Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
01/26/2012 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB290 | |
| HB184 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 184-REFUND OF FISH BUSINESS TAX TO MUNIS
8:59:18 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 184, "An Act relating to the sharing of tax
revenue from the fisheries business tax and fishery resource
landing tax with municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
8:59:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON , Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the sponsor of HB 184, paraphrased from the following written
testimony [original punctuation provided]:
HB 184, Refund of Fish Business Tax to Munis, will
increase the municipalities' share of the Fisheries
Business Tax and the Fisheries Landing tax from 50% to
75%. It is the intent that these funds will be used
for port and harbor infrastructure maintenance. This
bill will NOT change the taxes levies. It just deals
with the distribution.
In 1986 the state started to divest itself of ports
and harbors to reduce operating and capital costs. At
that time the state owned 99 of the 125 harbors. Over
the following 25 years the state has turned over 74 of
its harbors to municipalities and boroughs. It is now
up to the boroughs and cities to maintain their own
infrastructure. Many of the ports and harbors that
support the infrastructure for our commercial
fisheries, are rundown and in need of major
maintenance or complete rebuilds. Well maintained port
and harbor facilities are critical to the economic
health of our coastal communities. Currently we have
the Municipal Harbor Grant fund that helps with this
maintenance. You have in your packet a graph of the
way this fund has been appropriated in the 5 years
since it was created. It is sporadic and makes it
difficult for a municipality to implement a Harbor
plan if the funding is always uncertain. This increase
in the Fisheries Business tax will allow munis to take
advantage of a sound strategic plan for the
development and maintenance of their port
infrastructures.
Under the current system funds generated by the
Fisheries Business Tax from processors are distributed
4 different ways:
Fish processed inside a municipality are divided
equally between the state and the municipality.
If the processing occurred within an incorporated city
inside a borough, the 50% is divided equally between
the two entities, city and borough.
If the processing occurred outside of an incorporated
city the 50% goes entirely to the borough.
On fish that are processed or landed outside of any
municipal or borough boundaries half of the tax
revenue goes to the general fund (state) and the other
half goes to the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED). The department
distributes its share among fishing communities in
Alaska according to a formula that proportionally
allocates the tax based on the pounds of fish
processed in 14 different Fisheries Management Areas.
(you should have a map of these areas in your packets)
The percent that goes to each fisheries management
area is then split between the communities by a
locally determined formula apportioning equal
community shares and per capita shares. This formula
will not change with HB 184.
In addition to the fisheries business tax HB 184 will
also increase the municipalities' share of the
Fisheries Resource Landing tax a subset of the
Fisheries Business Tax. This tax is on fresh fish that
is not "processed in state". This fish can be troll
dressed salmon, gutted and gilled Halibut, live crab,
and geoducks. This is the high value fresh fish that
is exported live and that is highly desirable. Our tax
distribution system is clearly diverting from one of
the fastest growing parts of the market. In some cases
the ports where the product is landed does not even
qualify to receive a portion of the redistribution
under the current formula.
HB 184 would, in addition to changing the split
between the state and the municipalities, direct the
Fisheries Resource Landing Tax revenue on these
"unprocessed" fisheries resources back to the
incorporated port of landing and or the borough where
they were landed. This will help more accurately and
fairly cover the cost of building and maintaining the
infrastructure utilized in generating the tax. By
tying Fisheries Landing Tax revenue return directly to
the municipality where the landing occurred, HB 184
ensures that ports are compensated fairly for their
efforts and the revenues they generate.
I'm sure each of you are wondering how this will
impact the areas you represent. You have in your
packets a table that reflects the changes that cities
and boroughs can expect.
HB 184 will increase the fish tax share with boroughs
cities and communities to help with port and harbor
maintenance and improvements. It will also share
exported unprocessed fish tax with the area where the
fish was landed. I urge you to move this bill from
committee.
9:05:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt CSHB 184, Version 27-
LS0576\R, Bullard, 1/25/12, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version R was before the committee.
9:05:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON explained that Version R includes
intent language relating that the additional funds will be used
for marine infrastructure, improvements, and maintenance.
Version R also includes a new subsection to have the boroughs
and municipalities submit a report specifying how the funds
received were used. The reports will be required for both the
revenues from the fisheries business tax and the fisheries
resource landing tax; the information can be compiled into a
single report. Version R also modifies the existing language
for the (indisc.) fish and is required when a new borough is
formed.
9:07:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to why legislative intent is
being used for this proposed change rather than making it a
requirement. She then asked if historically the 50 percent has
been used for docks and harbors or has it been used for other
things. She further asked how the funding for various
communities would look if Version R passed; that is would the
needs of the docks and harbors be met or would it be some years
before it's met, she asked.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, speaking to why legislative intent was
used, related that some communities are wealthier than others
and thus may be able to maintain their harbors better than
others. The legislation addresses maintenance and repair.
Furthermore, communities receive the tax revenues now, but
without any parameters regarding where the community has to
spend it.
9:09:15 AM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative P. Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, pointed out that restricting the use of the tax to
only marine facilities and harbors and maintenance might make it
difficult to use the tax revenues for repairs to roads used to
haul fish to market.
9:09:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if leaving the intent language
would mean that there is a prohibition against [using fish tax
revenues] to build a playground in a park. She then related her
understanding [from gestures from the sponsor] that the [fish
tax revenues] could be used to build a playground in a park.
9:10:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to Representative
Gardner's earlier question, said the tax revenues could be used
for other things.
9:10:31 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ interjected that the need for harbor repair and
replacement is much greater than the increased amount of
funding.
MS. ROONEY related that there are witnesses on line who may be
able to speak to the overall need.
9:11:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that she understands the need
and that her question is regarding whether communities can [use
the fish taxes for things other than those related to
maintaining and improving harbor facilities]. If so, the
ensuing question then is why would the aforementioned be
desirable. She then reiterated that she is interested in
whether historically the 50 percent has been dedicated to the
infrastructure of the fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON confirmed that the current language of
the legislation could result in municipalities using the funds
for something besides the infrastructure of fisheries, which is
why the intent language in Version R is important.
9:12:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if since the state began
transferring the responsibility for ports and harbors to local
communities there has been any structure for the local
communities to pay for their ports. He further asked if there
is any requirement that local communities provide funding for
maintaining them and have they being doing so by using their
portion of the fish tax and other revenues.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON replied yes and no. Due to sporadic
funding to the communities, it has been difficult and many
harbors are in awful shape, she said. She then highlighted that
the report is required so that [the legislature] knows where the
fish tax funds are being spent.
9:13:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the state, by transferring
ownership of the ports and harbors to local communities, did a
disserve to local communities that don't have the funds to
maintain their ports and harbors. He then questioned why the
increase in percentage of taxes going to the communities isn't
increased to 100 percent.
MS. ROONEY explained that 100 percent of the tax isn't going to
the communities because there are some uses for the 50 percent
that goes to the state, such as the salmon credits that the
state receives. As it is now, she said she wasn't sure whether
the 25 percent provides enough funds within the state to cover
that. Therefore, [the sponsor] is working with the Department
of Revenue (DOR) on that issue.
9:15:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to how Delta Junction would be
impacted.
MS. ROONEY explained that DCCED uses a formula that spreads the
tax across places that have processors. Since some processing
is done in Delta Junction, it receives part of that tax. If
there is an increase, it's likely because of the 75:25 split.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK pointed out that there is a decrease in Holy
Cross, Shagaluk, and Russian Mission.
MS. ROONEY suggested that the decrease is likely because the
allocated formula-based tax is being given to the communities
where the fish is landed rather than using a formula in terms of
where it was processed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that the chart entitled
"Fisheries Tax Revenue Share Analysis and Community Revenue
Sharing" shows the amount in dollars not millions of dollars.
9:18:43 AM
CARL UCHYTIL, Vice President, Alaska Association of
Harbormasters and Port Administrators (AAHPA); Port Director,
Docks and Harbors Department, City & Borough of Juneau, related
that AAHPA is a strong supporter of HB 184, which he urged the
committee to move forward. He then addressed why it's so
important to receive additional funds for harbor maintenance.
As was mentioned the state used to own all harbors in the state
that were built in the 1950s-1970s. Over the last 10 years,
many of the state harbors have been transferred to
municipalities. Mr. Uchytil emphasized that harbors and other
marine facilities aren't money-making enterprises. In Juneau,
the docks and harbors don't receive property tax or sales tax
support for maintenance. Therefore, Juneau has to rely on
federal grants and state-harbor matching grants to recapitalize
the harbors. This legislation would provide more maintenance
funds to the harbors in order to allow municipalities to better
maintain and recapitalize the harbor facilities. Mr. Uchytil
related his understanding that when the state owned the harbors,
the moorage was pennies on the dollar. When the ownership of
the harbors were transferred to the municipalities, it was
impossible to increase the moorage rates to the level necessary
to generate the funds required to maintain the harbors. He
noted that the [Juneau Harbors Board] is not in favor of
increasing moorage rates. In discussions with a local Juneau
fisherman, the local fisherman claimed that his moorage rate in
Juneau has tripled over the last five years. In conclusion, Mr.
Uchytil said that HB 184 would be a huge benefit to those who
manage and maintain the harbors in the state.
9:22:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that she has heard a good case
for the need of more funding to address harbor maintenance and
related infrastructure. She then asked whether HB 184 will make
much of a dent in the need.
MR. UCHYTIL informed the committee that Juneau receives about
$300,000 of the fish tax and it is provided directly to the
Juneau Docks and Harbors Department. The new percentages
proposed in HB 184 would provide Juneau an additional $200,000,
which would allow for more maintenance in the Juneau harbors.
He characterized the additional funds as a "huge windfall" for
the City & Borough of Juneau.
9:23:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether these extra funds would be
enough.
MR. UCHYTIL replied no, it would never be enough. He offered to
provide members a tour of the Juneau docks and harbors. He
explained that within the City & Borough of Juneau Docks and
Harbors Department, half of the costs are for staff and the
other half is for utilities. There are never enough funds
available to set some aside for recapitalization of projects,
rather they have to rely on the state or the federal government
for large recapitalization projects. Having additional funds to
utilize for targeted maintenance would be beneficial, he opined.
9:24:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if transferring the ownership of
docks and harbors from the state to municipalities was a
successful effort.
MR. UCHYTIL disclosed that he has only been the vice president
of the City & Borough of Juneau's Docks and Harbors Department
since August. He informed the committee that the City & Borough
of Juneau purchased DeHart's, a private dock in very poor
condition, and has secured funding to recapitalize that dock in
the coming year.
9:25:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that the roughly $300,000
Juneau receives from the fish taxes has been used for operating
costs not for rebuilding harbors or infrastructure.
MR. UCHYTIL answered that would be correct for Juneau. He
explained that the fish taxes are comingled with other fees and
aren't segregated.
9:26:57 AM
JOHN SWEENEY, Finance Director, City & Borough of Sitka, began
informing the committee that the City & Borough of Sitka has
passed a resolution in support of HB 184. The City & Borough of
Sitka, he related, believes HB 184 is critically important and
strongly advocates for its passage. Within Sitka, there is an
estimated amount of scheduled repairs and maintenance that spans
the next 20 years and would cost in excess of $110 million.
Furthermore, three of Sitka's five major harbors are in need of
a substantial rebuild or overhaul within the next five to eight
years. He opined that Sitka has been lucky to have a matching
grant included in the governor's capital budget for a partial
rebuild of the Alaska Native Brotherhood Harbor. The amount of
reserve working capital in Sitka's harbor fund would be
completely exhausted if used to meet one of the three harbor
rebuilds needed in the next five to eight years. He mentioned
that Sitka had internal discussions regarding increasing moorage
rates. However, there is an upper limit on the amount of
moorage increases that can be passed on before it drives
marginal commercial fishermen out of business or causes them to
relocate to a different municipality. In either case, it would
be difficult and devastating for Sitka, particularly since
Sitka's other major industry of tourism has continued to decline
in the last several years. Mr. Sweeney emphasized that the need
is great and the municipality is committed to doing what it can
with the raw fish taxes it receives in order to help fund the
maintenance. However, the need is so great that it's impossible
to achieve with the moorage mechanism that currently exists.
9:30:20 AM
STEVE CORPORON, President, Alaska Association of Harbormasters
and Port Administrators (AAHPA); Director, Ports and Harbors
Department, City of Ketchikan, related if one were to talk to
the fishermen who pay the fish taxes, one would find that back
when the state owned the harbors they didn't mind paying it
because the funds came back as some of the maintenance. The
fishermen who pay the fish taxes want those funds to go back
into harbors. Although the state did a good job building the
harbors and docks, it didn't put much into them after that. As
the harbors and docks reached their service life, it was more
cost effective to transfer them to the municipalities. Over the
last seven or eight years, all of the harbors in Ketchikan have
been transferred from the state to the municipality and most of
those harbors need to either be substantially replaced or
rebuilt. In order to "sweeten the deal" when the harbors were
turned over to the municipalities, the state provided some
deferred maintenance funds. Ketchikan received $3.9 million for
its six harbors. However, about $17 million worth of work was
necessary to bring them up to par. Ketchikan, he stated, has
done a good job parlaying the $3.9 million with other grants and
local funding to accomplish $7 million worth of work, which
leaves about $10 million worth of work yet to do for just the
harbors transferred from the state. Beyond the harbors, the
fishermen in Ketchikan want a drive down ramp constructed, which
would be about a $5 million project. The rate structure in
place for decades allowed Ketchikan to operate its harbors
without performing any major maintenance. Mr. Corporon related
that when he took his position as the director of Ketchikan's
ports and harbors five years ago, he met with Ketchikan's
finance director. In order to have savings to bond for $10-$15
million worth of work not including the drive down ramp, a 75
percent rate increase was necessary. The aforementioned would
equate to a 15 percent increase over the next five years, which
the customer base can't handle. Mr. Corporon mentioned that he
was able to convince the Ketchikan City Council that the fish
tax funds needed to go to the harbors, and thus that's been
occurring for the last several years. He pointed out that since
Ketchikan is a city and borough, half of the 50 percent goes to
the borough and the other half goes to the city. The borough
has no harbor infrastructure, and thus has been using those fish
tax funds for things other than docks and harbors. This
legislation has caught the attention of the borough, which has
come to the table with the city and is working on a memorandum
of understanding such that even the borough's fish tax should go
to harbor infrastructure. However, such is not the case in all
municipalities as was evidenced at a recent harbormasters
conference where a show of hands revealed that the fish tax
funds of about half of the communities attending went to the
harbors; 25 percent of the communities attending receive part of
the fish tax; and the remaining 25 percent of the communities
attending didn't receive any of the fish tax. Mr. Corporon
opined that one of the key elements of HB 184 is the attempt to
steer the funds to the harbor infrastructure. Polling the
members of AAHPA revealed that there are about $90 million worth
of projects, which he surmised was a backlog of projects when
the transfer of the harbors from the state to municipalities
occurred. In conclusion, Mr. Corporon opined that HB 184 will
make a difference.
9:36:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether it was an option or a
mandate from the state for municipalities to take over ownership
of the harbor and dock facilities.
MR. CORPORON related his understanding that if the communities
didn't want the docks and harbors, then the state threatened to
sell them; that is auction off the floats. Therefore, the
communities not taking ownership wasn't a realistic option. In
further response, Mr. Corporon clarified that his understanding
was that the infrastructure would be sold/auctioned because it
couldn't remain on state land and thus the harbor would go away.
9:37:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that although he understands that
the potential increase in funding offered by HB 184 would help,
he questioned what would happen in five years.
MR. CORPORON answered that the legislation would make a large
difference in Ketchikan, particularly since Ketchikan has been
dedicating its fish tax to its harbors. If the borough provides
its portion as well, Ketchikan can bond the $5 million for a
drive down ramp. The desire would be for more so that Ketchikan
could address the $10 million in backlogged maintenance from the
transfer. He mentioned that in Ketchikan about $80,000 in
additional revenue is necessary for every $1 million desired to
be bonded, which amounts to about a 70 percent rate increase.
9:39:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to why 100 percent of the
entire fish taxes shouldn't go toward ports and communities.
MR. CORPORON acknowledged that the fishermen use more than just
harbors. However, he reiterated that if harbor infrastructure
falls into disrepair, fishermen will go elsewhere.
9:40:15 AM
TIM COTTONGIM, Fish Group Manager, Juneau Office, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue, in response to Representative Saddler,
explained that 50 percent of the gross tax reported on the
[fisheries business tax and the fishery resource landing tax]
returns is guaranteed to be shared with the impacted
communities. To the extent the activity occurs outside of an
organized city and borough that share goes to DCCED to be
allocated. The state's share is subject to credits and thus
claims for the salmon credit, the education credit, or the Winn
Brindle tax credit are removed from the state's share.
Technically, as long as there are credits claimed, the state
never receives 50 percent of that tax rather it receives less.
The salmon credit currently has a provision limiting it to 50
percent of the tax on salmon. Therefore, the maximum credit a
processor that processes strictly salmon can claim for this
particular program is limited to 50 percent, which fully
protects the state's share. There are no such limitations with
the education credit, except that it can't exceed the total tax.
Again, any time anyone claims combined credits that exceed 50
percent, it comes from the state's share and thus doesn't come
from the community's share. When the share is increased to 75
percent, there is a risk of there being more taxpayers in more
communities not being able to cover this share back to the
community with their taxes alone. For example, if a processor
owed the state $100 in gross tax and wanted to claim credits
amounting to $50, the state would receive $50 in cash and the
community would be guaranteed $50. An increase in the share to
75 percent would result in the state being $25 in the hole and
would have to draw those funds from elsewhere.
9:43:27 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if this proposed change would cover the
potential cost to the state.
MR. COTTINGIM answered that there are still sufficient general
funds available to cover the implementation of HB 184 and thus
pay for the credits the state loses.
9:43:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN inquired how large of a dollar value is
associated to DOR in terms of the fisheries tax.
MR. COTTINGIM replied that DOR still expects to receive
sufficient funds from the two programs, even after credits.
However, this is assuming the behavior remains the same. If the
maximum education credit is increased to $5 million and more
processors using more, there is the potential to erode what goes
to the state.
9:45:45 AM
KATIE KOESTER, Community & Economic Development Coordinator,
City of Homer, related support for HB 184. This legislation,
she opined, addresses a fairness issue in terms of sharing the
funds collected. She echoed earlier testimony regarding that
there is a lot of infrastructure involved in supporting the
commercial fishing industry. Since Homer facilitates a lot of
fresh product being trucked out, Homer doesn't get a lot of the
fisheries business tax back because the product doesn't meet the
definition of processed. This legislation would change that and
would specify that funds from the fisheries business and landing
taxes would be spent on harbor maintenance. Returning the funds
back to the communities where they are collected will help with
the deferred maintenance communities have faced since the
transfer in ownership, she opined. This legislation, she
emphasized, will help support the fisheries economic engine for
Homer and the state. She guaranteed the committee that Homer
would be happy to return the funds to its port and harbors.
9:49:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how much of the fish taxes go to
Homer ports and harbors.
MS. KOESTER related her belief that all [the fish tax] funding
goes to the enterprise fund, but she expressed the need to check
with the Homer harbormaster.
9:49:59 AM
CHRIS HLADICK, City Manager, City of Unalaska, began by stating
that he appreciates what the state does to support commercial
fishing in the state. He then pointed out that the Alaska
Municipal League (AML) resolution included in the committee
packet relates support for an increase of more than 50:50 in the
split of revenues, not support for HB 184 or expanding the
program to include the unprocessed fish definition in HB 184.
The aforementioned wasn't discussed when that resolution was
passed. Mr. Hladick further clarified that the tax is not
generated in the community where the fish is landed rather the
tax is generated in the community where the fish is processed.
He commented that it would be interesting to know the negative
economic impacts to the communities wanting to be involved with
this program. The change in the definition of processing does
change the result in the formula as it redistributes the
revenue. Mr. Hladick then related his understanding that the
intent of the shared fisheries business tax was to share tax
revenue with communities that have onshore processing in order
to help mitigate the impacts of that activity on the community.
However, allowing the proposed change to include unprocessed
fish in the program would defeat the original intent of the
program. Mr. Hladick stated that he is in support of
legislation that only increases the revenue split with the
state. He also related support for finding a way to increase
funding for ports and harbors. In conclusion, he expressed
concern with legislation that changes a long-standing tax share
program and thus he suggested that perhaps there needs to be a
tax program to address unprocessed fish.
9:52:34 AM
TIM ROONEY, Borough Manager, City and Borough of Wrangell,
related support for HB 184 and noted that the City and Borough
Assembly has passed a resolution in support of HB 184.
Historically, Wrangell has been successful in obtaining funding
for harbor rebuilds, although not so successful in funds to
maintain its harbors. He noted that Wrangell is committed to
dedicate any funds it receives to its harbors. Currently, 75
percent of the funds received go to Wrangell's harbors, with 25
percent going to the general fund. Last year, however, Wrangell
decreased the amount going to the general fund and increased the
amount going to the harbors by 5 percent each. The goal is to
eventually have 100 percent [of the fish taxes] going to the
harbors.
9:53:57 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 184, Version R, would be held
over.
9:54:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested Mr. Hladick's testimony in
writing.
9:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related his understanding that the list
entitled "Fisheries Tax Revenue Share Analysis and Community
Revenue Sharing" relates the winners and the losers based upon
the proposed percentage change. He expressed interest in the
list based upon the proposed distribution change in the
legislation but without the change from 50 percent to 75
percent.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered that she didn't think it would
look very good, which is why she wanted both in order to
minimize the losers. She informed the committee she has
committed to withdraw the legislation if both changes are not
kept.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 184 sponsor stmt Ver D.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 CS Ver E.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Ketchikan Resolution Motion.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 AML Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Fish Tax Rev Share An.xlsx |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Petersburg Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Wrangell Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 290 Endow Alaska Sponsor Statement--Version E.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 290 |
| HB290-DCCED-DCRA-01-20-12.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 290 |
| HB184 Fish Mgmt Areas Map.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Muni Harbor Facilities.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 AK Harbormasters Port Admin Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Fish Tax Revenue.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184-DCCED-DCRA-01-20-12.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |