Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/29/2021 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB57 | |
| HB29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 57-FUNDS SUBJECT TO CBR SWEEP PROVISION
1:01:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to the budget reserve fund
established under art. IX, sec. 17(d), Constitution of the State
of Alaska; relating to money available for appropriation for
purposes of applying art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the State
of Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
1:02:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, introduced HB 57. He said the idea for the
legislation came from his witnessing confusion and uncertainty
during a July 2019 House Finance meeting on the topic of the
constitutional budget reserve (CBR), particularly on the
application of the CBR and the sweep provisions, where there
appeared to be differences between the administration and
legislative agencies. He said that just weeks before, there had
been "massive vetoes," and doubling the impact of those vetoes
was the administration's belief that "everything was
'sweepable'." Representative Josephson said a thorough study of
the case Hickel v. Cowper showed that everything is not
sweepable. He said in preparing HB 57, he and his staff
consulted with the Legislative Finance Division and the
Legislative Division of Audit.
1:04:14 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, gave a PowerPoint on HB 57 on behalf of
Representative Josephson, prime sponsor. Having covered the
sectional analysis on slide 2 at a prior committee meeting, she
directed attention to slide 3, "CBR repayment provision," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Article IX, Section 17(d)- "If an appropriation is
made from the budget reserve fund, until the amount
appropriated is repaid, the amount of money in the
general fund available for appropriation at the end of
each succeeding fiscal year shall be deposited in the
budget reserve fund. The legislature shall implement
this subsection by law
MS. SORUM-BIRK said this was attempted through House Bill [58]
in 1994, [during the Eighteenth Alaska State Legislature], a law
that was found by the Alaska Supreme Court to be "broadly
unconstitutional." She emphasized that it is "high time the
legislature take up this important role of implementing this
subsection by law." She stated that is the aim of HB 57.
1:06:11 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK moved on to discuss intent language, covered on
slides 4-9. She pointed out the first "Legislative Intent" on
slide 4, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
"It is the intent of the legislature to create
statutory definitions for these terms in alignment
with both the current legal understanding of them and
the reality of existing state fiscal systems."
o A lack of clarity in statutes surrounding the
mechanics of the sweep provision
o Potential adverse impacts on the availability of
important fund sources
o July 2019 events
o Need consistent meaning of terms "general fund" and
"available for appropriation"
MS. SORUM-BIRK said something can be swept if it is available
for appropriation or is part of the general fund. She said
during the discussions of 2019, then Director of Legislative
Finance, David Teal, warned that without statutory definitions
in place, the sweeps become a matter of legislative policy
rather than a matter of law.
MS. SORUM-BIRK moved on to the second "Legislative Intent," on
slide 5, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
o It is the intent of the legislature to update the
section of statute defining "available for
appropriation" to specifically reflect the findings
set forth in Hickel."
o The Alaska Supreme Court's analysis in the Hickel v.
Cowper decision provides a framework
o A legislative obligation exists to implement by law
Article 9 Section 17(d) of the constitution
o 1994 passage of House Bill 58 (AS 37.10.420) aimed
to do this but was found to be broadly
unconstitutional
o Supreme Court outlined general standard and invited
a reexamination of this statute
o "We also make no attempt to name and classify as
"available" or "unavailable" every fund within the
treasury of the State of Alaska. We leave it, in the
first instance, to executive and legislative branch
officials more familiar with all of the funds involved
to apply the general definition we adopt today."
(Hickel v Cowper, 874 P. 2d 922, n. 27)
o Legislative Audit Finding No. 2019-089 of the State
of Alaska FY 2019 Single Audit
1:09:23 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK turned to the third "Legislative Intent," on
slide 6, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
o "It is the intent of the legislature to protect the
financial security of existing programs and maintain
the integrity of state financial structures to the
greatest extent possible"
o The Hickel ruling voiced clear opposition to
disrupting the mechanics of state finance; advocated
commonsense approach o Legislature's view too narrow,
Cowper's view too broad
o Revolving Loan Funds- "?the existing state programs
dependent on these funds would have to be curtailed if
these funds were expended on another purpose. These
funds are maintained, however, because in the judgment
of the legislature they serve worthwhile purposes."
(Hickel, 874 P. 2d at 929)
MS. SORUM-BIRK moved on to the fourth "Legislative Intent," on
slide 7, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
o "The legislature finds that appropriated funds which
can be expended with no further legislative action are
no longer considered available for appropriation and
thus would not be included in the sweep? It is the
intent of the legislature to include this principle in
the codified definition of 'available for
appropriation.'"
o True regardless of if the funds were given to a
state agency to spend or were held in the general fund
o Hickel - Article 17 did not require "counting funds
already validly appropriated to a specific purpose as
still 'available'" and that monies already "validly
committed by the legislature to some purpose should
not be counted as available." (Hickel, 874 P. 2d at
930-931)
MS. SORUM-BIRK turned to the fifth "Legislative Intent," on
slide 8, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
o "The legislature finds that any funds that cannot be
immediately expended through appropriation are not
considered available for appropriation and thus are
not subject to the sweep ? It is the intent of the
legislature to include this principle in the codified
definition of 'available for appropriation.'"
o The Hickel Court held that the voters, in supporting
passage of the CBR resolution in 1990, were not trying
to eliminate state services or liquidate state assets
before funds in the CBR could be accessed (Hickel, 874
P. 2d at 928).
o Categories of funds that are not immediately
spendable include:
o illiquid assets
o revolving loan funds
o grants to the state from private entities
1:12:30 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK addressed the sixth "Legislative Intent," on
slide 9, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
o "The legislature finds that funds considered to be
trust receipts, despite being included in the metric
for calculating what is available, are to be excluded
from the sweep? It is the intent of the legislature to
include this principle in the codified definition of
'available for appropriation' and to clarify in
statute the principle that trust receipts are not
fully subject to the sweep provision."
o If actually appropriated must be included in
"available for appropriation"
o Only a portion is available according to Hickel -
the part that would be expended consistent with
application of prudent "trust principles"
MS. SORUM-BIRK added that trust receipts include: federal
funds; funds given to the state for a specific purpose by
private entities; and appropriations from trust accounts. She
read footnote 23 of the case notes as follows:
Amounts appropriated by the legislature out of other
funds within executive agencies for the purpose of
administering these funds under explicit statutory
authority may also be treated as a type of trust
receipt.
MS. SORUM-BIRK said this would include agriculture, fishing, and
small business revolving loan funds.
1:14:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON clarified:
The fact that it's available for appropriation, as the
slide shows, doesn't mean that it's ... to be swept.
And that relates to that important calculation about
whether the legislature must deliver a simple majority
to spend from the CBR or the three-quarter
supermajority from both chambers. That's the
importance of that distinction.
1:14:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for a more specific example related to trust
receipts.
MS. SORUM-BIRK reviewed the revolving loan funds previously
stated and suggested the next slide would speak to
Representative Claman's question.
1:15:56 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK directed attention to the seventh "Legislative
Intent," on slide 10, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
o "The Hickel Court treated money appropriated by
state corporations much the same way as trust
receipts?"
o Alaska Energy Authority is a state corporation that
holds the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) endowment
fund. The PCE is not subject to sweep or part of the
general fund for 4 reasons
o 1) This fund is housed in a corporation
o 2) PCE follows an endowment model which
requires application of prudent "trust principles"
o 3) Hickel says that only the money appropriated
from a corporation must be counted as available for
appropriation, even if a corporation had funds in
excess of what it required to fulfill its purpose
o 4) The legislature has never fully appropriated
the funds and it is unlikely that it would do so, as
that would defy the very purpose of the fund
1:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that attorney Megan Wallace,
[Director, Legislative Legal Services], said PCE should not be
sweepable, while [former] Attorney General Kevin Clarkson said
it was. He said, "This is one of many examples of why a roadmap
for the legislature, and for ... agencies that we interrelate
with, is important, and ... absolutely encouraged, both by the
CBR's express language and by Hickel v. Cowper."
1:18:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that the slide read that only money from
[emphasis on "from"] a corporation must be counted as available
for appropriation. He asked if that was meant to distinguish
appropriation from a corporation rather than to a corporation.
1:18:44 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK answered, "That is probably correct." She
clarified that which is appropriated from the fund is what is
available. She said she thinks the logic behind that is: "You
have to count the money you're spending in the metric of the
money available for appropriation; you have to count the money
you actually appropriate in that metric."
1:19:50 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK drew attention to the eighth "Legislative
Intent," on slide 11, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
o "The legislature finds that the earnings reserve
account, as an account in the Alaska permanent fund,
is located outside of the general fund and thus is not
subject to the sweep provision? It is the intent of
the legislature to codify fund types that exist in the
state treasury separately from the general fund to
eliminate all uncertainty as to what constitutes the
general fund."
o Hickel- "the earnings reserve account, need not be
deposited into the budget reserve." (Hickel, 874 P. 2d
922, 23)
MS. SORUM-BIRK said although the earnings reserve account (ERA)
was specifically referenced in the case, how the state uses it
has changed "pretty drastically" over time. She said the issue
was briefly touched upon in "the Wielechowski decision." She
said that if the argument made by the former attorney general
were followed, then funds being used in a manner similar to
those in the general fund would count as general fund. Since
the legislature can and regular does appropriate from the ERA,
an argument could be made that the ERA was sweepable, "if you
just took that same logic being used on the PCE one step
further." She added that if the ERA were swept "that would be
kind of a disaster."
MS. SORUM-BIRK moved on to the ninth "Legislative Intent," on
slide 12, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
o "It is the intent of the legislature to define
'general fund' in a way that is practical, logical,
and stabilizing in nature."
o No statutory or constitutional definition for the
term "general fund" exists
o Occurs 200+ times throughout statute o Lack of
consistency between organizations - currently a matter
of policy rather than law
o It is common practice in other states to define
'general fund'
MS. SORUM-BIRK added that a definition would provide "legal
consistency in how 'general fund' is viewed."
1:22:30 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK next addressed slides 13 and 14, regarding the
general fund (GF). Slide 13, which responds to the question of
what the GF is, read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? There isn't consensus between state agencies
? In budgeting terms, we are used to thinking in terms
of UGF, DGF, Federal and Other
? These categories don't align with the accounts
in the state treasury
? The CAFR says
? "All public monies and revenues coming into the
state treasury not specifically authorized by statute
to be placed in a special fund constitute the General
Fund"
? But also notes - "Not all revenues that flow
into the General Fund are available to pay for
unrestricted government activities. The most notable
are federal revenues, which are provided for specific
purposes."
? It is common practice in public finance to define
general fund
MS. SORUM-BIRK said slide 14 gives the current definition of
general fund, which is: "The primary operating fund of the
state, consisting of all money paid into the state treasury that
is not specifically authorized by law to be placed in a separate
fund." She said HB 57 lists that which is excluded from the
general fund, shown on slide 14 as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? funds held or managed by legally separate entities
that the state is financially accountable for
including funds held or managed by public corporations
and the University of Alaska
? enterprise funds
? debt service funds
? special revenue funds
? the Alaska permanent fund
? internal service funds
? agency funds
1:25:11 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK, in response to Chair Claman, confirmed there is
currently no definition of "general fund" in statute or within
the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
1:25:33 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK turned to the summary on slide 15, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Summary of principles from Hickel v Cowper used in
defining "available for appropriation"
? Two main parameters:
? "must include all funds over which the
legislature has retained power to appropriate"
and
? "which are not available to pay expenditures
without further legislative appropriation"
? For trust receipts the amount appropriated by the
legislature IS the amount available for appropriation
? This category includes federal funds, funds
given to the state for specific purposes by private
entities AND appropriations from trust account
? Notably "amounts appropriated by the
legislature out of other funds within executive
agencies for the purpose of administering these funds,
under explicit statutory authority may also be treated
as a type of trust receipt" (revolving loan funds)
? Monies of public corporations are treated similarly
to trust receipts
? Excludes illiquid assets, funds expendable without
further legislative appropriation, or funds validly
appropriated
MS. SORUM-BIRK brought attention to slide 16, "Goal in Summary,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 57 aims to enact by law section Article IX, Section
17 (d) of the Alaska Constitution thereby providing
legal clarity on the sweep provision.
It does this by:
? defining 'available for appropriation' using an
understanding of parameters set in Hickel v Cowper and
thereby correcting the largely unconstitutional AS
37.10.420 (a)(1)
? defining 'general fund' in a way that reflects the
actual mechanics of state finance and clarifying what
fund types are excluded from the general fund
? formally addressing which funds within the general
fund cannot be swept and why
1:27:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Section 3 of the proposed bill and
speculated that every fund did not "make the list," and he asked
how the funds listed were chosen.
1:29:09 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK pointed out that in the bill language, the word
"including" preceding the list means some but not all are on the
list. She stated that the funds listed are sub-funds in the
general fund that are not subject to the sweep. She noted that
both the Legislative Audit Division and the Legislative Finance
Division would be doing thorough reviews of the bill to ensure
everything necessary was included.
1:30:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN summarized, "So, at least in terms of these funds
that aren't subject to sweep, the thought is this wouldn't
necessarily be an exhaustive list."
MS. SORUM-BIRK confirmed that's correct.
1:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted where "these funds include" was
located on page 8, line 8, of HB 57, and she asked if the
sponsor's intent was not to use "but are not limited to" and
instead to make the list inclusive.
1:30:46 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK answered no and reiterated that "include" infers
that the list is "not limited to" that which is on it.
1:31:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recollected "a distant memory" of a communication
with Legislative Legal Services, at which time the agency told
him that "include" makes "not limited to" unnecessary. He said
that caused him sometimes to look in statute for examples of
that, and he has noticed that frequently "not limited to" is not
added. He suggested that would be a good point to query with
Ms. Wallace.
1:31:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND remarked that after carefully reading
the list on page 8, she is keen to learn where the higher
education investment fund would fall. She speculated that it
could fall under the University of Alaska (UA). She explained
her interest in the fund stems from "a non-educational intent
for funds to be withdrawn from ... the corpus of the higher
education investment fund."
1:32:35 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK responded that unfortunately the higher education
investment fund is not on the list because it is subject to
sweep when using the definitions set forth under Hickel v.
Cowper. Under statute, the fund exists within the GF, and the
legislature retains full appropriation control over it. She
said there was no way the sponsor could see to include that fund
[on the list] without changing the statute surrounding it. She
offered examples of how this could be changed.
1:34:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the bill sponsor had considered
including a provision in HB 57 that would give the governor the
authority to identify a fund as "not subject to sweep" followed
by a period of time in which the legislature could determine
whether to reject that decision.
MS. SORUM-BIRK answered no. She said the sponsor "used a pretty
cut-and-dry interpretation of the [Alaska] Supreme Court case,"
which focuses on whether the fund is sweepable, whether it is in
the GF, and whether it is available for appropriation.
1:37:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 57.
1:37:23 PM
NANCY BIRD testified in support of HB 57. She opined, "Clear
and concise statutory definitions of the terms 'available for
appropriation' and 'general fund' are essential, since the fund
source must meet both of these standards to be subject to the
sweep." The proposed legislation aims to define "general fund"
in a way that clarifies the types of funds that would be
excluded, which she said she thinks is important in making clear
that the GF does not include money such as the PCE or ERA. She
urged the committee to support HB 57.
1:38:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 57.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 57 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 57 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sponsor Statement 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sectional Analysis v. B 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - OMB Letter 7.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - CBR Sweep Breakdown by Fund - LFD March 2020 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - AEA Memo on PCE Sweep 8.24.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Hickel v. Cowper May 27, 1994 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Finance Outline of AS 37.10.420 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Research Memo GF Definitions 9.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY19 Single Audit - Finding No. 2019-089 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY20 CAFR General Fund Accounts 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 PowerPoint Presentation 3.10.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact 3.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 29 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Sponsor Statement 3.22.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Supporting Document - Electric Utility Liability Information 3.22.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Supporting Document - APA Letter 3.1.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Supporting Document - CVEA Letter 3.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Supporting Document - GVEA Letter 3.16.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Supporting Document - CVEA Vegetation Management Draft March 2021 3.22.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 3.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Additional Document - Anchorage Daily News Article (Distributed by HJUD Committee) 3.28.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 Opposing Document - Testimony Received by 3.29.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 v. A Amendment #1 HJUD 3.29.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 v. A Amendment #1 HJUD Final Vote 3.29.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |