Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/14/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 123-CLEAN WATER FUND: LINKED DEPOSITS
1:04:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "An Act relating to the Alaska clean water
fund."
1:04:57 PM
KATIE KOESTER, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 123 on behalf of Representative
Seaton, sponsor. She said the bill would expand access to the
Alaska Clean Water Fund, which is a revolving fund comprised of
mostly federal dollars for the purpose of improving the water
systems in the state. Currently, only municipalities and state
agencies have access to these clean water dollars and HB 123
would broaden the access to that fund. The Alaska Clean Water
Fund is used mostly by municipalities for point source
pollution, such as septic systems. Nonpoint source pollution
dollars are also in the fund and these are the type of programs
that are being talked about under HB 123. An example of what
would not fall under HB 123 is a private company borrowing Clean
Water Fund money for a giant private septic system. Those
systems are point source pollution and are only available to
municipalities and state agencies.
1:06:18 PM
MS. KOESTER explained that HB 123 would establish a "linked
deposit program" to access the Clean Water Fund dollars. A
linked deposit would allow the state agency to put Clean Water
Fund dollars into a bank and then the bank would loan that money
to the borrower. The relationship between the state and bank
would be a certificate of deposit: the state would basically be
investing those Clean Water Fund dollars in a bank and then the
bank's responsibility would be to vet an applicant or
prospective borrower, which is who is being referred to when
talking about expanding access to Clean Water Fund dollars. The
bank would also have the responsibility to collect payment and
follow up on any loan defaults.
MS. KOESTER related how the program would work. A non-profit
organization would bring a project to the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) for approval. The department
would make sure it is an eligible project that falls under the
mission of the Clean Water Fund. Eligible projects would
include anything that would contribute to a healthy watershed,
such as green space development, on-site septic systems,
agricultural best practices, storm water management, and
brownfield remediation, to name a few. The definition for
eligible nonpoint source pollution projects is broad because
when talking about runoff, rainwater, and streams it is hard to
point a finger at it.
1:08:36 PM
MS. KOESTER pointed out that this program is used in many other
states. The committee packets include examples about some
agricultural, brownfield remediation, and on-site septic system
programs instituted in Ohio as a way to broaden access to Clean
Water Fund dollars. She drew attention to a booklet on members'
desks from the Homer Soil and Water Conservation District
[entitled Landscape Suitability Map] that is a manual on best
practices for development. The district received a grant to
develop a landscape suitability map of the entire Homer area and
identify projects that could be used for green development of
subdivisions and land use in the Homer area.
MS. KOESTER provided an example of how this linked deposit
program could be used under HB 123 for the bettering of Alaska's
water systems. The Homer Soil and Water Conservation District
would take these best management practices to DEC. The
department would determine and approve the eligibility of
projects for Clean Water Fund dollars, such as stormwater
management, leaving green space in a subdivision, and other
practices outlined in the booklet. Once approved by DEC, the
developer would go through a development accreditation process
with the Homer Soil and Water Conservation District. Then the
developer would go to a bank for a project loan using these
Clean Water Fund dollars that the state has put into the bank
and for which the bank is paying a below-market value rate to
the state. The bank would charge the developer an amount to
administer this loan.
1:11:39 PM
MS. KOESTER noted that broadening access to these Clean Water
Fund dollars has been successful in other states because it
provides a market driven incentive for healthy water systems,
rather than using enforcement. She directed attention to the
Alaska Clean Water Fund Intended Use Plan for Fiscal Year 2009
in the committee packet. She read from page 2, long term goal
5, which states: "Increase the pace at which available funds
are loaned by marketing to existing and potential new eligible
entities by expanding the overall funds usage. Potential new
entities may include lending to non-profit organizations for
water quality type of projects, and to homeowners through a
link-deposit program for on-site septic system improvements."
1:12:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE understood the state would deposit money with the
bank, the bank would pay a lower-than-market interest rate to
the state for use of that money, and then the bank would loan
that money to people, entities, or non-profits. He asked what
interest rate the bank would charge.
MS. KOESTER replied the bank would charge an interest rate that
it feels acceptable for its risk in assuming that borrower. She
confirmed that Co-Chair Feige's understanding of the program is
correct.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired what risk the bank would be taking since
it is the state's money.
MS. KOESTER responded there is still a risk that the borrower
might default. The real reason why the risk is on the bank is
so that the bank will do the proper vetting of that applicant.
The applicant would have to have collateral or a credit score or
go through any other type of process necessary to access a loan.
The difference is that someone might not be able to get a loan
for some of these projects because the capital does not exist
without being able to access the Clean Water Fund dollars.
1:14:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked how much of the current funding stream is
being utilized by the municipalities and other qualified
entities that are presently allowed to borrow from the fund.
MS. KOESTER deferred to DEC for the exact numbers. However,
based on her conversations with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) about the goals that were established to
increase the access and increase the lending of the funds, it is
the sponsor's belief that there is room in that fund to expand
access.
1:15:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood the state provides the
money, but she inquired whether the money comes directly from
the state or from the federal government. She further inquired
whether the state gets this money back when the bank is repaid.
MS. KOESTER answered that the Clean Water Fund is mostly federal
dollars, so it is a federal-state revolving loan fund that
exists in all the states for cleaning up water systems. The
state would get the money back from the banks along with a
lower-than-market interest. It would be just like the state is
investing funds in a bank instead of right now where all of
those loans are issued to municipalities or state agencies and
for which a lower-than-market value interest rate is applied.
The state gets those dollars back at a nominal interest rate and
that is why it is a revolving fund - it keeps growing and the
state is able to expand programs.
1:16:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how much money is in the fund and
how much is encumbered.
MS. KOESTER understood that the fund is at around $45 million.
She deferred to DEC to answer the question in more detail.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed in paragraph 2 of the sponsor
statement that community organizations, developers, non-profits,
and individuals would have access to borrowing these funds. He
inquired whether a Native village corporation, a cooperative
that is regulated by "RCA", or a community supported
agricultural farm would be included as eligible borrowers.
MS. KOESTER understood that any type of organization would be
eligible and would not have to be a non-profit. The money just
has to be spent on projects that are eligible for Clean Water
Fund dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI requested a broader definition of what
the Clean Water Fund currently spends money on.
1:18:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether Ms. Koester's referral to
"state funds" means the funds that are in the Clean Water Fund
now.
MS. KOESTER replied correct, she is talking about the Alaska
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund. She allowed it is confusing
because that fund is federal dollars, but the state has control
over those dollars.
1:19:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested further explanation about what
would be linked under the bill.
MS. KOESTER explained that the Clean Water Fund is already
available to municipalities, so right now municipalities can
already apply to DEC for a loan under that fund. Under HB 123,
access to this fund would be expanded by saying that an
individual, through a bank, can have access to Clean Water Fund
dollars with an eligible project. The state's treasury would
put an amount of money in a bank as a certificate of deposit,
say $100. The bank would pay interest to the state, say 2
percent, over the life of the loan. The bank would then loan
that $100 to say, John, a developer in Homer, who is doing a
green development that will have a green space. The bank would
charge John an interest rate of 7 percent, of which 5 percent is
to cover the bank's risk of loaning to John and 2 percent is to
cover its administration fee to the state.
1:21:26 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON interjected that the relation of this linked
deposit system is the developer can get cheaper capital, and can
have access to capital, when the interest rate might otherwise
prevent the development from going forward. At extremely low
interest rates this might not be beneficial, but when interest
rates go high developers have a hard time getting money
economically enough to do a development; thus the linked deposit
would allow for water systems to be improved, whether that is
catchment ponds or other water system improvements. Water
systems does not just mean water to the house, it means water
systems flowing down through a planned development.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired whether the fund grows as loans
are paid off with interest, or is the fund meant to stay at the
level of $45 million.
MS. KOESTER responded that the Alaska Clean Water Fund does grow
and the interest received is re-loaned to other qualified
projects. That is how it currently works and how it would
continue to work.
1:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER understood that HB 123 would expand the
entities that can borrow the money that is essentially federal
money that the state has control of. But rather than have DEC
or the state take the loan applications and provide
administration, it would be done through a bank and the bank is
willing to provide a lower interest rate because it has the
security of the state's certificate of deposit.
MS. KOESTER confirmed that this is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the language that would be
added by HB 123 is "to persons, municipalities, or other
qualified entities...." She asked what that specifically really
means. For example, Kensington Mine has built settling pools
next to its roads so that the runoff does not go directly into
streams, which is clearly a water quality issue. She asked
whether Kensington Mine would be a qualified entity for a loan
for something like these settling ponds.
MS. KOESTER allowed that the sponsor has struggled with
"qualified entities" because if it is defined too tightly then
no one is really eligible. She said her understanding is that
Kensington Mine would be eligible by working through the
approval process that the project is eligible for.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that if large industrial groups
such as those on the North Slope are eligible, there would need
to be a limitation on the scale so that one or two big groups
did not take all the funds and leave "John in Homer" without
access to the money.
MS. KOESTER agreed, saying limitations on the money would have
to be developed because there is a need for municipalities. She
deferred to DEC to speak to the current limitations.
1:26:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE observed that the first section of HB 123 defines
the projects, which is the existing law: public wastewater
collection, treatment, or discharge systems; nonpoint sources of
pollution; and estuary conservation and management programs. He
inquired why private persons would need to be added because it
seems to him that persons do not have the responsibility for any
of those particular projects.
MS. KOESTER answered that individual persons would not be added
for point source pollution projects, such as solid waste
management systems. There are two sections of the fund - point
source and nonpoint source. Individual borrowers would be
eligible for nonpoint source pollution because it is much more
difficult to point a finger at something like pesticide runoff
or a development that has issues with pavement and stormwater
management that are harder to mitigate. So, the bill would
really provide a market incentive for individuals to consider
those aspects when developing.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the Alaska Clean Water Revolving
Loan Fund is just different terminology for the same thing or is
something different.
MS. KOESTER replied it is the Alaska Clean Water Revolving Loan
Fund and HB 123 would just expand the eligible borrowers to a
portion of that fund, which is the nonpoint source pollution
portion of that fund.
1:28:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired whether any pushback is expected
from state agencies or municipalities that fear the $45 million
might not grow and so more people would be fighting for this
piece of the pie that is not growing.
MS. KOESTER responded she believes municipalities have first
priority. It is the sponsor's understanding that Alaska could
be taking advantage of more clean water opportunities.
Municipalities are not using the fund at this point in time to a
level that would indicate there is an over-demand on the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked how much of the fund is encumbered.
MS. KOESTER deferred to DEC.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired how many applications there
are per year and said she would like to hear from DEC.
CO-CHAIR SEATON confirmed that DEC would be speaking later.
1:30:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON understood banks would like it because
they can make money, but more importantly if a bank can invest
in a project that enhances the bank's investment in a project or
collateral or neighbor projects it is in its best interest to
borrow this money from the state to lend out so that the bank
can protect those projects that may be surrounding a respective
project. He inquired whether this specific legislation has been
tried in a previous Alaska legislature.
MS. KOESTER answered that House Bill 200 was introduced last
year but was not heard.
1:31:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related that at a recent hearing before the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, the
City of Unalaska testified that it is considering upgrades to
its water discharge system to go from a primary system to
secondary. She asked whether Unalaska would be eligible for
these funds and, if so, whether the fund large is enough to
support those new requirements that the EPA is bringing forward
for many of Alaska's coastal communities.
MS. KOESTER replied that the City of Unalaska is already
eligible for those funds. From her limited understanding of the
potential implications of that decision, she said it is much
larger than what many of the state's funds combined would be
able to handle.
1:32:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised the upcoming requirements described by
Representative Munoz are beyond the current ability of the
[Alaska Clean Water Fund] to fund.
MS. KOESTER understood there is some potential coming from the
EPA for changes to its requirements that would have far-reaching
ramifications for many communities. However, she said she does
not know very much about this because it is very new and there
are a lot of assumptions as to which communities may or may not
be targeted, including some in the sponsor's district.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, regarding page 2, line 14, of HB 123 that states
the department "shall" establish a linked deposit loan program,
asked whether it would be better to say "may" so as to give DEC
the option of doing this depending upon demand.
MS. KOESTER responded that that would be a policy call; the
differences between "shall" and "may" are very large. Either
way, statutory authority is needed to hold Clean Water dollars
somewhere besides the treasury.
1:34:59 PM
LYNN KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained that DEC administers
two separate funds: the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and
the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund that is the subject of HB
123. The Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund is tapped out right
now and no dollars are available beyond the annual appropriation
to the fund in the federal grant. The Clean Water Revolving
Loan Fund is about $390 million, of which a balance of about $42
million is currently available. While that may seem like a
large amount of money, there are some communities poised to seek
some very large loans from that fund, as was just heard, and
that has the potential to tap out the fund in a hurry.
Currently the loan fund is being used primarily for communities
for their wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal
systems. The department does fund some nonpoint projects
through solid waste projects and stormwater projects, again
through loans to communities.
MS. KENT, regarding the question of whether large industrial
businesses could get loans under HB 123, said the answer is yes
and no. She said she believes they would be prohibited from
getting a loan for an activity that is regulated under the point
source requirements of the Clean Water Act. The Kensington Mine
stormwater example that was cited earlier is actually a
permitted discharge at the mine, so the mine would likely not be
eligible for a nonpoint source loan through this linked deposit
program. She said she believes that under the way the bill is
currently set up, private industry could seek loans for
activities that are nonpoint source pollution oriented.
1:37:36 PM
MS. KENT, regarding the question about the source of the funds,
explained that the fund consists of the annual appropriation by
the EPA, the interest the state receives on the portions of the
fund that are loaned out, and the repayments of the previous
loans that have been issued. While the fund is growing from
that perspective, DEC is concerned that federal appropriations
that have been helping to capitalize the fund are proposed to
take some pretty severe hits this year.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested a definition of the difference
between point source and nonpoint source.
MS. KENT answered that a point source is a discharge from a
facility that comes from what EPA calls a discreet conveyance,
such as a pipe from a treatment plant that discharges to a
surface water. Nonpoint source discharge does not come from a
discreet conveyance; for example, pollution from dog droppings,
herbicides, or fertilizers that are from the lawn of a city park
and that through rainfall run off into a creek or surface water.
Another nonpoint example is rain falling onto parking lots that
then runs off, carrying oils and grease from cars into the
creek. The EPA does not have a regulatory program for nonpoint
source discharges.
1:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired how DEC would define a person
or other qualified entity for purposes of the regulations.
MS. KENT replied that DEC would have to write regulations to
implement HB 123, but as the bill is currently written the
eligible entity would not preclude anyone who has a project that
would be eligible under the terms of the revolving loan fund.
So, eligible entity could include a private individual or a
private business so long as the person or entity had a nonpoint
source project that fell within the allowable projects under the
fund.
1:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding Unalaska having to meet new
EPA requirements, noted that Unalaska goes through a huge amount
of water because of the number of processors located there. She
surmised that many municipalities may be faced with having to
meet these new EPA requirements. She asked how much money the
State of Alaska receives from the federal government and whether
the program would be able to provide funds to all qualified
entities if the program is kept as it is now.
MS. KENT responded that the municipalities are always requesting
money from DEC, not just for new facilities but also for
upgrading and replacing current facilities and to accommodate
growth in the community. Therefore, it is not always a new or
higher regulatory standard that causes municipalities to seek a
loan from the department. Right now the department is receiving
about $12 million annually in federal allocations for this fund
and the demand for the funds is going up and up. A few years
ago DEC had a much larger balance in this fund; the balance is
going down and DEC expects it to tap out very soon.
1:42:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether the fund would be able
to handle adding more eligible entities for these loans, given
that the state may be receiving less money from the federal
government in coming years and that municipalities will be
needing upgrades.
MS. KENT answered that it all comes down to prioritization on
use of the fund. When conducting its annual scoring process,
the department primarily looks at the immediate health needs
that would result from a given project. So, once the funds are
tapped out, what is likely to happen is that those projects that
meet an immediate health need would outscore projects that do
not provide such an immediate health benefit. In further
response to Representative P. Wilson, she said she does not
think DEC's eligibility criteria for the loan programs have
changed since the fund's inception.
1:44:35 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony on HB 123.
1:44:53 PM
DEVONY LEHNER, Private Developer, said HB 123 would allow
another group of potentially eligible recipients to come on
line, but that she sees no downside to passing the bill because
the state would still have the flexibility to determine where
the money is allocated. She noted that she is a private
developer and that individual private developers have profound
long-term effects that can either increase or minimize the
demands on municipal systems. She and her husband are strong
advocates of trying to minimize demands on municipal systems and
keeping environmental effects from transferring offsite.
1:46:57 PM
MS. LEHNER stated that she and her husband are developing an 80-
acre conservation subdivision, called Stream Hill Park. It is
located inside Homer city limits so there are many hoops that
must be jumped through. Over half of the subdivision has been
set aside in permanent green space that is primarily drainages,
not creeks which require a buffer anyway. These drainages are
for handling large amounts of water coming from within the
subdivision as well as from outside it. She noted that there
are many piecemeal developments uphill from Stream Hill Park, so
her subdivision represents a system between upslope and
downslope development that can handle lots of water. She and
her husband have tried to create many ways where water can be
flowed, infiltrated, and cleaned so that it will not become a
problem downslope. She pointed out that impervious surfaces are
created by development which causes much more runoff. So, if no
mechanisms are put in place for looking at these things long
term, the city will end up with more and more runoff and already
the city often has more than it can effectively handle.
1:48:49 PM
MS. LEHNER noted that there is a rippling effect of benefits
when developers, particularly those that control relatively
large parcels, are encouraged to look at ways of developing so
as to minimize the demands on municipal services. There are
currently no incentives to do what she and her husband are
trying to do in their development and they have had to work hard
with taxing entities to explain that these parks and open spaces
are set aside as non-developable lands for forever and so should
not be taxed as developable. A developer has lots of issues to
deal with when trying to pro-actively develop in ways that
maximize watershed and community benefits, so any kind of
incentive could be significant for encouraging developers to
look at approaches that have long-time benefits to the
municipality and the community. She and her husband have put a
trail in their open space system that is used by many Homer
residents. Thus, in addition to open space protecting water
quality, it provides outdoor activity, quality of life, and
health benefits.
MS. LEHNER added that the benefits are diverse, widespread, and
long term. She urged members to consider the value of allowing
developers to have access to these kinds of funds through this
linked deposit program because developers really shape the
communities in which they are developing. It is better to have
the developments designed in appropriate and long-term
environmentally conscious sustainable ways than to be giving
money to municipalities to deal after the fact with the problems
created by poorly designed developments.
1:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers would consider the 40 acres of land set aside in Ms.
Lehner's subdivision as wetlands.
MS. LEHNER replied that very little of the area set aside in her
subdivision is mapped as wetlands. Kenai Peninsula wetlands
were classified and mapped in 2005 at a scale of 1:25,000 and
those are the maps used by the corps. Virtually none of the
areas that she and her husband have set aside are mapped as
wetlands even though they convey water downhill. She and her
husband are setting aside much larger areas than what would be
required by the minimum regulatory standards.
1:52:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE commented that Ms. Lehner's subdivision sounds
like a very nice development that would be a good investment.
He asked whether Ms. Lehner could not go to a bank and borrow
money to do this same thing.
MS. LEHNER responded that she and her husband have a credit line
of over $2 million with a bank. However, she pointed out, when
developing within the city the developer is required to put in
sewer, water, and paved roads. The lots in her subdivision
range from one-quarter to one-half acre in size which is a more
expensive way to go than the more traditional way of having
roughly one-acre individual parcels with no green space and
where the buyer must put in an on-site septic and figure out how
to put in a well or have water delivered. Such a traditional
development would have required much less money up front for
infrastructure, but it would not have created a significant open
space system. She said her testimony today is talking about
folks in the future who would be able to get a lower interest
rate than she and her husband were able to get. That lower
interest rate would encourage and allow developers to use this
beneficial type of approach.
CO-CHAIR SEATON held over HB 123.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01-HB0123A.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 02-Sponsor Statement HB123.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 04-Innovative use of CWF.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 05.Funding decentralized watewater systems.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 06-Wet Weather.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 07-Green Infrastructure.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 08-Ohio brownfield.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 09-the Ohio example.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 10-Homer Soil and Water Landscape Suitability Map.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB0105A.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Coffman Cove Support HB105-SB44.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 1 14 11 Chenault SESF Transmittal.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Public Briefing HB105-SB44 1-24-2011.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| RDC Support 1-5-11.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| AFA support SESF additions 1-12-11.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| Vicinity Map SSE State Forest 12-20-10.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Parcel Maps SESF 12.20.2010.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SEACC_SESF_h_02_11.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| SAF Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB0105-1-2-011811-DNR-N.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB123-DEC-FC-02-11-11.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Testimony and Resolution - Southeast Conference.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| Testimony - Wayne R. Nicolls.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| Testimony - John A. Sandor.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| DOF Testimony HB105 2-14-11.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| SEAALASKA McDowell Group studies.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2011 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/14/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |