Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/22/2023 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Spring Revenue Forecast | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 22, 2023
9:02 a.m.
9:02:02 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel; Dan Stickel, Chief Economist,
Economic Research Group, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; Colleen Glover, Director, Tax Division, Department
of Revenue.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: SPRING REVENUE FORECAST
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that the committee would hear a
presentation on the Department of Revenue's (DOR) spring
revenue forecast. He referenced a press release from the
previous day that indicated there had been substantial
changes in the forecast, particularly in the last week. He
mentioned conversations with the department and indicated
that the numbers being presented were as up to date as
possible. He thought there may be a forthcoming update in
two weeks. He mentioned that DOR Tax Division Director
Colleen Glover and Acting Commissioner Adam Crum were also
available for questions, along with other staff.
^PRESENTATION: SPRING REVENUE FORECAST
9:04:09 AM
DAN STICKEL, CHIEF ECONOMIST, ECONOMIC RESEARCH GROUP, TAX
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, introduced himself. He
relayed that the department had released the spring
forecast the previous afternoon.
He discussed a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Spring
2023 Forecast Presentation," (copy on file).
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 2, "Agenda":
1. Forecast Background and Key Assumptions
2. Spring 2023 Revenue Forecast
• Total State Revenue
• Unrestricted Revenue
3. Petroleum Forecast Assumptions Detail
• Oil Price
• Oil Production
• Oil and Gas Lease Expenditures
• Oil and Gas Transportation Costs
• Oil and Gas Credits
Mr. Stickel showed slide 3, "Forecast Background and Key
Assumptions."
Mr. Stickel referenced slide 4, Background: Spring Revenue
Forecast":
1. Historical, current, and estimated future state
revenue
2. Updates key data from Fall Revenue Sources Book
3. Official revenue forecast used for final budget
process
4. Located at tax.alaska.gov"
Mr. Stickel relayed that the spring forecast was an update
to the larger Revenue Sources Book (RSB) that was put out
by DOR in the fall. He noted that the forecast maintained
ten-year forecast revenue models for all the states major
revenue sources. He noted that there were forecasts going
back several decades on the Tax Division website.
9:05:59 AM
Mr. Stickel turned to slide 5, "Spring Forecast
Assumptions":
• The economic impacts of financial and geopolitical
events are uncertain; DOR has developed a plausible
scenario to forecast these impacts.
• Key Assumptions:
o Investments: Stable growth in investment
markets, 7.00% for FY 2023 and 7.05% for FY
2024+.
o Federal: The forecast incorporates stimulus
funding as of March 1, 2023, includes updated
estimates of IIJA funding.
o Petroleum: Alaska North Slope oil price of
$85.25 per barrel for FY 2023 and $73.00 per
barrel for FY 2024.
o Non-Petroleum: Continued economic growth. 90%
of capacity assumption for 2023 cruise season,
minerals prices based on futures markets.
Mr. Stickel qualified that the forecast represented one
scenario within a range of uncertainty. He mentioned
volatility in the bank markets, bank failures, and volatile
oil prices from the previous week. He noted that as a
result of the volatility, DOR had pushed out the date for
finalizing the oil price forecast as far as possible. The
oil price forecast was based on the previous weeks futures
market prices, which allowed for the full incorporation of
the volatility. He mentioned a slight increase in expected
federal funding for various agency operations. He noted
that the petroleum price assumption was based on eight and
a half months of actual prices and estimated that the
Alaska North Slope (ANS) prices would average in the low
70s for the remainder of FY 23 to get to the fiscal year
average price.
Mr. Stickel noted that the forecast assumed fairly stable
economic activity and did not include any significant
recession. The tourism expectation still forecast 1.65
million cruise ship passenger capacity for the summer, and
that the ships would sail 90 percent full. He mentioned the
mining industry, which showed improved prices in mineral
prices in the futures market, particularly with coal and
gold prices.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the forecast oil price of
$73/bbl for 2024, and thought the forecast was using
$73/bbl through the end of June.
Mr. Stickel affirmed that Co-Chair Stedman was roughly
correct.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned that language in the fast-track
supplemental bill was pretty tight in terms of accessing
the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) for funds. If the
price went below the $73/bbl number, there might need to
make an adjustment. He relayed that the committee would
track the price and work with DOR over the following month.
9:10:35 AM
Mr. Stickel considered slide 6, "Relative Contributions to
Total State Revenue: FY 2022," which showed graphical
representations of the state's revenue sources for FY 22.
He noted that DOR had made a couple of minor adjustments to
the slide since the previous time it was shown, including
the breakout of corporate income tax revenue and the
addition of a small tree to denote the timber industry. He
pointed out that in FY 22 federal revenue and petroleum
revenue made up the majority of state revenue, while there
was a year of net losses on the investment side.
Mr. Stickel displayed slide 7, "Relative Contributions to
Total State Revenue: FY 2023," which showed graphical
representations of the state's revenue sources for FY 23.
He pointed out the big three contributions to state revenue
as federal revenue, investment earnings, and petroleum. All
other revenue sources added up to about 7 percent of total
revenue.
Mr. Stickel displayed slide 8, "Spring 2023 Revenue
Forecast."
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 9, "Unrestricted Revenue
Forecast: FY 2022 and Changes to Two-Year Outlook," and
explained that the slide showed key changes to the
unrestricted revenue forecast. Since the fall forecast,
based on the current outlook of the futures market, the
estimate of ANS oil prices had been decreased by $3.20/bll
for FY 23 and by $8/bbl for FY 24. The forecast for the
Permanent Fund transfer to the General Fund had not
changed. The total unrestricted revenue forecast decreased
by about $246 million for FY 23, and $679 million for FY
24. He explained that the lower oil price forecast was the
primary reason for the change, and there was also a modest
reduction to the production forecast that contributed to
the change.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that when the committee had run the
numbers, it was not as close as the analysis being
presented. He asked if there were other factors that
impacted the forecast.
Mr. Stickel relayed that the production forecast had been
reduced moderately for both of the fiscal years, and the
lease expenditure forecast had been increased moderately
(largely due to inflation). He continued that there had
been some adjustments on the credit side of things, wherein
some credits had been transferred and used against tax
liabilities. The impacts compounded the oil price impact.
Outside of oil and gas, there were very minimal changes, so
the revenue forecast was really a function of the oil and
gas.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about quantifying the added
components.
Mr. Stickel estimated that the production impact had been
about $30 million, for both FY 23 and FY 24.
9:15:02 AM
Mr. Stickel addressed slide 10, "Total Revenue Forecast: FY
2022 to FY 2024 Totals," which showed a table of total
state revenue from all sources for FY 22, and forecasts for
FY 23 and FY 24. The data was a more detailed version of
the data shown on slide 6 and slide 7. He explained that he
broke revenues into four categories of restriction. He
explained that Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) revenues
could be appropriated by the legislature for any purpose
and were typically the focus of most budget discussions. He
continued that Designated General Fund (DGF) revenues were
technically available for appropriation but were
customarily used for some specific purpose. He gave an
example that a portion of alcohol tax revenues were used
for alcohol and drug abuse treatment and prevention.
Mr. Stickel continued that other restricted revenues were
more restricted, limiting the legislature's ability to
appropriate the revenues either by constitution, federal
law, or debt covenant. He used the example that a portion
of state royalties were dedicated to the Permanent Fund by
the constitution. He noted that all federal revenues were
shown as restricted, as there were provisions placed by the
federal government to dictate how the funds were used.
Mr. Stickel cited that in FY 22, total state revenue from
all sources was $8.6 billion. The amount was brought down
by the losses by investments in 2022. There was a forecast
for a little over $16 million in total revenue in FY 23 and
a little over $15 billion in FY 24.
Mr. Stickel advanced to slide 11, "Unrestricted Revenue
Forecast: FY 2022 to FY 2024 Totals," which showed a table.
He noted that he would focus on the unrestricted venue,
which was where most of the flexibility and discretion
existed in the budget process. Investment revenue was one
of the state's two largest revenue sources and was
estimated to contribute $3.4 billion in FY 23 and $3.6
billion in FY 24. Petroleum revenue, the other major source
of state funds, generated about $3.5 billion of
unrestricted revenue in FY 22, was forecast to generate
$3.1 billion in FY 23, and $2.2 billion in FY 24. The non-
petroleum revenue sources were forecast to contribute $459
million in FY 23 and $465 million in FY 24. He noted that
the following slides would walk through the categories in
more detail.
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 12, "Unrestricted Investment
Revenue: FY 2022 to FY 2024 Totals," which showed a table.
He cited that the Permanent Fund transfer was expected to
account for 48 percent to 60 percent of UGF revenue over
the ten-year forecast. He cited transfers of $3.4 billion
in FY 23 and $3.5 in FY 24. The transfer was based on the
average value of the fund for the first five years of the
previous six fiscal years. In addition to the Permanent
Fund transfer, there was a small amount of other UGF
revenues that were primarily earnings on GF cash balances.
Due to market conditions, there were slight losses in FY
22, which was unusual. He commented on the rate volatility,
and the expectation that the numbers would be positive
again in FY 23 and FY 24.
Mr. Stickel showed slide 13, "Unrestricted Investment
Revenue: Percent of Market Value (POMV) Transfer Forecast,"
which showed a graph providing a ten-year forecast for the
POMV transfer. There was also a high and low case included.
He noted that the transfer was based upon the 7.05 percent
long term annual average and a 5 percent annual payout.
9:20:14 AM
Mr. Stickel referenced slide 14, "Unrestricted Petroleum
Revenue: FY 2022 to FY 2024 Totals," which showed a table.
He noted that there were four main sources: petroleum
property tax, a state tax that was expected to generate a
little over $120 million per year, a corporate income tax,
and a production tax. He cited that there was also a
municipal share of the property tax, and any municipal tax
was credited against the state tax. He discussed corporate
income tax and cited that the oil and gas portion had
generated just under $300 million in FY 22 and was forecast
for $270 million in FY 23 and $300 million in FY 24.
Mr. Stickel continued that the state's severance tax on oil
and gas, known as production tax, was the largest tax on
oil and gas. For North Slope production the tax consisted
of a net profits tax with a gross minimum tax floor. At
current prices it was expected that most companies would be
paying above the minimum tax floor throughout the forecast.
There was about $1.5 billion in production tax revenue
forecast for FY 23, and a little over $700 million forecast
for FY 24. The reason for the decline was primarily to do
with the lower oil price forecast for the next year.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned an upcoming presentation on the
Willow project. He asked Mr. Stickel to highlight what
impacts the department expected on the projection for FY
24. He understood that there had been conversations
regarding working on more detail.
Mr. Stickel affirmed that the department would be
presenting an updated Willow analysis the following day. He
explained that the Willow project and other new projects
were included in the forecast on a risked basis. He noted
that the production as well as the associated costs were
included.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned concerns about expenditures and
potential collection of severance tax, which could lower
the net revenue to the state.
Mr. Stickel relayed that it was not possible to get into
the company-specific forecasts for any particular companies
or fields. He noted that the presentation the following day
used only publicly available information. He explained that
during the first five years of construction, the net
negative impacts to the state were expected to be less than
$400 million. Due to risking methodology, the forecast
would show the impacts to be even slightly less.
9:25:14 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the committee would be exposed to
any downside surprises or negative impacts to the revenue
forecast update to FY 24 due to projects that may
accelerate or decelerate.
Mr. Stickel relayed that the way the state's production tax
system was set up, companies were allowed to deduct
spending against the calculation of the net profits tax.
The state also had a minimum tax floor that protected state
revenue to some extent. To the extent that a company was
paying tax above the tax floor, if a company chose to make
additional investments that would reduce the tax liability
it was by design of the tax system.
Co-Chair Stedman emphasized the need to be prepared in the
case that expenditures were to become accelerated. He
thought that there would be a tight budget process for FY
24.
9:27:17 AM
Mr. Stickel continued to address slide 14 and discussed
royalties. He cited that royalties generated about $1.3
billion in FY 22, and forecast for about $1.2 billion in FY
23, and a little over $1 billion in FY 24. The table showed
only the unrestricted portion of the royalties. He
explained that there was a portion that went to the
Permanent Fund with a smaller portion that went to the
school fund.
Mr. Stickel turned to slide 15, "Unrestricted Non-Petroleum
Revenue: FY 2022 to FY 2024 Totals," which showed a table
with additional detail for unrestricted non-petroleum
revenue. He noted that the largest of the non-petroleum
revenues was taxes, with the most significant piece being
the corporate income tax, which generated a little over
$100 million per year. Other significant taxes included
mining license tax, insurance premium tax, fisheries tax,
and various excise tax. The numbers on the slide were only
the unrestricted portion of the taxes. In total, there was
about $330 million from unrestricted non-petroleum taxes in
FY 23 and about $340 million in FY 24. Other non-petroleum
revenue sources included a variety that generated a little
over $100 million per year and included fines and
forfeitures, dividends to the state, rents and royalties,
and charges for services.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the oil price fluctuation for FY
24 was roughly $679 million. He commented on the magnitude
of the oil price swing, which exceeded the total of all the
tax revenues on the list.
Senator Bishop asked about the Mining License Tax decrease
from FY 23 to FY 24. He asked if the reason was due to less
production and lower commodity prices.
Mr. Stickel relayed that based on the futures market, he
was looking for commodity prices to come down a little in
FY 24. He made note of the impact of increased costs of
fuel and labor, and general inflation. He noted that the
Mining License Tax was a net profits-based tax.
Senator Bishop noted that Mr. Stickel had not mentioned
production. He asked had stayed flat or if it was down.
Mr. Stickel relayed that the baseline assumption was for
stable production from the states mines.
Mr. Stickel showed slide 16, "Petroleum Forecast
Assumptions Detail."
9:31:29 AM
AT EASE
9:38:30 AM
RECONVENED
Mr. Stickel noted that it was the point in the presentation
where he would walk through some of the detailed
assumptions around the petroleum forecast in the Spring
2023 Revenue Forecast that was released the previous day.
Mr. Stickel considered slide 17, "Petroleum Detail: Changes
to Long-Term Price Forecast," and addressed a graph that
showed the spring oil price outlook for ANS crude compared
with the fall forecast. To produce the forecast, DOR used
the recent projections in the futures market outlook as of
the previous week. The forecast used projections through FY
29 and applied an inflation adjustment. There was a $3.20
per barrel reduction in expected oil price for the FY 23
forecast, an $8.00 per barrel reduction for FY 24, and
reductions in the out years as well. The futures market had
been holding fairly steady from the fall forecast until the
previous week, when there was a lot of volatility due to
financial markets and some bank failures. There was also
concern in the oil market specifically in recent weeks
about building inventories for oil, which might have
softened prices.
Mr. Stickel highlighted slide 18, "Petroleum Detail:
Nominal Brent Forecasts Comparison as of March 17, 2023,"
and compared DORs fall forecast to several other sources.
He observed that the forecast was fairly in line with the
futures market, but the forecast was a little lower than
the most recent outlook for the U.S. Energy Information
Administration and the Analyst forecast. He noted that the
difference was attributed to timing, and explained that by
using the futures market, DOR had a very current price
forecast that fully incorporated the volatility from the
previous week. The other sources released an outlook once
per month and had not yet incorporated the recent
volatility. Generally, the other sources projected a
slightly higher oil price than DOR.
9:41:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the committee appreciated
the forecast put forward by the department. He mentioned
that one year previously there had been difficulty with
what had been considered overly optimistic expectations. He
noted that the price forecast would be used by the
committee.
Mr. Stickel commented that the spring forecast from the
previous year had been produced when the conflict between
Russia and the Ukraine had started, which had been a period
of market uncertainty and volatility that made it very
difficult to produce a forecast. In the current spring
there was also a period of volatility, which was one reason
the department had wanted to delay setting the price in
order to provide the best possible forecast.
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 19, "Petroleum Detail: UGF
Relative to Price per Barrel (without POMV): FY 2024,"
which showed a graph that addressed the eventuality of the
forecast being wrong. He cited the volatility of oil prices
and the likelihood that that the oil price would not come
in at exactly at $73/bbl, which was the forecast for FY 24.
The slide showed the sensitivity analysis of how one could
expect UGF revenue to vary if prices were higher or lower
than the official forecast. Below the forecast price, a $1
increase or decrease in oil price equated to about a $50
million change in unrestricted revenue. Above the forecast
price, each dollar of difference represented about a $65
million to $75 million change in UGF revenue.
Senator Bishop mentioned the footnote at the bottom of the
slide and commented on how the committee focused on real-
time market discipline rather than getting caught up in the
moment. He was appreciative of Mr. Stickel's current
slides, and thought the information tampered down peoples
expectations.
9:45:09 AM
Mr. Stickel addressed slide 20, "Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Petroleum Production Forecast," which showed a line
graph depicting a ten-year history of oil production as
well as a ten-year forecast. The production forecast was
prepared in collaboration with DNR. He cited a decade of
fairly stable production around the 500,000 barrels per day
(bpd) line, and there was expectation of another decade of
fairly stable production at the same level. The chart
showed a high and a low case as well, which spoke to
uncertainty related to how newly drilled wells would
perform. There was a range of uncertainty related to
whether reservoirs and wells came in higher or lower than
expected. Generally, the graph showed a mature oil basin
with expected declines that would be offset by additional
drilling and optimization work as well as new oil fields
coming online.
9:46:50 AM
Mr. Stickel advanced to slide 21, "Petroleum Detail:
Changes to North Slope Petroleum Production Forecast,"
which showed a line graph of the following five years and a
comparison of how the current forecast compared to the
prior fall forecast. He referenced minor changes and noted
there was a slight reduction that had to do with
incorporating some lower-than-expected production trends in
the base production at the large existing wells. There had
been some new wells and a few wells that were
underperforming. There had been some deferred activity with
drilling in a couple of fields. While there was a minor
reduction, there was an overall picture of minimal change
and stable to slightly increasing production over the
following years, which was good news and reflective of much
work done by the companies.
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 22, "Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Allowable Lease Expenditures," which featured a chart
that showed a history and forecast for allowable lease
expenditures for the North Slope, and a history of data for
oil and gas employment. He noted a strong correlation
between company investment and industry employment. He
explained that the allowable lease expenditures were a
deduction in the net profits tax portion of the production
tax calculation, and also an important metric of industry
activity in the estate. He pointed out continued low
spending in FY 22 as a result of companies recovering from
the Covid-19 pandemic and the low prices seen in 2020.
Capital expenditures were only $1.4 billion in FY 22, and
operating expenditures were only $2.5 billion. Both numbers
were expected to increase.
Mr. Stickel mentioned the effects of inflation and
additional operating costs to reach $3 billion and beyond
in FY 26. He noted a significant uptick in activity on the
North Slope capital expenditures. He cited a big increase
in the current and following year, with capital
expenditures stabilizing around $2.5 billion per year. For
the new fields coming online that required significant
capital expenditures, the expenditures were included on a
risked basis.
9:50:12 AM
Senator Kiehl asked about the rebound in operating and
capital expenditures not tracked as closely by jobs
numbers. He recognized that Mr. Stickel had mentioned
inflation and increased costs. He asked if the department
was predicting some break in the usual and historic
connection between the two, and wondered if there were
shifts in the industry.
Mr. Stickel relayed that there were projections for oil and
gas employment that came from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD), which could address the
matter in more detail. He continued that DLWD was expecting
an upward trend. He shared that companies were becoming
more efficient, and pressures from oil prices were causing
companies to consider how to bring down the cost structure.
He thought it had been publicized that some new operators
were trying to run as efficiently as possible and commented
that for a given level of work things were becoming more
efficient.
Mr. Stickel spoke to slide 23, "Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Transportation Costs," which showed a bar graph that
showed a similar history and forecast for transportation
costs, which reduced the value of the oil for all parties.
He commented that transportation costs included all the
costs of getting oil to market, with primary elements
including feeder pipeline tariff and marine transportation
costs. The average transportation cost was $9.97/bbl for FY
22, and DOR expected the cost to stay just under $10/bbl
until FY 31. He noted that relatively flat transportation
costs were a factor in any increasing costs of doing
business being offset by stable to increasing production.
For a pipeline such as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
(TAPS), there was a set operating expense that was reduced
per barrel by increased barrels through the pipeline. He
continued that the chart would look very different if there
was a forecast with decreasing production.
9:53:35 AM
COLLEEN GLOVER, DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, referenced slide 24, "Petroleum Detail: Tax
Credits for Purchase Detail," which showed a table of oil
and gas cashable tax credits. She offered the context that
the tax credits had been earned in the past and at one
point in time there were statutory provisions that allowed
the state to purchase the credits back with cash. The
provision had changed and there was no longer any
eligibility for any new credits to earn cash from the
state. She noted that the slide was different than slides
in the past and offered more detail.
Ms. Glover noted that the tax credit details were grouped
in annual tranches due to how the law was written regarding
how the funds were dispersed. She highlighted that the 2016
credits were paid off in July using the $60 million
supplemental appropriation for FY 22 and a portion of the
FY 23 appropriation. The FY 23 appropriation was based on a
statutory formula based on oil prices. As of the fall
forecast the appropriation was $281 million, reduced to
$252 million with the updated forecast. A portion of $136
million had already been disbursed.
Mr. Glover noted that the credit certificates could be used
against taxes, transferred, or adjusted at audit. There had
been some movement down since the beginning of the fiscal
year, which had reduced the total outstanding blance by
about $22 million. She relayed that ideally, the credits
were paid off in a years time frame. There had been a
change in law and there was a provision that the credits
had to be paid in order of local hire of employers and
contractors. She made note that if oil prices stayed at the
status quo for the remainder of the fiscal year, it should
be possible to pay the tax credits for 2017. The forecast
indicated that $56 million would need to be appropriated
for FY 24 to pay off the current balance.
9:57:09 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the $55.7 million signified if
prices ranged in the $77/bbl range.
Ms. Glover relayed that the $55.7 million was the remaining
balance.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the $56 million call on the
treasury would be unaffected by price fluctuations between
the current day and June.
Ms. Glover answered affirmatively. She relayed that the $56
million would be needed as a FY 24 appropriation and was an
increase from the fall forecast. She continued that if oil
prices changed, based on the unique budget language in the
FY 23 budget, the state could pay off more than the $252
million depending upon where actual production taxes came
in for the fiscal year.
Co-Chair Stedman looked forward to an update on the
numbers.
Mr. Stickel turned to slide 25, "THANK YOU":
Dan Stickel
Chief Economist
Department of Revenue
daniel.stickel@alaska.gov
(907) 465-3279
Colleen Glover
Director, Tax Division
Department of Revenue
colleen.glover@alaska.gov
(907) 269-1033
Co-Chair Stedman thanked Mr. Stickel and Ms. Glover. He
discussed the agenda for the following day when the
committee would hear a presentation on the Willow Project.
He considered that the update on the Willow Project would
be informative for new legislators, new staff, and the
public.
ADJOURNMENT
10:00:44 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 032223 SFIN Spring 2023 Revenue Forecast Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 3/22/2023 9:00:00 AM |