Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/25/2019 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (apfc) - Overview, Mission, and Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 25, 2019
9:01 a.m.
9:01:28 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator David Wilson
ALSO PRESENT
Angela Rodell, Executive Director, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation; Craig Richards, Chairman, Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation; Senator Shelley Hughes; Senator Chris
Birch.
SUMMARY
^ALASKA PERMANENT FUND CORPORATION (APFC) - OVERVIEW,
MISSION, and UPDATE
9:03:24 AM
ANGELA RODELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION, discussed her background. She discussed the
presentation, "APFC Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation,
Senate Finance Committee, January 25, 2019" (copy on file).
She looked at slide 2, "The Alaska Constitution":
Alaska Constitution Article IX, Section 15
Section 15. Alaska Permanent Fund
At least twenty-five percent of all mineral lease
rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal
mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received
by the state shall be placed in a permanent fund, the
principal of which shall be used only for those
income-producing investments specifically designated
by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All
income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in
the general fund unless otherwise provided by law.
9:05:01 AM
Ms. Rodell highlighted slide 3, "APFC's Vision":
"To deliver sustained, compelling investment returns
as the United States' leading sovereign endowment
manager, benefitting all current and future
generations of Alaskans."
.notdef Reflects statutory language and intent as well as
Board and staff aspirations.
.notdef Emphasizes maximizing returns in a fully sustainable
manner.
.notdef Underscores the intention for the Fund to be a
perpetual resource for the State of Alaska.
.notdef Embodies core values of Integrity, Stewardship, and
Passion.
Ms. Rodell looked at slide 4, "APFC's Strategic 5 Year
Plan":
Priorities for FY 17-FY21:
.notdef Gain greater control of resource allocations.
.notdef Optimize APFC's operational processes and use of
financial networks and resources.
.notdef Develop best-in-class investment management
capabilities, partnerships, and geographic reach to
maximize investment returns.
.notdef Enhance talent and staff across APFC.
Over the course of 2019, the Board will be working on
a new strategic 5 year plan.
Ms. Rodell addressed slide 6, "How the Fund Works."
Ms. Rodell looked at slide 7, "Assets Under Management in
billions."
Ms. Rodell addressed slide 8, "Values."
9:09:55 AM
Co-Chair Stedman requested a brief view of what the
Earnings Reserve Account (ERA) was in 2009.
Ms. Rodell replied that she would provide that information.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that there could be an answer later
in the presentation. He requested //
Ms. Rodell agreed to address that question.
Ms. Rodell discussed slide 9, "Principal":
.notdef The Principal is constitutionally established and
permanently protected; it can only be used for income-
producing investments.
.notdef The Principal is built through royalty deposits,
inflation proofing, and other special appropriations.
Ms. Rodell looked at slide 10, "Use of Fund Earnings from
ERA Since Inception":
.notdef Paid out of ERA = $27.8 B
.notdef Dividend Transfers
.notdef General Fund Appropriations
.notdef Alaska Capital Income Transfers
.notdef Transfers from ERA to Principal = $20.6 B
.notdef Inflation Proofing
.notdef Special Appropriations
.notdef Unspent Realized Earnings in ERA = $13.7 B
Co-Chair von Imhof looked at slide 9, and noted the special
appropriation. She surmised that the legislature had made
conscious decisions to take money from the ERA and put it
into the principal.
CRAIG RICHARDS, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION, gave an incorrect response.
Ms. Rodell replied that in the early 1980s, the legislature
made a decision to make an appropriation of general fund
money to the principal. She furthered that as the ERA
continued to build balances, the legislature appropriated
money from the ERA back to the principal.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that there was a precedent in the
past that the legislature had decided to move excess funds
from the ERA into the principal.
Ms. Rodell agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that it had occurred on several
occasions.
Senator Micciche wanted to know the history of the
dividends.
Ms. Rodell wondered about his question.
Senator Micciche clarified his question. He wanted to know
whether there was a difference on the over-deposits from
the general fund into the principal, and whether that
affected dividends in the long-term.
Ms. Rodell agreed to determine whether that could be
measured, and agreed to get back to the committee.
Ms. Rodell highlighted slide 11, "POMV - SB 26, CH 16 SLA
18":
Percent of Market Value: draw of the average market
value of the Fund for the first five of the preceding
six fiscal years, subject to annual appropriation by
the Legislature.
.notdef 5.25 percent - Effective July 1, 2018 (FY19)
.notdef FY19 5.25 percent POMV = $2.7 billion
.notdef FY20 5.25 percent POMV = $2.9 billion
.notdef FY21 5.25 percent POMV = $3.1 billion estimate
.notdef 5.0 percent - Effective July 1, 2021 (FY22)
9:16:37 AM
Co-Chair Stedman requested the definition of "POMV."
Ms. Rodell replied that POMV was percentage of market
value.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the dividends would be
subtracted from the $2.9 billion, and the remaining would
be discussed. He queried how inflation would be managed in
the concept.
Ms. Rodell replied that inflation was not addressed in SB
26, because there was still a requirement for an
appropriation from the ERA back to the principal.
Ms. Rodell looked at slide 13, "The Portfolio":
Public Equities
Fixed Income Plus
Private Equity and Special Opportunities
Real Estate
Infrastructure, Credit, and Income Opportunities
Asset Allocation Strategies
Absolute Return
9:24:17 AM
Ms. Rodell highlighted slide 14, "Management of the Fund":
The Board of Trustees continue to work towards an
optimal mix of in-house versus external management
capabilities based on resources and opportunities.
In-House Management Allows for:
.notdef Alignment of investment goals and mandates
.notdef Increased flexibility in timing/tactical decisions
.notdef Lower fees with investment benefit of active
management
Senator Hoffman wondered whether there was an increase in
personnel as a result of the movement.
Ms. Rodell replied in the affirmative. She explained that
there was an addition of 10 positions in the most recent
budget.
Ms. Rodell addressed slide 16, "Fiscal Year 2018
Performance."
Co-Chair Stedman queried the fees.
Ms. Rodell replied that they were net of return benchmarks.
Senator Micciche wondered whether the net cost was a wash,
and whether it was beneficial.
Ms. Rodell replied that the benefit was that there were
less fees being paid. She remarked that they were all net
of fee returns.
9:29:53 AM
Ms. Rodell discussed slide 17, "Value Generated":
FY 18
Revenues: $5,671,500,000
Operating/Investment Expenses: $138,800,000
Value Generated Per Day
Total Fund: $5.67 B / 251 = $22.6 M per day
Statutory Net Income: $6.3 B / 251 = $25.2 M per day
Value Generated Per Day (based on 251 active trading
days through FY18)
APFC staff is actively engaged in making direct
investments and overseeing our external manager
partnerships:
.notdef APFC = 57PFT, 2PPT, 2 Summer Interns
.notdef 28 External Public Equities Managers
.notdef 5 Real Estate Advisors
.notdef Private Markets Partnerships:
.notdef Fund to Fund / Co-Investments / Direct
Investments
9:30:46 AM
Ms. Rodell displayed slide 18, "Awards and
Accomplishments":
? Nominated for Limited Partner of the Year for 2018
by Private Equity International
? APFC received dual nominations for 2018 Partnership
of the Year for Institutional Investor's Allocators'
Choice Awards and won the award for our Capital
Constellation Partnership:
Private Market Partnership, Capital
Constellation - won
Public Market Partnership, Middle East Africa
South Asia (MEASA)
Fund with McKinley Capital - nominated
? PEI's Private Debt Magazine recognized APFC in their
inaugural 30 Most Influential Investors in Private
Credit
? Recognized as North American Private Equity
Institutional
Limited Partner Investor of the Year for 2017 by
Private Equity International
? Awarded Institutional Investor's Sovereign Wealth
Fund of the Year in Hedge Fund Investments in 2017
9:32:37 AM
Senator Hoffman congratulated the Board and management. He
looked at slide 17, and recalled discussion about having
some investment managers in Juneau. He wondered what
percentage of the positions were located in Alaska.
Ms. Rodell replied that the 57 permanent full-time, 2 part-
time, and 2 intern positions were all in Juneau.
Co-Chair von Imhof remarked that the accomplishments on
slide 18 were tremendous. She stressed that it gave the
Permanent Fund access to global meetings and conventions to
discuss best practices. She asked for elaboration about the
September meeting.
Ms. Rodell responded that the Permanent Fund was a member
of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds. The
Permanent Fund had been asked to host the eleventh annual
meeting of that group in Juneau in September.
9:34:59 AM
Mr. Richards highlighted slide 20, "Board of Trustees":
As the fiduciaries, the Trustees have a duty to
Alaskans in assuring that the Permanent Fund is
managed and invested in a manner consistent with
legislative findings: AS 37.13.020.
.notdef The Fund should provide a means of conserving a
portion of the state's revenue from mineral
resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans.
.notdef The Fund's goal should be to maintain safety of
principal while maximizing total return.
.notdef The Fund should be used as a savings device
managed to allow the maximum use of disposable
income from the Fund for the purposes designated
by law.
9:37:28 AM
Mr. Richards discussed slide 21, "Alaska Investment":
APFC's statutory responsibilities pertaining to in-
state investments are set forth in AS 37.13.120 (c)
which specifies if an Alaskan investment has
equivalent risk and expected return comparable to or
better than a similar non-Alaskan investment, the
Alaskan investment should be preferred.
In recognition of AS 37.13.120 (c), APFC's Board of
Trustees took two actions during their September 2018
Annual Meeting:
.notdef Amendment of the Alaska Investment section of
APFC's Investment Policy and Procedures to
establish a target for
increased Alaska investment.
.notdef As of June 30, 2018, 1.25 percent of the
Fund's portfolio, totaling $819.5 million,
was invested in-state through Alaska-based
external investment managers and through
ownership of APFC's office building in
Juneau.
.notdef The aspirational goals set forth in the
policy amended by the Board in September
2018 call for 2 percent of the portfolio to
be invested in-state by 2020, increasing by
1 percent each year up to 5 percent of the
Fund being invested in-state by 2023. (Does
not include in-house management by APFC).
.notdef Passage of Resolution 18-03 Supporting An In-
State Emerging Manager Program.
.notdef This resolution directs the implementation
of an In-State Emerging Manager program with
an initial allocation up to $200 million
within the Private Equity and Special
Opportunities Asset Allocation.
.notdef The goal of the Emerging Manager Program
is to seed new private equity or venture
capital fund managers in Alaska.
.notdef APFC will work with an external manager to
oversee the program.
.notdef Board guidance that in-state investments
should meet same investment criteria and
expectations as out of state investments.
9:41:28 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that there was currently a review of
all the agencies to streamline costs and create
efficiencies. He felt that there was some crossover in the
energy agencies, such as Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority (AIDEA). He noted the crossover into the
banking arena. He stressed that there were more funds in
the state than there were projects in the commercial bank.
He did not like the looks of politics in the Permanent
Fund.
Mr. Richards responded that the 5 percent was not the
instate investment initiative. The instate investment
initiative was $200 million of a $65 billion fund, which
was a third of a percent. He stated that the 5 percent
aspirational goal was assets under management in state by
external managers.
9:46:18 AM
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that the 5 percent was managed by
instate managers, and was not 5 percent of instate invested
capital.
Mr. Richards agreed.
Co-Chair von Imhof expressed concerns about competing with
AIDEA. She noted the occasional shortage of investments.
She remarked that there were private equity firms that were
playing in the space currently. She wondered whether the
activity was worth the small investment.
Mr. Richards felt that the question was legitimate. He
shared that there were conversations on the Board about
investing in the state relative to the statutory investment
guidelines. He shared that staff had the general
inclination to not invest in Alaska, because it sometimes
felt political. He noted the Alaska barbell problem, which
was that Alaska investments were often very big or very
small. He stated that the emerging managers program used an
external manager because it relieved the concern of
political pressure, and the external manager could examine
smaller projects.
Senator Hoffman noted that the committee should realize
that the Board had already taken the two actions. He looked
at the second bullet point, and the $200 million. He
queried the long-term prognosis of how large it would grow
to in the upcoming five years.
9:50:12 AM
Mr. Richards replied that there was no blueprint, but was
entirely dependent on whether the program was successful.
He stressed that there was no way of knowing the amount in
the long-term.
Senator Wielechowski appreciated the concerns about the
instate investing. He often wondered why there was not more
investment in the state of Alaska. He wanted the state
investments taken a step further, and perhaps tying those
investments to Alaska Hire and Alaska-based companies. He
wondered whether there was ever a consideration in tying
the investments to Alaskan companies.
Mr. Richards replied that those conversations had not
occurred. He explained that the Board gave the staff broad
authority to set up the emerging manager program in the
manner that was most likely to lead to returns and risks.
He remarked that the "flavor" that the manager used to
apply what was used for investing would be developed
between staff and the external manager. He remarked that
there had not been an examination of non-economic factors
other than encouraging instate investment.
Co-Chair von Imhof queried the threshold of return under
the program.
Mr. Richards replied that it was not defined in a specific
way. He stated that, rationally, there would two things it
would be measured against: 1. the overall performance
expectation of the Permanent Fund of inflation plus 5
percent; and 2. its private equity peers.
Co-Chair von Imhof understood that the risk was not
commiserate with a fixed income portfolio.
Mr. Richards agreed.
9:54:51 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the 5 percent target for the
management instate was approximately $3 billion, and
correlated with the equity need in a potential gas line. He
stated that there was a dose of political skepticism in how
things were set up in the state.
Mr. Richards replied that he had never had a conversation
about using Permanent Fund money for a gas line.
Co-Chair Stedman felt skeptical.
Mr. Richards felt that skepticism was very healthy.
Senator Hoffman recalled Resolution 18-03 regarding the
instate emergency manager program passed by the Board in
September. He queried the status of the request for
information (RFI) in that resolution.
Ms. Rodell replied that RFI was posted on the website. She
explained that those indications of interest were due the
following week, and then there would be a process to
determine a manager to build a program and refine the
goals.
Senator Shower asked for confirmation that the guidance for
the fund managers were examining economic factors not non-
economic factors.
Mr. Richards replied in the affirmative. The only guidance
that was not economic was the $200 million should be
focused on instate investment, and the overriding guidance
for that instate investment was that the returns need to be
competitive and the risk must be commensurate with those
returns.
10:00:27 AM
Mr. Richards displayed slide 22, "Contributions to
Principal":
Royalty Deposits AS 37.13.010 (a) (1) and (a) (2)
.notdef The constitutionally minimum required 25
percent of royalty proceeds.
.notdef The statutorily mandated deposits of 50 percent
for leases after 1979.
Inflation Proofing AS 37.13.145 (c)
.notdef The inflation proofing projection is based upon
estimates for deposits into the
Principal of the Fund and the projected inflation rate
as calculated per statue.
.notdef The Legislature appropriated FY19 inflation proofing
estimated to be $942 million on June 30th, 2019.
.notdef The FY20 inflation proofing amount is estimated to
be $943 million, the actual amount will be calculated
at the end of the fiscal year. $1.4 billion for FY16-
FY18 remains unappropriated.
The Board of Trustees adopted Resolution 17-01
asserting the importance of inflation proofing to
preserve the purchasing power of the Principal.
Subsequent Resolutions 18-01 and 18-04 reiterate that
the prudent reinvestment of a portion of the Fund's
earnings to protect the future value of the Principal
is essential to maintaining the long term
sustainability of the Fund and establishing a solid
fiscal foundation for Alaska.
Mr. Richards discussed slide 23, "Earnings Reserve
Account":
The Earnings Reserve Account (ERA) is established in
Alaska Statutes as an account to hold the realized
earnings from the Permanent Fund's investment
portfolio; it does not have its own investment
mandate.
.notdef The ERA is subject to legislative appropriation.
.notdef FY 19 Appropriations from the ERA
.notdef POMV $2.7 billion
.notdef APFC Operations $18.1 million
.notdef APFC Investment Management Fees $150.5 million
.notdef Dept. of Law $2.6 million
.notdef Dept. of Natural Resources $5.9 million
Mr. Richards highlighted slide 24, "Resolution 18-04."
Senator Hoffman noted that the Board had passed Resolution
18-04 in October. He looked at bulled point 3, which
requested legislation for automatic inflation proofing. He
wondered whether the Board had conveyed that to the current
administration. He wondered where the Board and management
were at to ensure that the automatic inflation proofing was
implemented.
Mr. Richards replied in the affirmative, and stated that
there were conversations with the Attorney General. He
noted that the process was ongoing.
Senator Bishop felt that it was a defined benefit program,
and it required increasing membership contributions to meet
the guidelines.
Mr. Richards agreed with that analogy.
Mr. Richards discussed slide 25, "Resolution 18-04":
Sustainable Rules- Based Legal Framework For Fund
Transfers
In providing guidance on rules-based withdrawals for
the Fund and to help ensure the long-term
sustainability of using Fund earnings for the benefit
of all generations of Alaskans, the Board passed
Resolution 18-04 at a special meeting on October 17,
2018.
This resolution affirms the importance of formulaic
management of transfers into and out of the ERA to
ensure sustainability and long term growth of the
Fund, by identifying four key principles:
Adherence - Sustainability - Inflation Proofing - Real
Growth
10:05:21 AM
Mr. Richards addressed slide 26, "Resolution 18-04":
Adherence: A rules-based framework includes adhering
to the formulaic calculations provided for in statute
for transfers into and out of the Permanent Fund, such
as dividends, royalty deposits, and inflation
proofing. Adherence to the rules increases the
likelihood that systematic draws from the Permanent
Fund will be sustainable over time and will allow for
more prudent investment of the Permanent Fund due to
the predictability of liquidity needs.
Co-Chair Stedman queried the definition of Ad Hoc.
Mr. Richards replied that ad hoc was a non-rules based
transfer.
Mr. Richards discussed slide 27, "Resolution 18-04":
Sustainability: Any rules-based system for drawing
from the Permanent Fund (to support government
spending and for dividends) should be sustainable,
meaning the formulaic system for withdrawals should be
projected to result in the Permanent Fund growing
annually by at least the rate of inflation.
Sustainability also requires annual formulaic
withdrawals from the Earnings Reserve Account at an
amount that the long-term balance of the account is
able to fund. The Board recommends instituting a
process that would require periodic review of these
assumptions as market conditions change so that a
timely reduction to the annual draw could be
effectuated, if necessary, to maintain the long-term
sustainability of the Earnings Reserve Account.
10:10:41 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for an explanation of the ad hoc
draw and the limit of $2.9 billion. He wondered whether
there should not be a draw of more than $2.9 billion from
the Permanent Fund.
Mr. Richards replied that the Board was not provided that
specific of guidance. He stated that the sustainability
rule in combination with the ad hoc rule, it was advised
that the legislature should not take more than what was
sustainable allowing for inflation under best practices. He
furthered that it was also advised that when the
legislature took, it should do so consistent with the
rules-based system.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that there was a limit $2.9 billion
that could be withdrawn from the Permanent Fund to pay a
dividend and pay for part of the deficit.
Mr. Richards replied that it was conceptually correct, but
that number could be adjusted. He stressed that was not the
level of granularity in the Board. The Board noted that a
larger number would not be sustainable.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that SB 26 was 5.25 percent, and
the five-year lookback was $2.9 billion.
Mr. Richards agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the 5.25 was within reason of
the expectation. He stressed that a large deficit with a
dividend requirement required a cognizance with the
Permanent Fund.
Mr. Richards agreed.
Co-Chair von Imhof remarked that Callan had provided
percentages, and felt that they were well above the hurdle
rate. She noted that many people were doing the modeling.
She felt that there were ways to test the percentages to
see the overall long-term effects.
10:15:33 AM
Mr. Richards agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman asked that straight speak was important,
and reiterated that the point was to not go above $2.9
billion.
Senator Hoffman looked at the automatic inflation proofing,
and wondered whether the Board felt that it should come out
of the 5.25 percent.
Mr. Richards replied that it worked differently. He
explained that the 5.25 percent is what could come out of
the total aggregated value of the fund. He furthered that
inflation proofing was not a transfer out of the fund,
rather it was a transfer between the ERA and the corpus.
Senator Hoffman stated that it was referred to the POMV.
Mr. Richards agreed.
Mr. Richards highlighted slide 28, "Resolution 18-04":
Automatic Inflation Proofing: The Board believes that
the inflation-proofing transfer should become a
guaranteed annual event rather than a discretionary
transfer that is subject to appropriation. To achieve
this goal, the Board supports passage of legislation
that would define net income to require realized gains
that are accumulated throughout the fiscal year be
used to offset the impact of inflation on the
principal of the fund with the remainder of net
realized gains being accounted for in the Earnings
Reserve Account.
Senator Bishop queried the percentage of inflation
proofing, if the ERA and the corpus were inside the
constitution as one fund.
Mr. Bishop replied that it would be zero.
Senator Micciche noted that there was a draw limit in the
original SB 26 that would have reduced the draw on years
when there was other state funding. He wondered whether it
was possible to provide the committee with a "wish list."
10:20:25 AM
Mr. Richards looked at slide 29, "Resolution 18-04":
Promote Real Growth When Possible: While providing for
a sustainable draw by preserving the purchasing power
of the fund and ensuring a durable Earnings Reserve
Account is a primary goal of the Board, recognizing
and executing on opportunities to grow the real value
of the fund is also important. Real growth will not
only result in more income and thus higher sustainable
draws in the future, it is necessary to preserve
intergenerational wealth as Alaska continues
extraction of its finite natural resources. Thus, the
Board supports thoughtful strategies to grow the fund
on a real, and not just nominal, basis.
Senator Olson remarked that there was concern about the
governor making additional draw to the ERA, and wondered
how that might affect the POMV draw. He also wondered
whether there was a difference between the Board and
administration. He stated that he could receive the answer
at a later date.
Co-Chair Stedman requested that the answer be provided at a
later date.
Ms. Rodell stated that the principal balance in 2009 was
$29.5 billion; the ERA had a $420 million balance; the
total fund combined at that time was $29.9 billion. She
stated that a 5 percent POMV draw would require a
calculation. She stated that the 2010 principal was $32
billion.
Co-Chair Stedman stressed that there was a curiosity about
when the 5 percent draw would get into the constitutionally
protected corpus.
Ms. Rodell agreed, and noted that a straight 5 percent on
the $29.9 billion would result in a $1.5 billion, but there
was only $420 million in the ERA in 2009.
Co-Chair Stedman asked that there be a back test on those
numbers.
ADJOURNMENT
10:25:33 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 012519 APFC Resolution 17-01.pdf |
SFIN 1/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
APFC |
| 012519 APFC Resolution 18-03.pdf |
SFIN 1/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
APFC |
| 012519 APFC Resolution 18 - 04.pdf |
SFIN 1/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
APFC |
| 012519 APFC SFC Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 1/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
APFC |
| 012519 APFC Resolution 18-01.pdf |
SFIN 1/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
APFC |
| 013019 APFC Follow up to SFIN 012519.pdf |
SFIN 1/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
APFC |