Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/29/1996 03:30 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 29, 1996
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Jim Duncan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Dave Donley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to the promotion of Alaska businesses through
signs, displays, and devices within or adjacent to highway
rights-of-way, to municipal regulation of directional signs,
displays, and devices, and to penalties for violations related to
outdoor advertising."
SENATE BILL NO. 207
"An Act authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue bonds to fund
public wastewater systems, non-point source water pollution control
projects, including solid waste management systems, and estuary
conservation and management projects; authorizing the use of the
Alaska clean water fund to pay and secure the bonds and to pay
costs related to issuance and administration of the bonds;
authorizing certain measures to secure payment of the bonds; and
amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 3."
SSTA - 2/29/96
SB 191 (ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM) was scheduled, but not
taken up on this date.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 181 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 207 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/5/96,
2/14/96, and 2/21/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Brett Huber, Aide
Senator Lyda Green
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SB 181
Michael Morris, Regional Director
Alaska Campground Owners Association
2150 Gambell, Anchorage, AK 99503¶(907)258-6006
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 181
Bonny Eby, Owner
Willow Trading Post Lodge
Box 49, Willow, AK 99688¶(907)495-6457
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 181, but lists problems with
program
Larae Eldridge, Owner
Big Lake Motel
Box 520728, Big Lake, AK 99652¶(907)892-7976
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 181
Jerre Wroble, Program Administrator
Matsu Convention & Visitors' Bureau
HCO1 Box 6166-J21, Palmer, AK 99645¶(907)746-5000
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 181
Tina Lindgren, Executive Director
Alaska Convention & Visitors' Bureau
3201 C St., Ste. 403, Anchorage, AK 99503¶(907)561-5733
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 181
Loren Rasmussen, Acting Director
Division of Engineering & Operations
Department of Transportation
3132 Channel Dr., Juneau, AK 99801-7898¶(907)465-2960
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 181
Mayor John Stein
290 E. Herning, Wasilla, AK 99654¶(907)373-9055
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 181
Keith Kelton, Director
Division of Facility Construction & Operation
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave., Ste 105, Juneau, AK 99801-1795¶(907)465-5180
POSITION STATEMENT: representing governor-prime sponsor of SB 207
Berda Willson
Nome Joint Utilities
City of Nome
Box 70, Nome, AK 99762¶(907)443-5288
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 207
Mark Earnest, Manager
City of Unalaska
P.O. Box 610, Unalaska, AK 99685¶(907)581-1251
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 207
Ross Kinney, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110405, Juneau, AK 99811-0405¶(907)465-4880
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 207
ACTION NARRATIVE
SSTA - 2/29/96
SB 181 PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
TAPE 96-16, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate State Affairs Committee to order
at 3:30 p.m. and brought up SB 181 as the first order of business
before the committee. The chairman called the sponsor's
representative to testify.
Number 020
BRETT HUBER, Aide to Senator Lyda Green, prime sponsor of SB 181,
read the sponsor's statement for SB 181. SB 181 would provide for
the TODS (Tourist Oriented Directional Signs) Program in statute.
Mr. Huber noted that there is a sectional analysis of the
legislation in committee members' packets.
Number 050
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the TODS program is the same as the
identification signs that he sees along the highways.
MR. HUBER replied that is the TODS program. The TODS signs are the
blue, 90x18 inch directional signs.
MICHAEL MORRIS, Regional Director, Alaska Campground Owners
Association, testifying from Anchorage, supports SB 207, and has
submitted written testimony to that effect. TODS signs not only
help the campgrounds, but help visitors immensely.
Number 100
BONNY EBY, Owner, Willow Trading Post Lodge, testifying from Matsu,
stated that the signs help, but they should be larger. They are
also expensive for the small business person. She also has a
problem with the fact that the signs are not transferrable when a
business is sold. She also thinks that for the amount of money the
signs cost, there should be upkeep on the signs, such as snow
removal.
Number 135
LARAE ELDRIDGE, Owner, Big Lake Motel, testifying from Matsu,
supports SB 181. But she stated that the community sign posted
below hers does not comply with the TODS program and is illegal.
She would appreciate it if the state would get Big Lake a green
geographical sign, just like everyone else. She also objects to
the adopt-a-highway signs.
Number 185
JERRE WROBLE, Program Administrator, Matsu Convention & Visitors'
Bureau, testifying from Matsu, supports SB 181. She stated that
highway signs are essential for their survival. Ms. Wroble
mentioned some problems with the TODS program, including one woman
who would have been required to hire a licensed contractor to
install the sign, even though her husband was a contractor. The
regulations and expense make it difficult for new businesses to get
going. In principal, the MSCVB supports the TODS program, as long
as all its' members are allowed to participate without undue
regulation and expense.
Number 240
TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors' Association,
supports SB 181. Committee members have two letters in support of
this legislation in their bill packets from Ms. Lindgren: one dated
October 17, 1995, and the other dated February 23, 1996.
Number 260
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Mr. Rasmussen from the Department of
Transportation about the fiscal note from the department. Doesn't
SB 181 propose the exact same signage as allowed now under the TODS
program? If so, why is the fiscal note for such a large amount of
money?
Number 275
LOREN RASMUSSEN, Acting Director, Division of Engineering &
Operations, Department of Transportation, stated there is a
difference between how SB 181 is written, and how the TODS program
works: the TODS program is a directional sign that is literally on
the shoulder of the road. Those are the little, blue signs one
sees in the Matsu Valley, on the Kenai Peninsula, and a few other
areas of the state. SB 181 tries to utilize the same technique,
but putting the signs outside the right-of-way, which then makes
them advertising signs, which would be different from the TODS
program. Advertising signs outside the right-of-way are
controversial. So we would have to promulgate those regulations
with the Department of Law and would have to have public hearings
on those regulations. That is where the costs in the fiscal note
originate.
Number 300
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if there would be a difference in the
size of the signs.
MR. RASMUSSEN is not sure what size the signs would be; he thinks
that would be determined by regulation. Currently, the size of a
sign with a single business on it is 90x18 inches. 18 inches can
be added for each additional business on a sign, with up to a total
of three businesses per sign.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS thinks the signs would still be 90x18 inches
high.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that the legislation lists the same size as
that of the TODS program.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS noted that since the size of the signs is
the same in both the TODS program and SB 181, the only fundamental
difference is that signs would be allowed outside the right-of-way.
He asked if any other jurisdictions have this.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded, none that he could find, and they checked
with 11 other states. Other states have these types of signs on
highways, but none have them out of the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked about costs for the TODS permits.
MR. RASMUSSEN replied that the application fee is $100.00, and
there is a $200.00 inspection fee once the sign is in place.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if DOT puts a sign up for that price.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded DOT does the permitting and the inspection,
but the owner buys, installs, and maintains the sign.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked why someone complained about DOT's
maintenance of signs, if DOT doesn't maintain them.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded the complaint was that DOT doesn't maintain
the signs.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if that was part of the agreement.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded that is part of the agreement.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if there is a departmental position on SB 181.
MR. RASMUSSEN thinks the department would take the same position
the previous administration took.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what that was.
MR. RASMUSSEN did not think it was very favorable. If a position
paper is requested, DOT would certainly submit it.
SENATOR DUNCAN commented he can understand the reason behind the
department's concerns.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he did not know the reasons behind their
concerns.
SENATOR DUNCAN said that's why he is asking for a position paper.
He would ask for a position paper, unless the chairman doesn't want
one.
CHAIRMAN SHARP responded, if DOT cares to submit a position
statement, he would sure like to see it. He asks that paper be
submitted to committee staff.
SENATOR DUNCAN stated he is not suggesting the State Affairs
Committee hold the bill for the position paper; he would just like
to see it before the bill reaches the floor.
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the mayor of Wasilla to testify.
Number 375
JOHN STEIN, Mayor of Wasilla, testifying from Matsu, supports SB
181. He does not understand why off-right-of-way signs need to be
in the legislation, because he believes property owners whose
property abuts the highway have a right to put up advertising
signs. He thinks federal law would allow that. He hopes that the
law would not allow off-site advertising other than something like
the TODS program. Mayor Stein stated one of the biggest
frustration business owners have regarding the signs is that DOT
knocks them down during snow plowing.
Number 410
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what Mayor Stein thinks about having
signs out of the right-of-way.
MAYOR STEIN responded he does not see a need to have this type of
sign out of the right-of-way.
Number 440
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute for SB 181.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute was adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he personally doesn't have a problem with
having these signs off the right-of-way. The main problem he sees
is that sometimes one cannot read the signs, because they're
covered with snow. If the signs were off the right-of-way, they
might not get plastered with snow by the snowplows.
SENATOR LEMAN stated his only concern regards the number of signs
and repetition of signs.
CHAIRMAN SHARP shares Senator Leman's concern, but he thinks that
would probably be addressed through regulation.
SENATOR LEMAN has concern with the $40,000 fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN SHARP would just as soon send the bill to the Finance
Committee and let them address the fiscal note. He doesn't like
zeroing out fiscal notes in State Affairs, unless it was the
committee's own fiscal note.
Number 485
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if there is anyone in Matsu who would
comment on the within and outside the right-of-way.
Number 495
MS. EBY believes that inside the right-of-way signs are more
legible.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS noted that the bill specifies that signs
shall be located within and outside of the right-of-way of the
interstate. He asked for feedback regarding striking "outside"
from SB 181.
MS. EBY thinks signs should be within the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP thinks more than "outside" would have to be struck
from the bill.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS wants to know if most of the people in Matsu
would like to see signs just within the right-of-way.
MS. WROBLE stated she also wondered why signs would be allowed
outside the right-of-way the first time she saw SB 181. But a
situation that supports that provision concerns a business she
knows of which is on the highway, but is around the bend. If you
didn't know about that business, you would drive right past it.
The owner of that business has a small sign on her property just
off the right-of-way. The owner does not qualify for the TODS
program because her business is on the highway, so Ms. Wroble
thinks "outside the right-of-way" would serve someone in that type
of situation.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that most testimony seems to be
supporting just having signs within the right-of-way. But we can
take care of that in the Finance Committee.
SENATOR DUNCAN thinks that whole subsection could be removed.
MR. HUBER stated Senator Green has been contacted by numerous
people wanting directional signs outside the right-of-way. Senator
Green is looking for the smallest and most uniform system allowing
signs on private property.
Number 530
SENATOR DUNCAN made a motion to delete Section (4).
CHAIRMAN SHARP informed Senator Duncan that Section (4) is the
section mandating the directional sign program.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if that is so.
MR. HUBER responded that Section (4) is actually the portion of SB
181 that puts the TODS program in statute. There is no current law
or current regulations under TODS.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Huber if he is suggesting that we need
part of Section (4), but not all of Section (4).
MR. HUBER replied it is the sponsor's position that all of Section
(4) is desirable.
SENATOR DUNCAN said he knows that. He wants to ask someone who is
not biased, if he can find anybody. What language of Section (4)
is necessary for establishing the program, but would still allow
deletion of "outside the right-of-way". Maybe DOT would respond;
he knows very well the sponsor's position.
SENATOR LEMAN said that DOT is probably biased too.
SENATOR DUNCAN stated that's what he said: he doesn't think they
can find anyone who's not biased.
MR. RASMUSSEN stated he would be reluctant to make amendments
without reading the whole bill through. It would be the
department's desire to keep the TODS program in place right now.
It's allowed under the MUTCED and the rest of our program, and
we've never been challenged on that.
Number 566
SENATOR DUNCAN offered a conceptual amendment not allowing signs
outside the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP objected to that amendment.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked for clarification on where TODS signs
are allowed today.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded that TODS signs are allowed within the
right-of-way. Anything outside the right-of-way would be
considered an advertisement, and present state law forbids that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that SB 181 would make those signs
directional.
MR. RASMUSSEN replied that is the attempt; but it is very difficult
to have directional signs outside the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked that the roll be called on Senator Duncan's
motion.
The amendment failed, 2 yeas, 2 nays, and 1 absent. Voting in
favor of the motion are Senators Phillips and Duncan. Voting in
opposition are Senators Leman and Sharp. Senator Donley is absent.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 580
SENATOR LEMAN made a motion to discharge SB 181 with accompanying
fiscal note [DOT, $40,000].
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that the bill will need a referral to the
Finance Committee. He also noted that the committee would like a
position statement from DOT. The chairman asked if there was
objection to moving the bill from committee.
TAPE 96-16, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated CSSSSB 181(STA) was
discharged from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations.
SSTA - 2/29/96
SB 207 REVENUE BONDS: WATER & WASTE PROJECTS
Number 585
SENATOR SHARP brought up SB 207 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called the first
witness.
Number 570
KEITH KELTON, Director, Division of Facility Construction &
Operation, Department of Environmental Conservation, representing
the governor, prime sponsor of SB 207, stated the bill would
attempt to solve a financing problem facing Alaskan communities.
Mr. Kelton relayed information to the committee which is contained
in members' bill packets. This information was previously relayed
to the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
Number 550
MR. KELTON explains flow charts showing how the program would work.
Copies of those charts were given to the committee. DEC is
proposing that the 30 million corpus be leveraged into a larger
source of funding. SB 207, which was drafted with the help of the
Department of Revenue, the Department of Law, and outside bond
counsel, is patterned after similar legislation from 20 other
states and would expand available revenue to continue a current
clean-water program. Amendments made to SB 207 in the Senate
Community & Regional Affairs Committee limited the annual sale of
bonds to $15,000,000. After bond and sale costs, that leaves about
$13,300,000 available for loans. The federal/state match program
will have a contribution. But since the Clean Water Act is
currently under reauthorization, we don't know what that dollar
figure will be. So that will ultimately have the effect of
increasing the incoming cash. Mr. Kelton noted that the figures in
the chart are for illustrative purposes only, and that they can
fluctuate.
Number 495
MR. KELTON commented that DEC is very pleased with the amendments
made by the CRA committee.
Number 485
SENATOR LEMAN asked if 10% costs for bond sales are normal.
MR. KELTON responded those are normal costs, assuming the bonds are
AA rated. Costs would increase if the bond rating falls. There
are provisions in the legislation which would attempt to maintain
the rating at AA. One of those is the state-aid intercept, on page
5 of SB 207. That would specify that if there is a default, the
state agencies would have the opportunity to take any revenue
enhancements coming to a community from the state. They couldn't
take dedicated funds, but they could take undedicated funds to
apply to the debt. That particular provision, by itself, enhances
the bond rating from A to AA, and would save about $2,800,000 over
a twenty-year period on each $10,000,000 issuance. So the bond
costs are very high, and they can go much higher without the
language contained in the legislation.
Number 475
MR. KELTON stated another aspect is that bond proceeds could be
used for the 20% state match to federal contributions, if SB 207 is
passed. Currently that 20% comes out of the general fund, so that
would save the state some money.
Number 467
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there is a maximum limit for any single
project.
MR. KELTON replied one project could arguably use all the funds for
one year; it is not DEC's intent to do that though. There were
amendments discussed in Senate CRA Committee. One suggestion that
was made was that any one project would be limited to half of an
annual allocation. DEC conducts an annual intended use plan for
this fund, which ranks and coordinates funding for projects. It
would not be DEC's intent to allocate an entire year's allocation
to one project.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that this fund could be a source for the
Anchorage Water Project. Yet any one portion of that would
probably use at least half of the available money.
MR. KELTON responded that committee members have in their bill
packets a list of past projects and potential future projects.
However, this program does not fund water projects; it only funds
wastewater and solid waste projects. To get back to Senator
Leman's premise, this program has funded many large projects in
Anchorage, including a $10,000,000 addition to the Anchorage
Landfill. Senator Leman has raised a concern, especially of a lot
of the smaller communities who might visualize no money being
available if Anchorage were to suck it all up in one year. DEC
would hope to prevent that, with or without statutory language.
SENATOR LEMAN asked why water projects aren't funded from this
program. Is there another source for water projects?
MR. KELTON replied that this particular program is under the
Federal Clean Water Act, which only addresses wastewater projects.
There is a very strong likelihood that there will be a similar
program in place for drinking water within the next year, as soon
as congress reauthorizes the Safe-Drinking Water Act.
SENATOR LEMAN thought Alaska had two different programs, one for
wastewater, and one for water.
Number 430
MR. KELTON responded Senator Leman is correct: there are two
authorizations in the Alaska Clean-Water Fund. One addresses
wastewater, which is capitalized by the federal government. There
is also a corresponding state only section, which would allow this
type of program for drinking-water projects. However, that would
require capitalization by the state, and it's never been
capitalized. There is probably little advantage to using that
program, as long as there is a grants program in place.
SENATOR LEMAN remembers proposing capitalizing the drinking-water
program, but he thinks Senator Duncan blocked it.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked what the current annual amount from the
federal government was.
MR. KELTON responded that for each federal dollar, the state
matches it 20%. The last federal appropriation was about
$7,500,000. The state's portion of that would be 20% of that for
another $1,500,000. That would mean an annual increase of
$9,000,000. Passage of SB 207 this year would allow us to have a
larger corpus, because as new loans are made, the corpus decreases.
So the sooner this passes, the larger the corpus will be.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked where the original funding came from that
makes up the current corpus of $30,000,000.
MR. KELTON responded the corpus is made up of several years'
accumulation of state and federal appropriations. Over the last
two years, demand for the program has doubled, to the point where
in two years, at the current rate of demand, the fund will be
diminished.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if all the funds going out are in the form of
loans, and not grants.
Number 395
MR. KELTON responded that this program is entirely a loan program.
Over the six-year history of this program, there has never been a
single late payment.
SENATOR LEMAN asked for an explanation of "other qualified entity".
MR. KELTON responded that term was added primarily at the direction
of Senator Torgerson, who was concerned that service districts and
other entities that might lie outside an incorporated community's
boundary be allowed to work in conjunction with a community to
secure these funds, as long as the revenue stream was dedicated
back. So basically, we cannot make a loan to any entity unless an
incorporated community is part of the contractual agreement. But
it does clarify that it is intended to benefit service districts
and other entities outside incorporated boundaries.
Number 370
BERDA WILLSON, Assistant Manager - Nome Joint Utilities, also
speaking on behalf of the City of Nome, testifying from Nome,
supports SB 207. She stated that both NJU and the City of Nome
have taken advantage of this fund. With the decline in state
revenues, municipalities are hard pressed to find low-cost funding
such as this. She supported removing language giving state
agencies access to this fund: she does not think it would be fair
for municipalities to have to compete against the state for these
funds.
It was noted that Mr. Lee Sharp was on-line via teleconference to
answer questions regarding bond ratings.
Number 335
MARK EARNEST, Manager, City of Unalaska, testifying from Unalaska,
supports SB 207. Like communities throughout the state, Unalaska
is facing significant financial impacts resulting from unfunded
federal mandates. The largest of those for Unalaska is the
landfill. We also have an upgrade due for our wastewater treatment
plant with an estimated cost of $6,300,000. Unalaska is also
looking at possible costs of $16,000,000 for the water system, plus
$500,000 in operating costs. To put these costs in perspective,
the population of Unalaska is about 4,000. Mr. Earnest stated that
Unalaska has to proceed with these projects; they are not optional.
However, even with available grants and rate increases, they cannot
do it all themselves. They really need to be able to turn to a
low-interest loan program, such as the program that SB 207 would
establish. He encouraged support of SB 207.
Number 300
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if the bonds will contain a reference to the
full faith and credit of the State of Alaska.
MR. KELTON does not think that is a condition on the revenue bonds.
ROSS KINNEY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, stated Mr.
Kelton is correct: the bonds would not pledge full faith and credit
of the State of Alaska. The revenue stream pledged by the
communities would be the collateral.
Number 285
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked how the loan application would work.
MR. KELTON responded that one of the advantages of revenue bonds is
that they do not require voter approval. So a project can be
initiated more quickly with just assembly action authorizing an
application to the department for these funds. There has to be a
dedicated user-fee stream coming back that can be applied toward
repayment of the bond. This program would be available for
wastewater and solid waste projects. The tie to solid waste
projects is the threat for groundwater pollution potential. Point
or non-point source, or even an estuarian enhancement could be
funded, even though we've never had one of those.
Number 265
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if this would be an avenue for local
governments to apply for funding for solid waste programs.
MR. KELTON responded it would, and Anchorage has already done so.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 240
SENATOR LEMAN thinks SB 207 is a good source of funds for
wastewater and solid waste projects, and gets away from the concept
of grants. Senator Leman made a motion to discharge CSSB 207(CRA)
and accompanying zero fiscal notes [from DEC & DOR] from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented the state is duty-bound to give as much
access to funding as possible, and this pool-type arrangement
should result in a lower interest rate than municipalities could
get individually.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated SB 207 was released
from committee.
SSTA - 2/29/96
SJR 13 RATIFYING FED BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS brought up SJR 13 as the next order of
business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. He stated SCR
13 is a resolution in support of a balanced-budget amendment. By
amending the U.S. Constitution, he thinks we can get back on track,
as far as fiscal responsibility is concerned.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there were any comments on the legislation.
Hearing none, he asked the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to discharge SJR 13 from the
Senate State Affairs Committee.
Number 205
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated SJR 13 was discharged
from committee.
SSTA - 2/29/96
SB 207 REVENUE BONDS: WATER & WASTE PROJECTS
Number 180
SENATOR LEMAN noted that he might have a conflict of interest on SB
207, as he is a consulting engineer.
CHAIRMAN SHARP adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 4:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|