Legislature(1997 - 1998)
08/15/1997 08:38 AM House BUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
August 15, 1997
8:38 a.m.
TAPES
BUD-97, Tape 155
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Phillips convened the meeting of the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee on August 15, 1997 at approximately 8:38
a.m. in the Anchorage LIO, Anchorage, Alaska.
PRESENT
Senator Phillips, Chair
Senator Donley
Senator Halford
Senator Pearce
Senator Torgerson, Alternate
Representative Croft
Representative James
Representative Therriault
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Davis (Anchorage LIO), Mike Greany, Director,
Legislative Finance Division; Jim Hauck, Fiscal Analyst,
Legislative Finance Division; Randy Welker, Legislative Auditor,
Division of Legislative Audit; Annalee McConnell, Director,
Office of Management and Budget (Senate Finance Committee Room,
Juneau, Alaska); David Eberle, Director, Design and
Construction, Central Region, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; Nancy Slagle, Director, Administrative
Services, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(Fairbanks).
SUMMARY INFORMATION
^RPL 25-8-6002
Chairman Phillips asked for a brief description of the RPL.
MIKE GREANY, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION explained
that the RPL would authorize construction of a maintenance
facility in Soldotna for the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT) using certificate of participation (COP)
financing. The request would use the interim process of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LB&A) to approve funds
in the form of statutory designated receipts; funds would arise
from a contract between the trustee of the COPs and DOT, which
would manage construction of the facility. He detailed that the
COPs would be sold in the later part of September and at that
point the contract would be executed. He continued that the debt
service on the COPs would be due sometime in March of the
following year and would require a general fund appropriation to
pay for a portion of the project. The Legislative Finance
Division had provided an analysis on the funding details. He
highlighted that ideally approval of the project would have been
handled during legislative session, but LB&A approval was
required if the project was to go forward during the current
interim.
Chairman Phillips noted that Senator Donley joined the meeting.
Representative Croft wondered if the problem would have been
solved if the bill had included an immediate effective date.
Mr. Greany replied in the negative. He explained that there were
two pieces of legislation. The legislation that authorized the
use of the COPs (in the form of SB 34) was one requirement. He
elaborated that the bill did not have an immediate effective
date; therefore it went into effect 90 days after being signed.
He communicated that the bill did not include authorization for
funding the project; expenditure authority needed to be provided
to DOT in the form of a bill or through the legislative RPL
process. He noted that upon funding and completion of the
project DOT would lease the facility.
Representative Croft asked for verification that there should
have been an appropriations measure with the bill. Mr. Greany
pointed to the division's timeline outlined in its analysis. He
noted that if the committee approved the RPL it would be acting
on faith that everything would come together correctly. The
appropriate course of action would be that SB 34 would go into
effect on September 10, 1997. Subsequently the contract with the
trustee of the COP would be executed in late-September to early-
October. The committee was tasked with approving funding for a
project where two key events still needed to take place.
Senator Pearce reminded speakers to identify themselves for the
record.
Representative Croft wondered whether there was any possible
legal impediment to the bill becoming effective on September 10.
Mr. Greany replied in the negative. He believed the more
significant leap of faith depended on the signing of a contract
related to the COPs later in September.
Representative Croft asked what would delay the execution of the
contract. He wondered whether an appeal would be cause for
delay. Mr. Greany was hesitant to speculate on potential causes
for delay.
Senator Halford pointed to the analysis provided by the
Legislative Finance Division and noted that a supplemental
appropriation would also be required in March of the following
year to cover the first debt service payment. He had believed
that there was a net zero transaction and that the operating
cost would be carried as part of the previous budget. He was
hesitant to vote for something that would require supplemental
funding. He wondered what would happen if the RPL was approved,
but the supplemental was not.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
responded that the first debt payment would not be due until
July 1, 1998; therefore, supplemental funding would not be
required.
Mr. Greany followed up on Senator Halford's question related to
the debt service and cost. He remarked that a fiscal note had
been attached when the bill had been before the Senate Finance
Committee. He explained that the note had been zero for FY 98
because the Department of Revenue's assumption had been that the
COPs would not be issued until February 1998 with the first
payment due in August 1998 (FY 99). He detailed that whenever
the project came along the money for the lease purchase would be
included in a section dealing with debt service for lease
purchase payments; it would join projects such as Spring Creek,
Palmer and Kenai court facilities, and other.
Senator Halford asked whether the Legislative Finance Division
would back the amount out of the basis when adjustments were
made to the governor's budget for the following year. He asked
if there would be a savings on the other side that was normally
rolled into the operating budget.
Mr. Greany would need to follow up. He was not completely
familiar with the tradeoff with what was spent on the current
facility that would be replaced.
Ms. McConnell communicated that the new facility would not be
occupied in the next year due to construction. She detailed that
the project timing had been moved up since the passage of the
bill. She noted that the opportunity had not been anticipated in
the budget process in terms of the expenditure authority side of
the equation. She would work to develop a mechanism that would
allow a project to move forward in the future without needing to
come back to the legislature for approval.
Senator Halford pointed to the fiscal analyst report and noted
that it indicated that unappropriated general funds would be the
funding source covering initial work until the COPs were in
place. He wondered if the practice was common.
Mr. Greany answered that the situation would be similar to DOT
going through the federal highway reimbursement process where a
substantial amount of work was done on a project up front and
the federal government was billed for its portion later. He
elaborated that money would be used out of the state treasury to
front the costs, which would be reimbursed by an outside fund
source at a later time. He acknowledged that unappropriated
general funds did raise an alarm bell, which was why the report
included a note indicating that the practice should not set a
precedent moving forward.
Senator Halford asked if there was specific budget language that
covered DOT's ability to expend on the future receipt of federal
funds. Mr. Greany responded that there was nothing specific.
RANDY WELKER, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT, reminded the committee that during the past session the
statutory definition for program receipts had been modified.
Front section language appropriated all additional federal funds
and designated program receipts (previous language had referred
to all federal funds and all program receipts). He explained
that designated program receipts were from a source other than
the state that were restricted to a specific use by the terms of
a gift-grant bequest or contract. He discussed that there was
not currently a contract between the state and the trustee that
would hold the receipts of the COP once issued. He reiterated
earlier comments by Mr. Greany related to steps in the process
that had yet to take place. He expressed concern about whether
the RPL was properly before the committee because a contract had
not been obtained; therefore, he was unsure the situation fit
the definition of designated program receipts.
Representative Croft asked what the effect would be "of the
stars not aligning." He wondered if there would be no COP funds
to reimburse the state in the event of delay. Mr. Welker
answered in the affirmative.
Representative Croft surmised that it would be more likely items
would be delayed than completely falling apart. He surmised that
the legislature would be temporarily fronting the funds during
any delay period. Mr. Welker responded that the general fund
would be fronting the funds.
Representative Croft asked if the maximum cost to the general
fund would be $3 million. Mr. Welker did not believe the amount
for construction could extend beyond the amount specified in the
legislation. There was also appropriation for some of the
original planning and design; he did not know the balance. He
affirmed that treasury would pay the warrants without the
benefit of receipts coming in.
Representative James believed that the committee's approval of
the RPL would only authorize the COP contracting. She asked if
any general fund appropriation would be made after the beginning
of the next fiscal year.
Mr. Welker responded that the debt service on the COPs would be
a separate issue down the road. The RPL before the committee
dealt with providing DOT with expenditure authority to allow
construction to begin in the current season (with the
anticipation of the COP proceeds in the future).
Representative Therriault stated that the legislature had built
into the fiscal note the anticipation that payments would be
made in the following fiscal year. He observed that they were
now working to jump through all kinds of hoops to move the
project up. He questioned whether the move was wise. He pointed
to backup provided that detailed continued environmental
degradation would occur due to the operation of the facility. He
wondered what the degradation was from. He addressed the net
zero aspect and did not know how it was possible to move out of
something that was owned outright into a facility requiring
purchase for no cost. He noted that operational costs may be a
wash; however, there would still be a purchase price. He noted
that it was helpful to learn that the first 6payment would not
be until the next fiscal year. He was not supportive of taking
action that would require a supplemental.
Ms. McConnell noted that the project had already been approved
by the legislature under SB 34. The current issue was related to
timing and not to the merits of the project. She explained that
questions related to additional operating costs were valid, but
had been part of the consideration at the time the bill was
passed. She stated that there were some important environmental
reasons related to Kenai fisheries; the opportunity to have the
project completed an entire season earlier than originally
projected was positive. She addressed questions related to the
state's responsibility for funding if the COP contract fell
through. She relayed that the administration was not expecting
any problems with the COP process. She discussed how similar
issues had been handled in the past and explained that there had
been a Public Facilities Planning and Design fund that operated
as a bridge mechanism. The administration would look at that
mechanism and others to use in the future. She addressed a
question on designated program receipts and detailed that there
was budgetary authorization for a number of designated program
receipts where contracts were not yet in place. She thanked the
committee for meeting on the RPL.
Representative Therriault agreed the legislature had provided
designated program receipt authority to some projects without
contracts; however, in those cases the work did not move forward
prior to securing the contracts. He stated that the
administration was asking the legislature to approve the use of
general funds for use on a project prior to obtaining a
contract. He asked for verification that the situation was not
the same as other instances.
Ms. McConnell agreed; however, she pointed to AS 37.10.087 that
covered the situation at hand. The statute outlined that when a
construction account established to receive the proceeds of
general obligation bonds is temporarily exhausted the
commissioner of Administration on recommendation of the bond
committee and with the approval of LB&A may temporarily transfer
money from the general fund to the bond construction fund or
account. She referred Mr. Greany's earlier testimony on similar
situations related to federal funds. She noted that the
situation was not unknown, but it was important to control
tightly. The administration was comfortable that it would have
the COP process would go smoothly.
Representative Therriault noted that in the statute related to
bonds versus COPs; he surmised that there may be a fine
distinction between the two. He reiterated that in other
circumstances where authorization had been provided prior to the
signing of a contract the construction work had not begun before
the contract approval.
Ms. McConnell agreed that the point was valid.
Senator Torgerson referred to a legal opinion he had requested
from Legislative Legal Services to determine whether LB&A could
approve an increase in expenditures prior to the effective date
of a bill. He read from the opinion:
...however, it would be more in keeping with the
legislative oversight function mandated by AS 37.07.080(h)
if LB&A withheld consideration of the approval of any
expenditure of additional funds for the facility until at
least September 10.
Senator Torgerson noted that September 10 was the bill's
effective date. He continued to read from the legal opinion:
The request and approval of the RLP is clearly premature
until this legal authority, the issuance of the certificate
of participation...
Senator Torgerson noted that the opinion specified that LB&A
could only approve an increase in expenditures for the Soldotna
maintenance facility based on the speculation by the governor
that the money would be available. He noted that the peninsula
delegation (Representative Phillips, Representative Hodgins,
Representative Davis, and Senator Torgerson) had seen bids and
contract proposals and it was not happy with the process related
to how things had come together. He relayed that a protest had
been filed; an answer to the protest had been received and all
claims had been denied. He understood that several contractors
were considering filing a legal suit, but would appeal to the
[DOT] commissioner first (as required under statute). He
stressed that the stars were not lining up in relation to the
awarding of the contract. He believed LB&A committee members
would most likely have similar concerns if they were to see the
contract bids.
Representative Therriault asked Senator Torgerson to address the
legal opinion that any action should be contingent on the
effective date of the legislation.
Senator Torgerson replied that the legislature would be acting
in good faith in its agreement with the trustees of the COP. He
explained that the legal opinion advised the legislature to
withhold consideration until the effective date of the bill if
no contract was in place. He addressed bond loans and the
construction fund and language did not say action could be taken
prior to the effective date of an issuance.
Representative Therriault asked about a concern expressed
related to continued environmental degradation. He asked for
more detail.
Senator Torgerson believed the key word was "potential"
degradation. He surmised there was always the potential for
something to happen to the Kenai River due to the substantial
amount of equipment, oil, and gas onsite. He noted that
precautions were taken. He relayed that approximately $1 million
had been spent on clean up at the facility in the past several
years; approximately $600,000 in additional funds had been
appropriated the prior year to continue cleanup efforts. He did
not believe there was an ongoing pollution problem onsite.
Senator Pearce wondered if the appeal to the commissioner on the
bid award was related to the construction on the new facility.
Senator Torgerson replied that an appeal had been filed with the
commissioner related to certain provisions of the award of the
contract. He elaborated that it had been a design-build bid
approach and there were questions on how it had been put
together. He shared that the protest officer had issued his
opinion and had turned down all portions of the protest.
Senator Pearce wondered how long the commissioner would have to
address the appeal. She surmised the commissioner may be the
appropriate person to address the question to.
Senator Torgerson believed the commissioner would be in the
office the following day. He relayed that the appeal had been
made to the commissioners of the Department of Administration
and DOT.
Senator Pearce wondered whether the question was related to how
the RFP had been assembled. She wondered about the legal
question. Senator Torgerson answered that the question was on
discrepancies on how the RFP had gone together. He explained
that eight contractors had been fairly close together in price
and one contractor came in approximately $1 million under the
others. The contractor that would be awarded the contract had
not followed up on various narratives and did not have clear
building descriptions. There were approximately eight items of
concern, but the contract officer had determined it was not a
problem. The officer noted that the more expensive bids included
more bells and whistles. He noted that the question at hand was
whether the building would be functional; DOT believed the
answer was yes; however, other contractors did not agree.
Senator Pearce wondered about the appeal timeline to the DOT
commissioner. She asked what the timeline would be if the other
seven contractors filed suit. She believed waiting for September
10 may be easy due to the appeal issues.
DAVID EBERLE, DIRECTOR, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, CENTRAL REGION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES responded
that the appeal process did not necessarily prevent award of the
contract. Statute stated that the award of a contract could be
proceeded with unless the contracting officer chose to stay the
award on the belief that there was reasonable chance that the
protesting party would succeed or if it was not in the best
interest of the state to proceed. The department's intent was to
proceed with awarding the contract to the successful bidder. He
communicated that the appeals process would go forward
notwithstanding the award; he believed the commissioner had 15
days to deal with the appeal.
Representative James asked if the process had been done in the
past. She wondered the approval of the RPL would set precedent
for similar scenarios to occur in the future.
Ms. McConnell replied that it was valid for LB&A to state on the
record that it did not want the current situation to set a
precedent going forward. She believed it would be consistent
with her intent to establish a mechanism to avoid similar
situations in the future. She did not want to lose sight of why
there was an effort to move the project forward. In addition to
wanting to move quickly with remediation on the current site
(which could not be done until a new facility had been built),
there was concern that because the building had been designed
before understanding environmental protections needed for oil
there was ongoing aggravation of leaching towards the river.
Representative James was concerned about the validity of a
pollution problem and using it as an excuse to move the project
forward.
Mr. Greany believed they were in unchartered waters. He stated
that his sonar was "picking up some underwater rock piles."
Representative Davis referred to the legal opinion's statement
that "the request for approval for the RPL was clearly premature
until there is legal authority to issue the certificate of
participation." He asked whether the legislation was itself the
legal authority. Mr. Welker replied that the legislation would
provide the legal authority on its effective date of September
10.
Representative Davis agreed. He did not believe the contract was
the relevant issue at hand. He surmised the issue the committee
needed to address was the legal appropriation process.
Senator Pearce recalled that the $600,000 allocated for cleanup
at the current facility was intended to determine what needed to
be cleaned up. She opined that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
would need to come back to the legislature for funds once an
understanding of the degradation had been obtained. She believed
the biggest concern had been related to salt leaching from an
old storage facility. She felt it was important to proceed with
cleanup, but noted that money had been appropriated to build a
facility on the site. She added that the cart may have been
slightly before the horse. She did not believe more degradation
would occur if the project did not move forward immediately. She
noted that Senator Torgerson had more knowledge of the issue and
she would take her lead from him on the appropriate course of
action.
Senator Torgerson discussed that a debate had occurred over
whether to include the environmental cleanup in the project and
bonding; it had been decided that the state did not want to set
the precedent to include an unknown amount for cleanup to a
project funding. Approximately $600,000 had been appropriated
for cleanup. There had been correspondence from DEC and others
estimating that cleanup after the building had been demolished
would be approximately $250,000; however, the departments were
unsure about the estimate. He agreed with Senator Pearce's
recollection of the legislature's intention related to the
$600,000 funding. He addressed that the only potential
environmental problem he could think of was that the building's
floor drains flowed to a tank that was pumped out; years ago the
contents had been emptied into Soldotna's sewer system; however,
that had been cleaned up. He did not know of any ongoing
pollution issues. Salt was still used [for roads], but the pile
had been moved away from the Kenai River.
Representative Davis agreed that enough work had been done to
take care of any immediate pollution issues. There were some
underground fuel tanks that state vehicles were still being
serviced from that needed to be taken care of when the facility
was relocated. He believed any degradation to the Kenai River
had been taken care of.
Representative Croft wondered whether the committee could make
an appropriation authority effective on September 10 and only
effective if the award of the contract had not been stayed by a
hearing officer or the court.
Mr. Greany replied in the affirmative. He cautioned against
placing conditions on the approval. He pointed to a situation
when the legislature had attempted to condition appropriations,
which the governor had ignored.
Senator Halford wondered about cash flow requirements for the
fall if the RPL was approved. He wondered whether the funding
could be cut in half to continue moving the project forward, but
without setting a bad precedent going forward.
Senator Pearce asked if the committee could return to the issue
on September 10. She wondered if construction could take place
if the construction approval was not given until September.
Senator Torgerson believed construction may be delayed if the
approval was put off for too long. He added that $400,000 had
been appropriated to DOT for site work; he had expected the work
to be done the prior April; however, nothing had been done.
Ms. McConnell wondered whether an approval could be structured
so the contractor could begin preparing for mobilization to
begin work on September 10. She wondered if the structure would
work in the contracting process.
Mr. Eberle replied that the contract had not been awarded as of
yet. He would be reluctant to enter into a contract knowing that
it could not be awarded based on the offered price that was
entirely founded on the schedule that had been offered. He
elaborated that if a month or more was lost his inclination
would be to not award the contract and to hold it over. He did
not believe the situation would be fair to the state or the
bidder.
Representative Croft believed it made sense to place a condition
on the approval that the work would not go into effect until the
legal effective date of the bill. He wondered if the September
10 day or other conditional language would cause a problem for
DOT.
Mr. Eberle replied that he did not believe there was merit in
the other bidders' complaint to the commissioner; he did not
believe a court would find in their favor. He opined that if the
department made the award that it would proceed. He believed
that if the project did not begin for another month that the
entire construction season would be lost. The delay would
provide a dilemma for the department as it would need to
negotiate with the contractor awarded the contract to determine
cost implications. He would prefer to not enter into a contract
if a delay was eminent. He reiterated that the situation would
not be fair to the state or other bidders.
Senator Halford wondered whether there was cash available to
move forward with excavation work in the current season if DOT
was faced with re-awarding and redefining a contract. He asked
whether there was a way to separate excavation work from
building work.
Mr. Eberle answered that cash flow could be explored; however,
the contractor would have to order building materials
immediately in order for the contract completion date to be
maintained. He detailed that concrete work and enclosing the
structure would need to occur prior to winter to meet the
completion date of mid-June the following year. He believed
there may be some flexibility on how much would be needed
between the present day and September; however, he guessed the
project would need between $1 million and $1.5 million between
present day and November.
Senator Halford asked a question related to the COP. Mr. Eberle
deferred the question to Ms. McConnell.
Ms. McConnell replied that if the RPL began on September 10
there would be the same situation as with the bill that the days
would just march on until the effective date. She could not
provide a legal opinion, but surmised that the contract could be
awarded with cash being available after September 10. The bill
and the expenditure authority would then become effective on the
same day.
Representative James was uncomfortable with the situation. She
believed it was a problem to award the contract prior to
September 10.
Senator Pearce was concerned about the process. She was
concerned that if the committee denied the RPL the 45-day rule
would start; she did not want to go in that direction. She would
prefer that DOT withdraw its request rather than adding a new
layer of confusion. She was uncertain about the best direction
to take.
Senator Phillips asked about the governor's intention if the
committee denied the RPL. Ms. McConnell had not addressed the
possibility with the governor. She had been hopeful after a
recent conversation with Senator Torgerson that the RPL would
move forward. She recognized that the situation was not ideal,
but that the situation had arisen due to a slip in the process
and not because of anything intentional. She addressed a concern
expressed by Representative James and noted that the governor
had already signed the bill; therefore, his intentions were
known. She recognized the awkwardness of the situation and felt
comfortable with a statement from the committee that it did not
want to set a precedent and did not want the situation to arise
again.
Senator Torgerson expressed that he was unhappy with the
process. He requested that if the committee moved forward on the
RPL that it be contingent upon the commissioner's review of the
protests received. He was concerned about the legal aspects;
however, he believed there was enough legislative intent to move
forward. He opined that the bid process needed to be looked at;
the protests needed to be answered before moving forward.
Representative Davis believed the RPL should be withdrawn. He
stated that approval or disapproval of the RPL was an indication
of intent by the committee. He opined that disapproval would be
problematic. He believed options existed that could answer
questions. He felt that it was a shame to have gotten to the
current situation and noted that everyone was aware of the
project's importance.
Senator Pearce MOVED that the committee ask the administration
to withdraw RPL 25-8-6002.
Senator Halford asked if the committee was playing a game with
the 45-day rule. Senator Phillips replied in the affirmative.
Senator Pearce noted that the intention was to not stop the
clock. She questioned the characterization of playing a game.
She believed the situation was unique and that perhaps unique
responses were called for.
Representative Croft OBJECTED to the motion. He stressed that
there was no power that would prevent the law from taking effect
on September 10. He believed the legal opinion was equivocal. He
pointed out that another section of the legal opinion stated
that the committee did have the authority to move forward on the
RPL.
Representative James understood Representative Croft's point;
however, if the committee moved the RPL forward, she stressed
the importance of the condition specifying that the situation
should not occur again in the future.
Senator Pearce MOVED to WITHDRAW the motion with the hope of an
alternative solution. There was OBJECTION to the withdrawal of
the motion.
Senator Phillips asked Senator Pearce to restate her motion.
Senator Pearce MOVED that the committee ask the administration
to withdraw RPL 25-8-6002. She understood that the 45-day rule
began the day the RPL was submitted and not with any action
taken by the committee.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Halford, Representative James, Senator
Torgerson, Representative Therriault, Senator Pearce, Senator
Phillips, Senator Donley
OPPOSED: Representative Croft
The MOTION PASSED (7/1).
Ms. McConnell asked whether the committee wanted to take action
on proceeding with the contract proceeding on September 10.
Senator Phillips replied that the action was to not consider the
RPL.
Senator Donley noted that the committee had voted to ask the
administration not to do something, but they could decide to
move forward or not.
Representative Croft noted that the committee had taken no
action on the RPL.
Senator Torgerson clarified that if the administration refused
to remove the RPL it would remain on the committee's agenda for
the August 21, 1997 meeting.
Ms. McConnell clarified her interest in understanding the
committee's intent related to moving forward with a contract.
Representative Croft Moved RPL 25-8-6002 with the amendment that
the authority take effect on September 10, 1997.
Representative James asked whether the amendment should be voted
on prior to voting on the RPL. Senator Phillips agreed.
Senator Halford asked whether it was in order to move action on
an issue that had already been dealt with in a contrary way. He
restated the committee's prior action on the RPL.
Senator Phillips asked Representative Croft to renew his motion.
Senator Torgerson expressed objection to the motion. He believed
the committee had effectively tabled the issue. He did not
believe a motion was in order.
Representative Croft clarified that the committee had asked
another party to take action, but he did not believe it was the
same as the committee taking action. He stressed that his motion
was not a contrary action.
Representative Croft MOVED that RPL 25-8-6002 become effective
after September 10, 1997.
Senator Donley MOVED to table the motion.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to table Representative
Croft's motion.
IN FAVOR: Representative James, Senator Halford, Representative
Therriault, Senator Donley, Senator Pearce, Senator Phillips,
Senator Torgerson
OPPOSED: Representative Croft
The motion PASSED (7/1).
Senator Pearce discussed the upcoming August 21, 1997 Senate
Finance Committee and LB&A meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|