Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB410 | |
| HB412 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 410 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2010
1:36 p.m.
1:36:24 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
ALSO PRESENT
Ted Leonard, Executive Director, Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; Greg Winegar, Director,
Alaska Division of Investments, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; Mark Davis, Economic
Development Officer, Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development; Craig Dahl, President/CEO, Alaska
Pacific Bank and Vice Chair, Federal Home Loan Bank of
Seattle Board.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mike Burgforg, Executive Director, Made in Mat-Su
Association, Mat-Su.
SUMMARY
HB 410 AIDEA LOANS
HB 410 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HB 412 MICROLOAN REVOLVING FUND
HB 412 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 410
"An Act relating to loan participations and
development finance projects of the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority; and relating to
loans from the rural development initiative fund."
1:36:58 PM
TED LEONARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY (AIDEA), DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, explained
that three of the bill's sections deal with AIDEA and one
part deals with an AIDEA fund run by the Division of
Investments. He detailed that the changes requested by HB
410 would deal with the first part of implementing the
strategic plan, the effectiveness of AIDEA programs, and a
new development tool related to the loan program.
Section 1. AS 44.88.159(e) is amended to change the
method by which AIDEA determines the minimum interest
rate to be charged on loan participations that AIDEA
finances with AIDEA assets rather than bond proceeds.
Current method requires AIDEA to establish a minimum
by estimating the true interest cost in AIDEA were to
use bond proceeds. The proposed method would allow the
minimum to be based on the greater of either the rates
achieved by a type of category of financial security
in a published nationally recognized market index or
the 5-year rate of return on AIDEA's investments.
Mr. Leonard detailed that Section 1 would address how the
minimum interest rate is set when AIDEA funds loans with
internal funds. Currently, AIDEA sets the rate by going to
the bond market and asking an expert like Goldman Sachs.
When the municipal bond market had problems, AIDEA's rates
went from the 6 percent range up to the high 9 percent
range; the rates have come down but are still shifting. The
agency was considering going to an index so that customers
and partners could have a more steady interest rate.
Section 2. AS 44.88.159 is amended by adding a new
subsection that allows AIDEA to establish in
regulation a new program to provide incentive rate
rebates to certain loan participations that create
jobs, promote rural development or foster other
economic development criteria.
· Rate rebates are limited to no more than 1% of
the interest rate charged to AIDEA's portion of
the loan participation.
· The balance of loans subject to rebates would be
limited to no more than 5 % of the outstanding
balance of all loan participations.
· The authority may not commit to pay an incentive
rebate for more than 5 years.
· Allows AIDEA to establish a separate account for
this program.
Mr. Leonard reported that Section 2 would set up a new tool
under the commercial finance program that would allow an
incentive rebate program to give incentives to businesses
meeting certain criteria. For example, if a criterion was
to develop 25 new jobs with the investment, AIDEA would not
give the rebate unless the jobs were in fact created.
Co-Chair Hawker pointed out that the provision would bring
extreme latitude to the agency because the criteria listed
are authorized to be established in regulations adopted by
AIDEA. Mr. Leonard agreed. He added that AIDEA had
considered putting the criteria in statute, but they felt
they needed the flexibility to tailor to the areas in which
they were trying to incentivize investment.
Representative Kelly asked whether the AIDEA board approved
regulations. Mr. Leonard responded in the affirmative. He
added that the agency was in the process of modernizing the
organizational structure so that loans would go to
investment committees made of private sector and management
before going to the board.
1:42:57 PM
Mr. Leonard continued with Section 3:
AS 44.88.172(a) is amended to clarify that AIDEA can
own or operate a percentage of a project - not the
entire project.
Mr. Leonard detailed that currently there are two sections
in statute; an intent section stipulating that AIDEA can
own an interest in a project, and another section stating
that AIDEA has to own the project. The request would
clarify that AIDEA has the ability to own a portion of a
project. He noted that the price tags on economic
infrastructures are increasing. For example, a plant could
be in the $1 billion to $2 billion range, past AIDEA's
capacity; AIDEA could help the project be successful by
owning a portion of it. In addition, evaluating the
practices of other development finance organizations has
revealed that partnering with the private sector shares the
risk.
Co-Chair Hawker clarified that the intent was not to
prohibit the practice of full ownership but to widen the
latitude to allow AIDEA to be a component investor in
projects. He thought the existing language was not clear,
but seemed to preclude ownership of the entire project. Mr.
Leonard acknowledged the need for more clarity.
Section 4. AS 44.88.610(a) is amended to allow
borrowers to have multiple Rural Development Revolving
Loan Fund loans and increases the cumulative amount a
person may borrow from $100,000 to $150,000 and
increases the cumulative amount two or more persons
may borrow from $200,000 to $300,000.
Mr. Leonard explained that the section addresses a fund
that AIDEA financed in the past and the Division of
Investments currently operates. The fund is one of the few
that AIDEA has under its umbrella that is a direct
participation loan program. The authority had searched for
ways to utilize the money to get more loans into rural
areas. The division suggested changing the limits from
$100,000 to $150,000 for one business and from $200,000 to
$300,000 for more than two businesses, and then changing
the rate from 6 percent to 4 percent (more in line with
other programs run by the Division of Investment). He
stressed that the change would allow a successful business
to have more than one loan as it grows.
1:47:34 PM
Co-Chair Hawker clarified that the provision was not
changing the rate from 6 percent to 4 percent, but changing
the minimum rate. Mr. Leonard agreed.
Vice-Chair Thomas referred to page 3, line 23 adressing
business located where the population is 5,000 or less and
not connected by road or rail. He asked whether Haines
would qualify since the connecting road went through
another country.
GREG WINEGAR, DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF INVESTMENTS,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
answered that that the key is being connected by road or
rail; it does not matter that the road goes through another
country.
Vice-Chair Thomas thought the language should be changed.
Mr. Winegar offered to work to change the language and
acknowledged discussion about the where the lines should be
drawn. He thought the upcoming census could make a
difference in which communities would qualify.
Vice-Chair Thomas recalled other legislation that defined
"resident" and wanted clarification.
Representative Austerman queried the position of Haines
regarding the definition.
Vice-Chair Thomas replied that in the past the fact of a
foreign country had excluded Haines because a connecting
road was defined as one with 24-hour access.
1:51:28 PM
Mr. Winegar responded that Haines did qualify under the
existing statute.
Representative Fairclough referenced the the indeterminate
fiscal note with zeroes and asked whether costs were
anticipated for the incentive rate rebate. Mr. Leonard
responded that overall he did not expect cost increases
because of the agency's capacity to increase its portfolio
balance on new loans. He pointed out that new loans (even
with the 100 basis points reduction) would be more than the
opportunity cost of investing internal funds.
Representative Fairclough queried the current capacity of
the Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) plant. Mr. Leonard replied that
current statute allows $400 million over a rolling 12-month
period. He noted that the House had passed HB 90, which
would take out refunding bonds and result in more capacity.
1:54:07 PM
Representative Fairclough referred to a bill exempting
AIDEA from procurement code and asked how investment
strategies would be affected. Mr. Leonard did not know and
offered to get the information.
Representative Doogan questioned how loan costs would be
affected by Section 1. Mr. Leonard responded that AIDEA was
considering several different indexes set through
regulation, such as the Federal Home Loan Bank index with
5, 10, 15, and 30-year indexes for cost to funds. In
addition, AIDEA has a minimum floor for the five-year
annualized rate of return to protect the loan portfolio and
the state dividend. The authority uses the index plus
operation cost on a normal daily rate; if the rate went
below that, they would look at the minimum floor. He
emphasized that the legislation would set the minimum and
allow AIDEA (based on other factors that could come into
play, such as loan risk) to have a higher rate. The index
would be the minimum rate and would be set by regulation.
He added that the index could be changed if a better index
came along.
Representative Doogan queried fund costs under the proposed
legislation.
MARK DAVIS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, responded that using
the 20-year rate of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle
against what AIDEA charges currently would amount to 1.04
percent. Over 20 years, AIDEA is essentially charging a
point that it does not need to charge in order to recover
the rate of funds. He added that the statute currently
requires AIDEA to use a cost of funds tied historically to
bonds, which are no longer stable. The agency wants to
shift to more a more stable and transparent index. He
suggested checking the Federal Home Loan Bank on the
Internet to figure out the loan rate; currently Goldman and
Sachs calculates the rate. He thought the rates would be
lowered over time and be protected against anomalies in the
market. The treasury bill is currently at 4.75 for 30
years; 18 months ago it was at minus one, illustrating the
instability of the bond market.
1:59:39 PM
Representative Doogan turned to Section 2 in the sectional
analysis, related to establishing a new program that could
create jobs, promote rural development, and "foster other
economic development criteria." He asked what fostering
criteria meant. Mr. Davis responded that the item is the
result of AIDEA's effort over the past two years to work on
a strategic economic plan. The plan has been released. The
agency studied the criteria used by similar industrial
development banks in 44 other states. The statute uses job
creation because the preamble stipulates the elimination of
unemployment. He noted that most development organizations
put an emphasis on distressed areas, and that unemployment
in rural Alaska tends to be high. Other criteria could
relate to distressed economic zones within cities (such as
Anchorage), which would track the current federal practices
under the Build America Bonds (BABs) and other types of
instruments. Alaska could also look at new technology
developments that could spur further job creation. The
criteria could be adopted through regulation by the AIDEA
board.
Representative Doogan pointed to Sections 4 and 5, which he
understood as a substantial loosening of loan requirements,
both in terms of getting people more money, lower interest
rates, and the ability to get more than one loan. He asked
why the agency wanted the changes. Mr. Winegar replied that
based on public input and internal discussions about lower
rates, AIDEA hoped to provide a better rate for businesses,
which are creating jobs. The agency would be allowed to
create regulations to lower the rate; currently the floor
by statute is 6 percent. Other successful programs such as
Small Business Development allow rates down to 4 percent.
He added that the same holds true for the loan amount.
Rates have gone up significantly in the past several years,
so the thinking was to provide a higher minimum. Regarding
making more than one loan, a business that was successful
after getting a small loan ($10,000 to $20,000) would not
currently be able to borrow more. The agency thought it
made more sense to have the limit based on an amount as
opposed to the number of loans.
2:04:13 PM
Representative Doogan questioned how the agency will be
able to monitor the effect of the changes and what it could
do if the changes were not financially viable. Mr. Winegar
replied that AIDEA carefully monitors all programs. He
emphasized that the changes would not be required, but
would provide flexibility. He detailed that the lifetime
delinquency rate on the program since origination was 4.3
percent. He assured the committee that the agency could
make adjustments as needed through the regulation process
as well as through the lending decision process.
Representative Kelly wondered why he had not heard about
changes related to credit worthiness or about adjusting for
risk. Mr. Winegar answered that there would be no
difference in evaluation in terms of risk.
Co-Chair Hawker queried the 4.3 percent delinquency
statistic. He asked how many Rural Development Initiative
Fund loans were outstanding at any given time. Mr. Winegar
replied that AIDEA currently had 41 loans out totally $4
million and $1.7 million available to lend. Historically,
62 loans totaling $7.2 million have been made through the
program since the program started in 2000.
2:07:37 PM
Representative Foster directed attention to Section 3
regarding old language about AIDEA owning an entire
project. He queried the minimum amount of a project and
possible ramifications. Mr. Leonard answered that the issue
had been discussed, but a minimum was not considered. He
believed using due diligence and project feasibility would
result in the percentage of ownership that would maximize
the potential of the project.
Mr. Davis commented that the section was a clarification.
One statute preamble (AS 44.88.010(a)) currently reads
"incur debt to own and operate facilities," which has been
interpreted to mean that the entire facility has to be
owned and operated. On the other hand, AS 44.88.085 states
that "to acquire an interest in a project as necessary or
appropriate," which seemed to indicate that AIDEA could own
an interest in a project and have partners. House Bill 410
would clarify the language to say that owning an interest
was the appropriate way to read the statute.
Representative Fairclough asked whether AIDEA would be
allowed to participate in an in-state gasline project. Mr.
Davis replied that the agency could invest in any project
with rate of return consistent with statute. He noted that
the agency had looked at gas projects in the past and would
do so again in the future.
CRAIG DAHL, PRESIDENT/CEO, ALASKA PACIFIC BANK and VICE
CHAIR, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SEATTLE BOARD, testified
in support of the legislation on behalf of the institutions
as well as the Alaska Bankers Association. He stated that
AIDEA had proven over the years to be a pillar of the
state's economic development activity. The various
participation loan programs have been successful because of
a competitive rate structure that helped induce a lot of
business loans and project lending, creating many jobs and
helping the economy develop.
Mr. Dahl described the Alaska Pacific Bank as one of the
smallest institutions in the state; however, it currently
had over $30 million in loans and has managed to work in
concert with the various programs through AIDEA. He
believed the same was true for all the state's banks. He
felt that AIDEA should be competitive and responsive to the
market. He stressed that Alaska has managed to avoid most
of the serious impacts from the recession and underlined
the importance of the state's economy remaining stable and
moving forward. He felt that AIDEA was a critical piece in
the success of the state's economy.
2:12:40 PM
HB 410 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 412
"An Act establishing the Alaska microloan revolving
fund; making loans for commercial purposes from the
fund; and relating to the fund and loans; and
providing for an effective date."
2:13:21 PM
GREG WINEGAR, DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF INVESTMENTS,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
informed the committee that HB 412 would create a new loan
program aimed at helping small Alaskan businesses access
critically needed capital to start new businesses and to
grow existing ones. He noted that the program is modeled
after a similar program operated through the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that is available in 46 other states
but not in Alaska because of SBA lender criteria that no
institution has met.
Mr. Winegar detailed that the maximum loan given through
the program would be $35,000 for an individual and $70,000
for two or more individuals. There would be a residency
requirement. The loan proceeds could be used for a variety
of purposes, including working capital, equipment, and
construction. The maximum loan term would be 6 years,
patterned after the SBA program. The loans must be
collateralized and the interest rate would be prime plus 1
percentage point with a floor of 6 percent and a ceiling of
8 percent. In terms of capitalization, the fiscal note
includes $3.5 million that would come from AIDEA,
contingent on passage of HB 411. Operating expenses at
$77,700 would be included to hire a loan officer. He noted
that the department worked hard to keep the fiscal note as
low as possible.
Mr. Winegar continued that the fund would be set up as a
revolving fund; all repayments would come back into the
fund and new loan requests would come out of it. In
addition, the operating expenses would be covered from
earnings of the fund, similar to other programs. He
reported that the department was projecting about 75 loans
in the first year, 100 in the second, and then the fund
could maintain about 25 loans per year from the initial
capitalization.
2:16:39 PM
Co-Chair Hawker queried the prime rate plus one proposed
for the program. Mr. Winegar responded that most other
programs in the department were based on prime rate so it
was used to be consistent. The rate could be geared to
another index.
Representative Kelly asked why there was a cap if the rate
was prime plus. Mr. Winegar answered that the cap was put
in to offer protection in case of a high interest rate
environment.
Representative Kelly registered concerns as the program
would be converted from one with a spread to one with a
"give-away" element.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether the notes would be six-year
fixed-rate notes. Mr. Winegar answered in the affirmative.
He noted that other program regulation required quarterly
review and adjustment; at the time the loan is given, the
rate is fixed for the term of the loan.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether a variable rate program had
been considered, which would benefit the consumer in low-
rate periods but protect in high-rate ones. Mr. Winegar
responded that the agency had considered the option; they
thought the fixed rate would be make it easier for a
borrower to plan. He acknowledged the fund could be set up
as a floating rate.
2:19:39 PM
Representative Foster thought the program was good for
rural Alaska. He queried plans to communicate about the
program in rural areas. Mr. Winegar replied that the
program would be handled like other programs, with outreach
work, advertisement, and attendance at various conferences.
He noted a contract with the Alaska Business Development
Center to assist in outreach efforts. He also anticipated
using the Small Business Development Center at the
University of Alaska.
Representative Foster queried examples of collateral
sufficient to secure the loan. He wondered the lowest level
of collateral acceptable. Mr. Winegar answered that
standards would be set through regulation; the language was
broad to allow as much flexibility as possible to work with
businesses. Deeds of trust on property and inventory would
apply. The term of the loan would be geared based on
collateral. The provision would provide maximum flexibility
to secure the loan in the best way possible; however, the
language does not require a certain type of collateral.
Representative Austerman commented that research on
economic development has confirmed the need for small
businesses to have access to funds through reasonable
loans. He questioned the fiscal note, related to the flow
of funds. He noted that currently the state receives a
dividend from AIDEA that goes into the general fund and
that funding for the proposed program would come out of
AIDEA dividend receipts. He thought the $3.5 million
requested should be general funds. He also questioned the
$77,700 for the position, which was coming out of AIDEA
dividends. He assumed the position would be in the Division
of Investments through reimbursable service agreement (RSA)
funds from AIDEA. He wanted to fund the position with the
general funds through the normal process.
2:23:22 PM
Representative Fairclough queried the definition (page 3,
lines 15 and 16) of an Alaska resident. She pointed to
eligibility language (starting on line 4 and on line 10):
"to meet the residency requirements of (a) of this section,
the applicant (1) must physically reside in the state and
maintain a domicile in the state during the twelve
consecutive months before the date of the application for
the program, but may not declare or establish residency in
another state or receive residency or a benefit based on
residency from another state." She asked how the
stipulation applied. Mr. Winegar replied that the intent
was that residency was maintained over the 12-month period.
Representative Fairclough questioned the possibilities of
what the language could mean. Co-Chair Hawker agreed that
the question was important to consider.
Representative Doogan thought that microloans were much
smaller. He queried why the agency considered the loan
amounts available as microloans. He also asked what kind of
loans would be expected. Mr. Winegar responded that the
loan amounts and the term "microloan" came from the SBA
program, as did the $3.5 million limit. The types of loans
expected were for working capital for a small business, to
be used for leasehold improvements or equipment.
Representative Doogan wondered whether the loans might be
too small as expenses were so much higher in rural Alaska.
Mr. Winegar answered that there were two other programs for
small businesses in rural Alaska, including the Rural
Development Revolving Loan Fund, which would offer larger
loans for smaller communities. The program proposed in HB
412 would fill a need not filled by the other programs. He
emphasized that all areas of the state would qualify for
the microloan program, whereas other the programs are for
smaller areas. The proposal would fill a gap that SBA
covers in most other states.
2:28:51 PM
Representative Kelly asked whether the agency had
considered funding the program "upstream" of AIDEA. Mr.
Winegar answered that the position would initially be paid
for out of the dividend and then would come out of
revolving fund, along with other expenses. Other funding
options had been considered at the Office of Budget and
Management (OMB) level; the proposed option was considered
the best one.
Co-Chair Hawker thought an eligibility requirement in the
section on loan limits should be moved to the eligibility
section. He pointed to page 3, line 28 about not making a
loan to person with a past due child support obligation. He
called it the only "moral turpitude" clause in the
provision and asked why other groups such as convicted sex
offenders or felons were not listed. He asked why child
support was targeted. Mr. Winegar replied that the language
was modeled on other legislation and that the same language
was in all AIDEA programs. He acknowledged the possible
need to change the placement of the language.
Co-Chair Hawker questioned whether other restrictions might
be appropriate.
Co-Chair Hawker directed attention to the findings section
on page 1, line 9, the declaration "essential for the on-
going economic health and well-being of the state and its
citizens and families." He asked whether there were
families that were not citizens. Mr. Winegar did not know
where the language originated.
Co-Chair Hawker moved to line 12 in the findings section,
"economic growth and self-employment in small business is
hampered." He did not recall seeing the word "hampered"
elsewhere in statute.
Representative Gara wondered whether the business had to be
located in the state of Alaska. Mr. Winegar responded that
line 17 on page 2 stipulated that loans would be made to
eligible applicants to be used for working capital,
equipment, and so on "by a business located in the state."
2:33:57 PM
Co-Chair Hawker requested clarification of earlier comments
about "stiffer compliance requirements" that were not being
utilized. He asked how the legislation could justify
deviating from the underwriting standards of the SBA. Mr.
Winegar responded that there had to be an intermediary
lender in order to have a SBA microloan program. Lenders
have to meet certain criteria; no one in the state has met
the criteria.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether the provision applied only to
the microloan program. Mr. Winegar answered in the
affirmative. He reported that the agency had talked to SBA
about the possibility of the state qualifying as a lender,
but states were not eligible.
Co-Chair Hawker informed the committee that staff had noted
that the test for child support does not show up on credit
reports, so the language indicates a way to address the
issue.
Representative Foster queried whether information about
collections should be in the fiscal note. Mr. Winegar
replied that collections are done in-house and figured in.
He added that the loan officer is also a collection officer
and can do collections.
Representative Fairclough referred to page 2 of the fiscal
note and requested an update on the status of other
legislation that would affect the fund. Mr. Winegar replied
that there were two bills: HB 411 in the House Resources
Committee and SB 301 in the Senate Finance Committee.
2:38:54 PM AT EASE
2:41:02 PM RECONVENED
MIKE BURGFORG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MADE IN MAT-SU
ASSOCIATION, MAT-SU (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation. He reported that his
organization represented value-added manufacturers in the
Mat-Su. He stated that the organization's 245 members and
affiliates strongly support HB 412 because small business
will qualify for the first time. Other programs do not
support businesses in the area. He spoke to concerns about
the money volume. A survey showed that members would be
looking for smaller than $35,000 to $70,000 loans. The
greatest concern among members was capital for the purchase
of raw materials in order to be more competitive in the
market. He stressed the importance of the legislation to
small businesses in the state.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether the business community
represented had difficulty accessing small lines of
commercial credit through traditional financing
institutions. Mr. Burgforg replied that most of the members
queried had difficultly because of the size of their
businesses. They could take personal loans, which did not
build their businesses. The microloan program would help
build business and establish credit, making them more
viable and better business partners in the community.
Co-Chair Hawker queried underwriting criteria. Mr. Winegar
responded that the agency would establish underwriting
criteria through the regulatory process. The goal was to
leave flexibility so that each business could be considered
separately.
2:46:45 PM
Co-Chair Hawker summarized that the intent of the program
is to be able to accommodate concerns of small businesses
such as those represented by the Made in Mat-Su
Association. Mr. Winegar agreed.
Vice-Chair Thomas pointed to letters of support from the
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, Anchorage
Development Corporation, and others, including commercial
fishermen.
HB 412 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:49 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Letter from Governor HB410.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 410 |
| Sectional Analysis HB410.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 410 |
| HB 412 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 412 |
| HB 412 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 412 |
| Micro loans.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 412 |
| Microloan Support Letters.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 412 |
| HB 412 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 412 |
| admin@aidea org_20100401_145122.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 410 |