Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/27/2012 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB167 | |
| SB103 | |
| SB51 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 27, 2012
9:04 a.m.
9:04:18 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance
Committee meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Darwin Peterson, Staff, Senator Bert Stedman; Bruce
Tangeman, Deputy Commissioner, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; Dan Stickle, Petroleum Economist, Department of
Revenue; Senator Hollis French; Senator Joe Paskvan;
Senator Fred Dyson; Bryan Butcher, Commissioner, Department
Of Revenue; Senator Cathy Giessel.
SUMMARY
CSSB 30(2d JUD)
RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
CSSB 30(2d JUD) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new
zero fiscal note from the Department of Public
Safety and a new indeterminate fiscal note from
the Department of Law.
CSSSSB 51(L&C)
STATE VENDING LICENSES
CSSSSB 51(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development.
CSSB 103(L&C)
WORKERS' COMPENSATION FOR FIREFIGHTERS
CSSB 103(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal
impact note from University of Alaska, a new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Administration, and a new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.
SB 167 SEPARATE OIL & GAS PROD. TAX/ DEDUCTIONS
SB 167 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 167
"An Act providing that the tax rate applicable to the
production of oil as the average production tax value
of oil, gas produced in the Cook Inlet sedimentary
basin, and gas produced outside of the Cook Inlet
sedimentary basin and used in the state increases
above $30 shall be 0.4 percent multiplied by the
number that represents the difference between that
average monthly production tax value and $30, or the
sum of 25 percent and the product of 0.1 percent
multiplied by the number that represents the
difference between that average monthly production tax
value and $92.50, except that the total rate
determined in the calculation may not exceed 50
percent; providing for an increase in the rate of tax
on the production of gas as the average production tax
value on a BTU equivalent barrel basis of gas produced
outside of the Cook Inlet sedimentary basin and not
used in the state increases above $30; relating to
payments of the oil and gas production tax; relating
to the lease expenditures that may be deducted when
determining production tax value; relating to
availability of a portion of the money received from
the tax on oil and gas production for appropriation to
the community revenue sharing fund; relating to the
allocation of lease expenditures and adjustments to
lease expenditures; and providing for an effective
date."
9:05:44 AM
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, introduced
himself and presented SB 167. The legislation separated oil
and natural gas for the purpose of calculating the
progressivity portion of the production tax value under AS
43.55. He added that the effort had become commonly known
as "decoupling." Under current law, the tax rate was based
on the combined BTU (British Thermal Unit) value of oil and
gas; however, oil and gas can have vastly different values
on a BTU basis. Recently, North Slope crude had been
trading at $110 dollars per barrel, while the price for
natural gas had been hovering around $3 per million BTU. He
furthered that currently oil was worth more than 40 times
the value of natural gas on a BTU equivalency. When oil is
priced significantly higher than gas, Alaska's coupled tax
structure allowed lowered value gas to dilute the revenues
generated by higher value oil. The net effect was lower tax
liabilities for producers and reduced revenue for Alaska.
Under forecasted production and pricing scenarios, the
state could potentially see upwards of a $2 billion per
year loss in revenue in the event of a major gas sale;
Alaska would be getting no money for its gas and even less
money for its oil. He continued that the current tax
structure not only exposed the state to unnecessary
financial risk, but it also created economic instability
and financial uncertainty for partners looking to invest in
a natural gas pipeline. Under the bill, there would be two
distinct progressivity calculations, which would produce
two different tax rates to be applied separately. First,
progressivity would be calculated on all combined current
activity including, oil, Cook Inlet gas, and other in-state
gas. Second, the progressivity would be calculated
separately for North Slope gas that is exported out of
state. The exclusion of North Slope export gas and the
progressivity calculation for oil meant the gas would not
dilute the value of oil, and oil taxes would not be reduced
as the result of a major gas sale. The progressivity
calculation itself would be unchanged, based on 0.4 percent
of the production value that exceeds $30 per barrel for
oil, and $30 per BTU barrel of oil equivalent for gas. The
base tax rate is unchanged at 25 percent of production tax
value. As in current law, this bill would give the
Department of Revenue (DOR) the authority to adopt
regulations to allocate costs between oil and gas. As the
recipients of confidential cost data, DOR was in the best
position to evaluate costs. He clarified some of the
documents in the packet, including a letter from David Wood
to Co-Chair Stedman from March, 2010.
Co-Chair Stedman clarified the identity of Dr. David Wood.
Mr. Peterson continued to speak about the documents in the
bill packet.
9:10:12 AM
BRYAN BUTCHER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
introduced himself and his staff. He gave a brief
explanation of the overview and indicated that Bruce
Tangeman and Dan Stickle would give the majority of the
presentation.
BRUCE TANGEMAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced himself. He indicated
that the overview would include a high level summary on how
the production tax worked in Alaska, a definition and
detail on "decoupling," and a history of SB 305, which had
passed in 2010.
Mr. Tangeman explained slide 3. The production tax was a
company specific tax where the progressivity affects each
tax payer slightly differently and was based on the
production tax value (PTV). Market price minus
transportation costs determined the gross value at the
point of production (GVPP). The PTV was determined by GVPP
minus lease expenditures.
9:13:03 AM
Co-Chair Stedman indicated that this was the first of many
hearings on the bill and requested a simple overview for
the people at home.
Mr. Tangeman discussed the tax rate on slide 3 as follows:
•Tax Rate
o Base tax rate of 25% of "production tax value"
o Progressivity applies when PTV is over $30 /
barrel of oil equivalent (BOE), and increases
rate by 0.4% for each $1 of PTV over $30 /BOE
o Example: At $50 / BOE PTV, tax rate is 33% (25% +
0.4% * $20)
o At $92.50 / BOE progressivity changes to 0.1% per
$1 of PTV
Mr. Tangeman explained slide 4 titled "FY 11 Production Tax
Calculation." He indicated that it was commonly referred to
as the income statement and was included each year at the
back of the income revenue sources book. He furthered that
the slide had been prepared at the behest of the Senate
Finance Committee. It was meant to be a high level snap
shot view of how the PTV was calculated and the bottom line
revenue was reached. He mentioned that the tax was very
complicated to calculate and detail, so the slide was meant
to be a higher level view.
Mr. Tangeman discussed the first line titled "Avg ANS Oil
Price ($/bbl) & Daily Production (bbls)." For FY 11, which
ended June 30, the average annual oil price was $94.49. The
average production was 602,723 barrels for a value of $56.9
million per day. The total annual production was
219,993,895 barrels of oil. The royalty and federal barrels
were backed out of the tax, leaving the taxable barrels at
190,488,390. The downstream transportation costs like ANS
marine transportation, the TAPS (Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System) tariff, and other transportation costs were backed
out for total transportation costs of $7.17 per barrel. The
lease expenditures, which were the operating and capital
expenses, averaged $21.74 per barrel. The production tax
was then calculated based on the PTV, which was $12.496
million. Using the $94.49 price, the base rate of 25
percent was calculated on the first $30. The resulting
figure was $3.123 billion. The remainder was calculated
with the 0.4 percent incremental going up, and that 0.4
percent was applied to the entire tax base for an
additional $1.788 billion. The total tax due before credits
was $4.901 billion, but the credits applied of $400 million
resulted in $4.501 billion total tax after credits.
9:18:12 AM
Co-Chair Stedman indicated that there was another $400
million in a separate category, bringing the total up to
$800 million. Mr. Tangeman agreed. He explained that tax
credits taken by explorers, who did not have tax liability,
was a separate category.
Mr. Tangeman discussed "What is "decoupling"" on slide 5:
•Under current law, gas production from major gas
sales would be converted to "barrel of oil equivalent"
and taxed in the same calculation as oil*
•"Decoupling" would calculate oil and gas tax for
major gas sales separately.
*special provisions exist currently that extend
special tax rates to Cook Inlet Gas, and gas for in-
state use, until 2022. However these types of
production are still included in the statewide
"progressivity" calculation
Mr. Tangeman elaborated on slide 6 titled "Conceptually,
decoupling is simple." He explained that the slide made it
easier to conceptualize decoupling.
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 7 titled "Why decouple?":
•Oil is different than gas (different uses, different
resource endowments, different substitutes)
•Decoupling allows tax policy to be crafted specific
to oil or gas production
•Oil is currently worth more than gas (per unit of
energy)
•Gas value relative to oil varies greatly over time
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 8. He explained that the
thermal parity, or "BTU equivalency," was the big issue.
The "BTU equivalency" was approximately 6 Million British
thermal units (MMBtu) of gas to 1 barrel (bbl) of oil. He
continued that currently the price of gas and oil was
clearly not in a 6 to 1 parody. (The 6 to 1 parity was
represented by the red dotted line and the actual oil price
was represented by the blue line on slide 7.)
Co-Chair Stedman stated that if the current oil prices were
plugged in at $112 dollars a barrel and gas at $2.70 a
gallon, the parity was more like 40 to 1. He would work
with the department on a base price of oil standard for use
in future presentations. He stated that the multiplier
under equivalency was roughly 22 or 23 to on DOR's chart,
but that under current market prices it was more like 40 to
1.
Mr. Tangeman explained slide 9 titled "Why decouple?":
•Including lower value gas in the same tax calculation
as higher value oil reduces the average value per BOE
and therefore reduces the progressive tax rate on oil
•By taxing oil and gas together, gas production
reduces oil taxes even though oil operations are
unaffected. He added that the state was not
experiencing this at the moment, because it had not
realized gas production on a commercial level
•This has been called the "flip the switch" problem…
as soon as major gas sales begin, state tax revenue
could drop significantly, under certain price
scenarios (including current prices!)
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that during previous discussions
on decoupling, the Nikiski gas plant was operating. As a
result, the current impact on the state's treasury was more
than $100 million. He continued that Nikiski had since been
shut down, so he expected the current gas dilution effect
was well under $100 million. He indicated that those
calculations would be addressed in the future. He stressed
that the calculations would not involve billions as with
the "flip the switch problem," but that it was a
hypothetical if the 4.5 billion cubic foot (BCF) gas
pipeline was in operation.
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 10 titled, "Numerical
Examples: Assumptions.":
•One Year "Income Statement" model
•DOR 2012 Profiles
o Oil: 450 Mbbl/d
o Gas: 4.5 Bcf/d
•Conversion 6 Mcf = 1 boe
•Costs allocation
o Opex: $2,500,000,000
o Capex: $2,500,000,000
o Costs split on the basis of gross value at the
Point of Production (PoP)
•Transportation
o Oil: $11.00/bbl
o Gas: $4.5/MMBtu
Mr. Tangeman explained that the slide indicated what
assumptions the next several slides would operate on.
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out that slide 10 assumed that
450,000 barrels of oil a day would be produced, but that
the FY 13 forecast assumed roughly 575 thousand barrels a
day in production. Mr. Tangeman responded that Co-Chair
Stedman was correct.
9:25:19 AM
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 11 titled "At high parity, SB
167 > Status Quo." He explained the slide represented a 15
to 1 parity where oil was at $120 per bbl and gas was $8 per
MMBtu. The slide assumed that production was at 450,000
barrels of oil per day and 4.5 BCF per day of gas. The left
hand column showed oil and gas decoupled for a total of
$5.9 million in state production taxes. Under the scenario,
the status quo would only generate $4.1 million in taxes.
He concluded that under SB 167, the state would generate
another $1.8 billion in taxes.
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 12 titled "At lower parity, SB
167 > Status Quo." Slide 12 assumed the same production as
the previous slide, but it plugged a lower parity into the
equation. He concluded that even at a lower parity, the
state would generate $500 million more in taxes under the
proposed legislation.
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 13 and explained it showed
that the calculation between coupled and uncoupled was
fairly equal at the 6 to 1 parity, but furthered that a
difference between the calculations occurred if the oil
price rose and the gas price dropped.
9:27:49 AM
Mr. Tangeman pointed to slide 14 titled "At Today's
prices." He remarked that the slide put the decoupling
issue into the perspective of today's conditions. He
declared that under current prices, the price of gas was
less than the cost of transporting it. He expounded that
the current gas price was approximately $3, while the
transportation costs had been identified as $4.50. The gas
tax would result in a net operating loss (NOL) and would
generate NOL credits of $0.6 billion, which could be
applied in the following year.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the slide communicated that
SB 167 would generate $1.9 billion more in taxes than the
status quo, given today's prices and a 37 to 1 parity. Mr.
Tangeman responded in the affirmative.
DAN STICKLE, ASSISTANT CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, stated that the $1.9 billion showed on slide 14
did not include the $600 million NOL credit for the gas
that could be taken in the following year.
Mr. Tangeman continued to slide 15 titled "Observations.":
•SB167 provides for a state share similar to the
status quo when gas prices are relatively high (less
dilution of progressivity under status quo)
•SB167 imposes a higher state share compared to the
status quo when gas prices are relatively low
•SB167 generates revenue equal to or greater than "oil
stand alone" revenue in all cases
o But at very low gas prices NOL credits are
generated which can be applied against oil tax
liabilities in the following year
9:30:36 AM
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 16 titled "Decoupling Issues:
Cost Allocation":
•How costs are allocated between oil and gas has a
significant impact on overall taxes owed
•Because oil and gas are generally produced together,
it is not easy or straight forward to determine the
costs "applicable to the gas [or oil] produced"
•The cost allocation method could result in
uncertainty, disputes, and delays
•Cost allocation should be specified in the statute,
and is a very important policy decision
Mr. Tangeman discussed slide 17 titled "Cost Allocation
Examples." He explained that the slide assumed that
production would be at $120 per barrel of oil and $8 per
MMBtu for gas.
Mr. Stickle elaborated on slide 17 and stated that it
showed three potential methods for allocating costs between
oil and gas under a decoupled tax. He added that there were
many allocation methods, but the slide showed three of the
most commonly used methods. The top column indicated how
many barrels of oil equivalent were produced in the year.
Under the scenario, there were 164 million barrels of oil
and 274 million barrels of oil equivalent of gas. On an
energy basis, with 450 thousand barrels of production and
4.5 BCF of gas a day, there would actually be more gas than
oil being produced. The gross value shown on line two was
$17.9 billion for oil versus $5.7 billion for gas.
Mr. Stickle stated that the second set of numbers
represented the cost allocation if costs were spilt based
on the barrels of oil equivalent. Out of the total $5
billion cost, gas made up 63 percent, while oil only
accounted for 38 percent. Under the split based on barrels
of oil equivalent, the deduction of costs for the oil tax
would be about $1.9 billion.
Mr. Stickle explained that the third set of numbers showed
a split based on gross value at the point of production.
Using the method would give the oil tax a higher share of
the total value, and oil would be assigned 76 percent of
the costs for a deduction of about $3.8 billion.
Mr. Stickle concluded that the fourth set of numbers
detailed a spilt where individual companies assigned the
costs oil and gas. He acknowledged there were many issues
involving how the costs would be assigned; however, if the
assumption was that 90 percent of the costs were associated
with oil, $4.5 billion would be deducted against the oil
tax. He stressed that choosing which cost allocation method
to use was a multi-billion dollar decision for deductions.
9:34:44 AM
Mr. Stickle moved on to slide 18 titled "Impact of
Allocation Methods on SB 176 Revenue." The slide detailed
the financial impact of the three allocation methods used
in the previous slide. An allocation based on BOE
equivalency (where oil represented the lowest cost), would
result in $7 billion in state revenue. If allocation was
based on value at point of production, $5.9 billion in
state revenue would be generated. Allocation based on a 90
percent/10 percent cost split resulted in $5.5 billion in
total revenue; where most of the costs were assigned to
oil. He stressed that determining which method would be
used was a $1.5 billion a year decision.
Mr. Stickle discussed slide 19 titled "Impact of Allocation
Methods on SB 167 Revenue":
•"Lock in" for gas committed at first open season
•Potential impact on current gas production
o Cook Inlet gas
o Gas used in state
o Small quantities of other gas production (OCS)
•Complexity of administration for state, taxpayers
•Specify gas tax now or save for another session?
•Balance between desire for revenue and making a major
gas project attractive
•Treatment of Net Operating Loss for gas
9:37:41 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted Mr. Stickle to move back to slide
14 for clarification. He queried whether the $1.9 billion
in the far right column would go up or down if the $600
million NOL credit was applied the following year. Mr.
Tangeman responded that the $1.9 billion figure would go
down to $1.3 billion.
Mr. Stickle clarified that the intent of the slide was to
show the revenue generated in the "snap shot" year they
were looking at. He explained that under the decoupled tax
and current conditions, the state would receive the $3.1
billion in revenue, but would also have incurred $600
million dollars in NOL credits that would be carried
forward against future tax liability.
Mr. Stickle continued on slide 20 titled "History: SB 305
in 2010." He explained what SB 305 did as follows:
•Decoupled oil and gas for purposes of a major gas
sale (solving the "flip the switch" problem)
•Held harmless most current gas production
•Provided one tax calculation for oil, Cook Inlet gas,
and gas used in-state
•Provided a separate tax calculation for non-Cook
Inlet gas that is exported out of state
•Specified GVPP cost allocation "to the extent
possible"
•Extensive analysis by Legislature, administration,
consultants
•Numerous technical issues raised and addressed
•Final bill is the basis of this year's SB 167
9:41:06 AM
Commissioner Butcher continued to present the overview on
slide 21 titled "History: SB 305 in 2010" as follows:
•Passed Senate and House, vetoed by Governor
•3 reasons cited in veto message:
1. Decoupling, on its own, represents an overall
tax increase
2. Changing the tax during the pipeline open
seasons (AGIA, Denali) creates uncertainty
3. Change not needed at this time because
Legislature retains ability to make changes to
tax laws… any tax locked in for firm commitments
at the first AGIA open season only applies to
gas, not oil.
•2 years later…
o The AGIA first open season is complete; the
Denali project has been suspended
o Decoupling has now been "on the table" for
two years
o Opportunity to reconsider decoupling in
context of the broader discussion of
increasing oil and gas production
Commissioner Butcher stated that the governor was still
concerned with SB 167 being an overall tax increase, but he
indicated that DOR felt it could work with the committee to
establish something that was agreeable to both parties. He
mentioned that the governor had set out an aggressive
timeline for the three producers on taking a look at moving
forward with a gas line. He concluded that if the timelines
were strictly held, the legislature might be looking at
working on the gas tax issue in the 2013 session.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered if DOR could give the committee a
comparative analysis of what DOR's assumptions were in FY
12 and how they would be impacted by actual numbers in FY
11. Commissioner Butcher agreed to provide the analysis.
9:43:42 AM
Senator Olson asked if the commissioner was saying that the
governor would be unlikely to veto SB 167.
Commissioner Butcher responded that the governor did have
concerns with SB 167; however, DOR believed it could work
with the committee to achieve a result that would be
acceptable to both parties.
Senator Olson inquired what other oil and gas producing
states or nations did when dealing with coupling or
decoupling a tax. Mr. Stickle responded that there were
states and countries that did it both ways and indicated
that DOR would be happy to provide that information.
9:44:48 AM
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the fiscal note from DOR in the
amount of $330,000 in general funds to cover the cost of
public workshops, contractual assistance, and drafting
regulations.
SB 167 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Stedman stated the committee was looking forward
to working with DOR and working through "these issues."
9:45:40 AM
AT EASE
9:45:43 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(L&C)
"An Act amending the medical examination requirements
for firefighters entitled to a presumption of
compensability for a disability resulting from certain
diseases."
9:47:39 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report CSSB 103(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 103(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note from
the University of Alaska, a new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Administration, and a new zero fiscal note
from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(L&C)
"An Act relating to the operation of vending
facilities on public property."
9:49:03 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report CSSSSB 51(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSSSB 51(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(2d JUD)
"An Act providing for the release of certain property
in the custody of a law enforcement agency to a crime
victim under certain conditions and relating to
requests for that release by the office of victims'
rights."
9:49:53 AM
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned a new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety and a new intermediate fiscal
note from the Department of Law.
9:50:08 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report CSSB 30(2d JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 30(2d JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Public Safety and a new indeterminate
fiscal note from the Department of Law.
ADJOURNMENT
9:51:00 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 167 - Sect Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB 167 sponsor statement.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB 167 2010 03 02 D Wood Calculations FY2008_09.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB 167 LogsdonAssoc PP.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB103 APEI Letter to Leg.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 103 SFIN Letter of Opposition.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 103 |
| SB 167 SFIN Decoupling Overview.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB 167 CORRECTED DOR S FIN_decoupling_20120127 [Read-Only].pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB 167 OOC to SFC 2-13-2012 LJW Final Draft.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB 167 ANS-HH parity 20120215.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |
| SB 167 Tangeman SFC 2-15-2012.pdf |
SFIN 1/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 167 |