those types of vessels.
Senator Wilson wondered whether the investment in those
vessels would be prorated for the amount used on processing
versus fishing.
Mr. Lamkin looked at page 4 of the bill, and stressed that
the detailed analysis would be provided by DOR.
Senator Wilson stated that he would follow up with DOR.
Ms. Reynolds agreed to provide that information.
SB 33 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:05:27 PM
AT EASE
2:11:12 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to geothermal resources; relating to
the definition of 'geothermal resources'; and
providing for an effective date."
2:11:12 PM
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping.
HALEY PAINE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference),
discussed a presentation (copy on file). She announced she
would begin with slide 18.
Ms. Paine spoke to slide 19, "Purpose of SB 104":
?Modernize Alaska's geothermal exploration program
?Greater potential for providing affordable, renewable
energy to rural communities and remote natural
resource extraction projects
?Promote clean energy industry job creation
?Align geothermal licensing with the oil and gas
exploration license program, thereby increasing
feasibility for companies to develop resources
?More time for a company to identify and prove
resource to convert to leases
?Conversion to leases based on completion of work
commitment and submission of exploration plan instead
of proving discovery of commercial resource
?Doubles maximum acreage allowed for exploration
?Reforms definitions for geothermal resources to focus
on Commercial Use
?Explicitly excludes domestic, noncommercial, or
small-scale industrial use from the need for a
geothermal license or lease
Ms. Paine moved to slide 20, which provided a brief history
of geothermal leasing and permitting in Alaska:
Present Mount Spurr Currently there are two geothermal
exploration prospecting permits in the Mount Spurr
area, both issued during 2021.
Augustine Island An application for a prospecting
permit is under review for Augustine Island.
2013
Augustine Island 26 tracts were offered. Only one
tract was leased to a private individual and no
exploration work was conducted as a result of that
lease sale.
2008
Mount Spurr 16 tracts leased to Ormat and one private
individual. Ormat purchased 15 leases in the 2008 sale
and drilled on southern flank of volcano. They didn't
find adequate temperatures in wells to pursue the
project. The state has the data available on the
website.
1986
Mount Spurr On June 24, 1986, DNR offered 2,640 acres
in two tracts. Both tracts received bids. The lease
for Tract 1 expired in 1996, and the lease for Tract 2
was terminated in 1990.
1983
Mount Spurr DNR held its first geothermal lease sale
in the Mount Spurr area on May 17, 1983. 10,240 acres
in 16 tracts were offered in Competitive Geothermal
Lease Sale 1. One tract received a bid. The lease for
that tract was terminated in 1992.
2:16:19 PM
Ms. Paine spoke to slide 21, "DNR Leasing/Permitting
Process":
?Competitive Lease Sale
?If no competing interest, issue prospecting permit
with two-year time limit
?This bill would update this, replacing 2-year
prospecting permits with 5-year exploration licenses
designed after our modern oil and gas exploration
license program.
?Only after the stipulations of a permit/license are
met can the operator opt to convert to a lease.
?Both processes require Best Interest Finding prior to
disposal
Ms. Paine discussed slide 22, "Sectional Summary":
1 (AOGCC)
Removes unnecessary reference to AS 41.06 from AS
31.05.030(m) because of changes made by Section 9.
2 (DNR)
Changes permits to licenses.
Explicit exemption for geothermal resources intended
for domestic, noncommercial, or small-scale industrial
use (See also Section 9).
Removes preferential rights clause. This provision is
not appropriate for commercial development of State
resources.
3 (DNR)
Changes permit to license.
Extends term of licenses (formerly permits) from two
to five years.
Replaces lease conversion requirement of commercial
discovery and development plan with work commitment
and exploration plan.
4 (DNR)
Changes permit to license.
5 (DNR)
Changes permits to licenses.
Increases maximum acreage from 51,200 to 100,000.
Adds provision for rental fees to be defined in
regulation, rather than statute (easier to update).
6 (DNR)
Adds new subsections to AS 38.05.181 to modernize
unitization statute for geothermal leases to match the
model we use for oil and gas under AS 38.05.180.
7 (DNR)
Replaces AS 38.05.965(6) definition of geothermal
resources(Same as Section 11).
8 (AOGCC)
Amends AS 41.06.020(e), clarifies that AS 41.06 does
not limit DNR's authority over geothermal resource
management on state land.
9 (AOGCC)
Amends AS 41.06.020(f) to add explicit exemption for
geothermal resources intended for domestic,
noncommercial, or small-scale industrial use (See also
Section 2).
10 (AOGCC)
Amends AS 41.06.060(4) definition of geothermal fluid
to remove temperature references and better conform
with other changes in this bill.
11 (AOGCC)
Replaces AS 41.06.060(5) definition of geothermal
resources(Same as Section 7).
12 (AOGCC)
Repeals AS 41.06.005(b) and AS 41.06.030 since
geothermal units are managed by DNR.
1316
General provisions for applicability and effective
dates.
Includes applicability provision for prospecting
permits currently being processed.
Ms. Paine skipped to slide 24, "Section 2: Private Use
Exemption":
? New language added:
A prospecting license or lease is not required under
this section to explore for, develop, or use
geothermal resources if the geothermal resource is
intended for domestic, noncommercial, or small-scale
industrial use.
? This explicitly excludes private geothermal users
from a requirement to apply for a license or lease.
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether there was an example of
volume of water per minute in the bill.
Ms. Paine replied that there was not a specific numeric
requirement, because there was no desire to set limits that
might hinder development.
2:20:06 PM
Senator Wielechowski queried the definition of domestic.
Ms. Paine replied that it referred to an individual
homeowner.
Ms. Paine looked at slide 25, "Section 2: Preferential
Rights":
? Current statute grants preferential rights to a
surface owner to apply for a geothermal prospecting
permit once notice is received of existing application
?Potentially discouraging to commercial
development
?Private landowners usually don't have financial
resources to develop a commercially viable
geothermal resource.
? Surface owner rights are already protected under AS
38.05.130.
?If conflict arises, DNR ensures private
landowners would not be left without heat or
power, or otherwise damaged by commercial
development.
? If a surface use agreement can't be reached,
resolution process is in 11 AAC 86.145.
?DNR holds a hearing wherein the developer must
prove there is no other alternative location for
the well or data acquisition.
?If the Commissioner concurs, developer posts a
bond to compensate landowner for any impacts and
work progresses.
? Public notice is a part of the license issuance
process, and surface owners would be included. Surface
owner notification is also part of later surface-use
permitting.
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether someone who was not
the surface owner could apply to develop a piece of land
that was owned by someone else.
Ms. Paine replied in the affirmative.
Senator Wielechowski surmised that a developer could obtain
the rights to someone elses land.
Ms. Paine replied that the provision was in place
currently, and the bill would not seek to change the
mineral estate.
Senator Wielechowski felt that there would be unhappy
landowners.
Co-Chair Bishop felt that there could be a conversations
about subsurface rights.
Ms. Paine looked at slide 26, "Section 3: Work Commitment":
? Changes prospecting permit to license and increases
term from 2 to 5 years
?Creates greater opportunity for success of
noncompetitive geothermal program
?Conversion to noncompetitive lease through completion
of agreed upon work commitment
?Current process for oil and gas exploration license
?Commitment expressed in dollar figure
?annual reporting and performance objectives
2:25:31 PM
Senator Wielechowski stressed that most oil in the state
was found on either state or federal land. He wondered
whether the state had ever forced a private landowner to
allow and oil an gas company to develop their land.
Ms. Paine replied that it had not occurred for geothermal
exploration. She agreed to provide more information about
oil and gas.
2:26:49 PM
STEVE MASTERMAN, DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL
SURVEYS, STATE GEOLOGIST, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
looked at the slide 27. He stated that the slide had been
revised to be more specific and to remove the temperature
restraint.
Senator Wielechowski asked for an example of brines or
gases that could be artificially pumped into the ground in
the statute.
Mr. Masterman replied that it was less likely that gas or
brines would be injected into geothermal fields. He stated
that the Chena Hot Springs field received injections for a
closed loop environment.
2:30:24 PM
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether any of the brines or
gases could damage water resources, and how to protect
against the damage.
Mr. Masterman replied that production of geothermal fluids
occurred at considerable depths, and water sources would
not be at that level.
Mr. Masterman addressed slide 28, "Sections 7 and 11: New
Definition":
"Geothermal resources" means the natural heat of the
earth; the energy, in whatever form, below the surface
of the earth present in, resulting from, or created
by, or which may be extracted from, such natural heat;
and all minerals in solution or other products
obtained from naturally heated fluids, brines,
associated gases, and steam, in whatever form, found
below the surface of the earth; but excluding oil,
hydrocarbon gases, or other hydrocarbon substances.
?Modern definition for geothermal resources.
?Not limited by temperature because current technology
enables development of cooler geothermal systems.
?Ensures all the State's mineral estate resources are
captured in definition.
ame definition being applied to both DNR and AOGCC
statutes.
Co-Chair Bishop queried the source of the definition.
Mr. Masterman agreed to provide that information.
Senator Wielechowski wondered what happened to the helium
exclusion in the previous definition.
Mr. Masterman replied that Alaska did not have much helium
present, so it was almost not applicable.
2:35:24 PM
Ms. Paine concluded the presentation.
Senator Wielechowski wondered why there was a removal of
the annual rental fee of three dollars an acre.
Ms. Paine replied that the reason was to be more flexible
in the future.
Senator Wielechowski looked at Section 6, and asked for the
rationale behind the repeal of the unitization provisions.
He also queried the legislations impact on royalties.
Ms. Paine replied that the reason for the repeals was to
align with oil and gas exploration. She stated that the
bill would not impact the current royalty structure for
geothermal energy development.
Senator Wilson wondered whether DNR tracked the number of
domestic geothermal insulations in the state.
Ms. Paine replied that the Division of Oil and Gas did not
track the number of domestic heat pumps in the state.
Senator Wielechowski looked at Section 6, and whether it
gave the commissioner the ability to change the lease
requirements with agreement from the lessee.
Ms. Paine replied that the intention of that provision was
to align with the current oil and gas provisions.
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether there was a recent royalty
modification.
Ms. Paine replied in the affirmative.
2:40:05 PM
Senator Wilson queried a definition of "small scale
industrial use."
Ms. Paine replied that there was not a statutory
definition, and explained that it was based on whether
there would be a customer for the product.
Senator Wilson wondered whether Chena Hot Springs would be
considered small scale industrial.
Ms. Paine replied that Chena Hot Springs did not distribute
their power outside of the organization, so they were
exempt from that definition.
Senator Wilson wondered whether it would include commercial
developments for homes or medical facilities.
Ms. Paine replied that they would not go through this
specific regulatory process, but felt that there would be
other permits from different agencies.
Senator Wilson surmised that a developer could bypass the
requirement by working directly with the landowner, as long
as there was no distribution of power.
Ms. Paine replied that anyone who was looking for the size
and scale of resource to develop would fine it more
economic to distribute the resource, however there would be
other public processes for the development of the resource.
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the following day's agenda.
SB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
2:44:04 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:44 p.m.