Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/04/2009 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Fy10 Budget Overview and Fy09 Supplemental | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 4, 2009
9:03 a.m.
9:03:11 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hoffman called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Karen Rehfeld, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; John Boucher, Senior Economist,
Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
^FY10 Budget Overview and FY09 Supplemental
KAREN REHFELD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, initiated the general overview of
the FY10 budget. She explained that the budget goals have
been consistent:
· Slow the growth of government
· Live within our means
· Save for the future
· Focus on core services
o Constitutional and statutory responsibilities
o Invest in responsible resource development
Co-Chair Stedman questioned the phrases "slow the growth of
government" and "live within our means." He wanted to better
understand the expressed goals.
Ms. Rehfeld agreed that discussion about the goals was
important. She referred to HB 125, the long-range fiscal
plan [enacted in 2008]. The plan allows the state to
continue providing important state services and to use
responsible budgets and prudent reserves. The plan will
allow the state to survive the next ten years until revenue
from the gasline will be available.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that slowing the growth of government
means providing critical state services with a reasonable
amount of growth. The long-range plan released on December
15, 2008 recommended slowing growth to a three percent
increase. She acknowledged the pressures on the budget, but
the plan would allow management of the budget until the
first gas revenue.
9:08:54 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if slowing government down to three
percent a year was in reference to the operating budget.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that the long range plan includes both
operating and capital budgets. The starting point is the
FY09 budget. Adjustments are made with information from the
revenue picture and draws made from reserve accounts. She
maintained that living within the state's means combines the
fiscal discipline of slowing government agency growth and
the wise use of reserves to advance the state when
necessary.
JOHN BOUCHER, SENIOR ECONOMIST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR explained that one critical
aspect of the long range plan was the assumption of
inflation at 2.75 percent and population growth at 1
percent. He described the important goal of ensuring that
government spending was less than the sum of population
growth plus an assumed inflation rate.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that the target of three percent
increase was reasonable. He admitted having difficulty
parsing out the government growth aspect concerning the
operating versus the capital budgets or a combination of
both.
Ms. Rehfeld advised that the three percent was based on a
total of operating and capital budgets including all
expenditures seen over time.
9:12:15 AM
Co-Chair Stedman commended his Co-Chair on his work with the
operating budget. He expressed concerns that the operating
budget would devour the capital account. The operating
account has risen the past three years. He suggested dialog
on this issue. The operating account is a difficult entity
to reduce. He hypothesized that he would not see an
operating account below that of the previous year.
Co-Chair Hoffman shared concerns about the growth of the
combined operating and the capital budgets. He stressed that
a lean capital budget eases control of spending.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the legislature must look
beyond the money designated to the general fund. He
suggested viewing total state spending, which includes
"other state funds" or "Alaska funds." He discouraged moving
funds between the general fund and other state funds to
artificially present lower state spending. He judged this as
a game, deceptive to the public.
9:16:31 AM
Senator Thomas asked if the concept of slowing the growth of
government included the implementation of proven concepts in
education, prevention, and intervention. Ms. Rehfeld replied
that the administration was looking ahead for opportunities
to improve in areas like education. Certain costs require
attention. A modest increase of the budget is necessary for
certain agencies and state public employees to maintain a
reasonable amount of growth over time.
Ms. Rehfeld commented on the use of different fund sources.
She commended the productive work done last session in
discussing the use of different fund sources and how they
were presented to the public. She stressed that the
administration had attempted to address concerns presented
by Co-Chair Stedman and improve their reporting of other
funds. She pointed to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
funds, which were aligned in the fiscal summaries.
9:19:23 AM
Senator Elton commented on the supplemental budget request
and the allocation of $6 million for state parks, which was
designated as other funds and classified as cruise ship
gambling tax. He asked why the money was classified as other
funds versus general funds.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked to postpone further questions
regarding the supplemental budget.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that the differences between the
method used to present the December budget and the
Legislative Finance Division's budget analysis was the
treatment of the gambling tax and use of the Alaska Housing
Capital Corporation Fund. She stated that she and David
Teal, Director, Legislative Finance Division agreed to
disagree regarding the general funds column.
9:22:15 AM
Ms. Rehfeld explained that it was helpful to have the
general funds column remain specific to the forecasted
revenue and that confusion was avoided by adding or
subtracting other items from that column.
Co-Chair Stedman referenced the Alaska Constitution, Article
IX, Section 16 an appropriation limit, which addressed the
growth of the operating account relative to the capital
account. Article IX states: "Within this limit, at least one
third shall be reserved for capital projects and loan
appropriations." He requested the return of the
administration for an explanation of Article IX, Section 16
and the appropriation allocation between operating and
capital budgets.
Ms. Rehfeld agreed to return for the discussion. She
proceeded to the discussion of the budget as a planning
tool. The fundamental building blocks are:
· Focus on core state services
· Find efficiencies in service delivery
· Identify savings or reductions
· Redirect existing resources, where possible, to higher
priority items, and
· Limit growth in operating budget.
Senator Huggins pointed out the allocation of capital money
to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT/PF). The account required reinforcement because the
inflation rate was consuming the assets. Ms. Rehfeld
admitted that the issue of reinforcement was a problem. She
stressed that the administration was continually working
with the departments to improve the method of business.
Complexities result in lengthy processes, but the state
government can do a better job of addressing the problems.
9:26:06 AM
Ms. Rehfeld reviewed FY09 revenues and expenditures. In
December 2007, the administration estimated revenue of $5.3
billion with oil prices at $66.32 a barrel. The December
2007 request for budget and savings appropriations was $4.6
billion. The revised forecast in May 2008 reflected the
increased price of oil and $7.5 billion in revenue. Energy
challenges due to the increased price of oil were apparent
and there was an expectation of more surplus available.
Following the special session there was a rapid decline in
oil prices that segued into the fall forecast projecting $77
a barrel in 2009 bringing the revenue to $6.8 billion. With
oil prices continuing to decline, the Department of Revenue
(DOR) provided an interim forecast with oil at $63 a barrel
or $5.5 billion in revenue.
Ms. Rehfeld referenced the supplemental bill introduced on
February 3, 2009, which anticipated a shortfall of $1.36
billion in the current fiscal year. The challenge is
significant, but options exist to address the revenue
shortfall.
9:29:17 AM
Ms. Rehfeld explained that Governor Palin signed the
appropriation bills on May 23 2008, with instructions to the
departments to achieve at least $20 million in savings in
the operating budget. She explained the hiring freeze
implemented January 23, 2009.
Ms. Rehfeld delineated steps taken to address a revenue
shortfall:
· Governor Palin signed the appropriation bills on May
23, 2008, with instructions to the departments to
achieve at least $20 million in savings in the
operating budget.
· Freeze hiring and purchases issued January 23, 2009.
· FY09 supplemental bill proposes $268.6 in reductions in
current year authorized expenditures and the overall
spending plan.
· Seeks legislative approval for use of reserves.
9:31:06 AM
Senator Huggins asked about the $20 million savings. He
asked if the administration received a savings forecast
report. Ms. Rehfeld explained that the administration had
asked the departments to report quarterly. During the second
quarter the departments were on track for about $11.3
million of the savings targets. The Department of Public
Safety and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
were held harmless from the savings targets. The
supplemental bill is about $17.5 million of the $20 million
target allocated to the departments as a result of the
savings plans. She believed that this was a reasonable
expectation given the plans put in place.
Senator Huggins asked for savings allocations at the end of
the second quarter. Ms. Rehfeld agreed to provide the
requested information.
Senator Elton asked if the hiring freeze included positions
paid for with federal funds. Ms. Rehfeld answered no.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that he was also interested in
the breakdown requested by Senator Huggins, because of the
$13.3 million in allocated reductions. He wanted to know
where the $20 million goal came from. He felt that a couple
of key components were missing from the FY09 budget process.
He recalled that $245 million was vetoed out of the capital
budget.
Co-Chair Stedman recounted a fall appropriation request for
nearly $1 billion to a special energy dividend in a
declining oil environment. Spending would have been much
greater if every request from the administration had been
approved.
9:35:46 AM
Ms. Rehfeld answered that the picture looked significantly
different when the one-time resource rebate was approved,
due to the high price of oil. Many requests were related to
gasline infrastructure. Given the revenue picture today, the
administration has significantly modified their requests.
The FY10 budget has a request for $80 million to continue
advancing the gas line project. She stated that the items
that were not approved would not be brought forward at this
time.
Co-Chair Stedman reviewed the FY08 budget cycle and requests
for a public education endowment of $1.5 billion, a
transportation endowment of $.5 billion, and an energy
endowment of $500 million. He thought the energy endowment
was acceptable, but pointed out that if the administration's
advice had been followed there would be a greater shortfall
today.
9:38:20 AM
Ms. Rehfeld agreed that many ideas were brought forward for
the legislature's consideration, including the education,
energy and state funded transportation funds. She remembered
agreements reached regarding savings proposals including
savings appropriations to the Constitutional Budget Reserve
(CBR), the Statutory Budget Reserve (SBR), and the Renewable
Energy Fund
Ms. Rehfeld illustrated that the hiring freeze was an
attempt to seek additional savings. Mechanisms exist within
the hiring freeze for agencies to request a waiver. Many
positions are exempt from the hiring freeze because they
provide public service. Vacant positions include 844 general
funded positions; of these, 291 are exempt from the hiring
freeze; remaining are 550 state-wide positions subject to
the hiring freeze or waiver request process. Savings
achieved as a result of the hiring freeze will lapse into
the CBR and reduce the draw amount at the end of the year.
9:42:05 AM
Senator Elton requested that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) share the collected data with the committee.
Senator Huggins requested a copy of a document identifying
the different departments and their hiring mechanisms for
the subcommittee review process. He requested a monthly
synopsis of requested waivers. He asked if half-time
employees would be allowed to work full time within the
hiring freeze criteria. Ms. Rehfeld surmised that a change
from a part-time to a full-time position would not be
subject to the hiring freeze. Senator Huggins thought that
might be a loophole. He expressed interest in understanding
the rule. Ms. Rehfeld agreed to provide information to the
committee regarding the hiring freeze [see OMB letter dated
02/09/09 (copy on file)]. The potential yearly savings is
$12 million. The requests are logged and will be provided.
9:45:37 AM
Ms. Rehfeld explained that departments were asked to find
further reductions, update savings plans and scrutinize
existing appropriations for potential reductions. The total
of general fund spending reductions is $268.6 million.
Co-Chair Stedman addressed the supplemental budget. He asked
for an explanation of the $50 million placeholder and
whether or not it was part of the budget.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that the place holders appear in both
OMB and Legislative Finance's fiscal summaries. She informed
the committee that the $50 million place holder has remained
consistent in fiscal summaries that roll into the
calculation of the increase in the operating budget. The
spending plan for FY09 includes a portion of the totals. The
total expenditures, including the $50 million, constitute
the shortfall and require accessing the Constitutional
Budget Reserve. The placeholder reduces the amount drawn
from the CBR.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for further information regarding the
$200 million reduction of authorization for tax credits. He
asked if the authorization allowed the treasury to purchase
tax credits from small gas and oil producers that might not
have the ability to sell tax credits to a larger producer.
9:51:25 AM
Ms. Rehfeld explained that $400 million was included in the
FY09 budget for payment of the tax credits. This is a new
program. The Department of Revenue indicated that the full
$400 million would not be spent due to timing of the
applications from companies wishing to receive the tax
credit and the payment of the tax credits. The
administration intended to reduce the authorization. With a
short fall of over $1 billion, the administration felt it
appropriate to accurately reflect the Department of
Revenue's updated estimate for this fiscal year.
Co-Chair Stedman expressed confusion regarding the CBR and
balancing the books. He concluded that the future budget
looks worse than the current budget if $200 million was
intended as a call on the treasury this year, but instead
was moved to FY10.
Ms. Rehfeld suggested that the legislature will have choices
regarding the $200 million appropriation. The administration
deemed it appropriate because the money would stay in the
tax credit fund. The administration does not anticipate that
$200 million worth of payments will be made.
9:55:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought that the new amount would be $19
million for the supplemental budget if the $200 million was
no longer in the tax credit fund and the $50 million
placeholder was not an issue. He asked if this was the
difference in the treasury.
Ms. Rehfeld admitted that the supplemental budget was
unusual. Typically, increases in the budget as a result of
unanticipated expenditures are seen in supplemental bills.
Agencies were asked to do things differently in the current
fiscal year. The current request is a decrease in the
authorization for the year and what will be spent.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the impact on the treasury if the
$200 million and the $50 million are not included.
9:59:05 AM
Ms. Rehfeld stated that placeholders and reduced
authorizations have always been included as part of the
overall spending plan. She suggested that both amounts are
important to include in the overall picture.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the total. Ms. Rehfeld stated
that every proposed transaction with the backup was
available on the internet.
Co-Chair Hoffman voiced that the $200 million is an
expenditure that is beyond the control of the legislature or
the governor. He opined that it was not a savings. He
pointed out that five months remain in the fiscal year exist
to work the issue out.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that from the current viewpoint,
a possibility exists that the credits could be put to the
treasury in the next five months.
Senator Elton suggested that constituents are confused when
they hear about a $268 million savings. The committee has
identified that $200 million is not necessarily a savings.
He appreciated the important discussion because the media
portrays the governor as saving $268 million, which has not
happened.
10:02:12 AM
Ms. Rehfeld pointed out that spending is reduced if the $200
million is not spent.
Senator Elton discerned that if the state does not spend the
$200 million this year then it will be spent next year,
which is not a savings to the treasury. The action suggests
that because the money is not spent this fiscal year, $200
million were saved. He opined that describing the issue as a
timing issue confuses Alaskans.
Ms. Rehfeld reminded the committee that authorization for
spending is necessary for the access of reserves. Section 20
of the supplemental bill includes the request to utilize the
CBR at the end of the fiscal year to balance the budget.
Senator Huggins asked what the anticipated amount needed
from the CBR might be. Ms. Rehfeld answered approximately
$1.36 billion. The amount will not be known until the end of
the fiscal year, when all of the actual expenditures are
completed.
Senator Huggins asked if there were any other anticipated
modifications to lessen the amount needed.
Ms. Rehfeld asked if Senator Huggins was referring to
specific proposed reductions. She supposed that the
supplemental bill traveling through the legislature provided
the opportunity to change the budget, but at this point the
next review will be of the FY10 budget.
Senator Huggins asked if the administration was accepting a
$1.3 billion shortfall.
10:04:51 AM
Ms. Rehfeld concurred that that was the current estimate.
She pointed to the $8 billion in reserve accounts. She
suspected that there would be considerable discussion in the
legislature and the public about the best use of the
reserves. As of December 31, 2008, there was just under $7
billion in reserve funds, split almost evenly between the
main fund and the sub-fund of the CBR. There is also one
billion dollars in the Statutory Budget Reserve, $1 billion
in the Public Education Fund and $342.3 million in the
Alaska Housing Capital Fund. There will be additional
discussion about the Alaska Housing Capital Fund because in
the FY10 budget there is a proposal to spend about $238
million of the $342.3 million. These numbers may change when
amendments are rolled out on February 18,2009.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the SBR amount of $1 billion
st
suffered losses as of December 31, 2008. Ms. Rehfeld
answered that the balance received from the Department of
st
Revenue was $1 billion as of December 31.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked why there were not losses. He
wondered if they were invested or not. Mr. Boucher answered
that the SBR was invested in the same manner as the general
fund, which is more conservative and liquid. The SBR is not
subject to as much volatility as the CBR. He did not have
the exact numbers, but agreed to provide them.
10:07:08 AM
Senator Elton asked why budget deficits would be drawn from
the SBR, where losses are minimized, rather than the CBR.
Ms. Rehfeld responded that the possibility of drawing from
the SBR also exists. The administration sought authorization
to access the CBR because it appeared that more than $1
billion would be necessary to balance the budget.
Co-Chair Stedman requested more data from OMB regarding the
main and sub-accounts of the CBR. He asked for market values
as of the end of January as well. His major concern is the
savings. He did not want yearly treasury draws necessitating
a draw on the sub-account. He thought this would put the
state in a position of falling back on a weak link in the
savings.
10:10:41 AM
Senator Huggins asked about the Alaska Housing Capital Fund
of $342.3 million and the earmarking of $300 million toward
a pipeline provision.
Ms Rehfeld affirmed that the earmarking had been the subject
of some debate. She stated that $300 million was
appropriated by a prior legislature into the Alaska Housing
Capital Fund. The prior administration believed that the
money was set aside for gasline expenditures. Many
legislators believed that the money was set aside for
capital projects. The $342.3 million was the sum of the $300
million plus accrued interest. The proposal in the FY10
budget is to spend a portion for gas line related projects.
Co-Chair Stedman requested the amount of money contributed
st
to the CBR and those market values as of December 31. He
suggested subtracting the $238.4 million from the $342.3
million in the FY10 budget resulting in a net number for
savings.
10:13:47 AM
Ms. Rehfeld explained that the presentation intended to
display funds that were available in the current year.
Adjustments to the FY10 budget would be necessary if the
legislature or administration chose to appropriate the
funds.
Ms. Rehfeld remarked that the economic stimulus bill was
moving quickly. Resolutions are being discussed for
submittal to Congress on this issue. Appropriations will be
brought forward in a separate bill. Changes in the FY10
budget are expected in relation to the current version of
the Economic Stimulus Plan.
Senator Huggins observed that railroad maintenance was not
integrated into the stimulus plan. He would like to have
stimulus money aid in railroad connections and
readjustments. He opined that the railroad industry was not
integrated into the stimulus plan, although there was time
to make changes.
Ms. Rehfeld expected that the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities was the best department to address the
query.
10:16:33 AM
Ms. Rehfeld proceeded with the FY10 Budget Overview.
· December 15 budget proposes to spend less general
fund dollars in FY10 than we are spending in the
current year- $49 billion compared to $5.2 billion
(comparison excludes resource rebate).
· Budgeted $389 million below the fall forecast of
$5.27 billion.
· Interim forecast will be provided on February 18
along with budget amendments.
Senator Huggins asked about the anticipated drop in oil
prices and the administration's plan to initiate the process
of reducing the FY10 budget.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that the administration is currently
engaged in the process of reducing the FY10 budget. She
stated that changes will be provided on February 18, 2009.
The Department of Revenue will provide the formal spring
forecast. The department also provides interim forecasts.
10:19:12 AM
Ms. Rehfeld discussed Budget Highlights:
· Operating
· K-12 Education $1.05 billion
· Revenue Sharing $60 million
· Retirement system unfunded liability $451.2
million
· Exploration tax credits $300 million
· State employee contract increases $31 million
· Capital
· Gas line projects $82.1 million
· Renewable Energy Fund $50 million
· School Major Maintenance $40.5 million
· Water and Sewer $114.8 million
Senator Elton asked about school maintenance and the
allocation of $40.5 million. He asked if the major
maintenance list was submitted to the federal government as
part of the federal stimulus package or would it be
accomplished using general funds.
Ms. Rehfeld thought that there were several different
iterations in the development of the economic stimulus
package addressing schools. She believed that the Department
of Education did attempt to analyze projects on the major
maintenance list that would meet those criteria, but she was
not sure if that element was in the economic stimulus
package as most funds come to the state as a grant or a
formula.
10:21:59 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about school construction and its
absence from the capital list. He wondered why this area was
ignored. He inquired about the Kasayulie case and a
potential settlement eliminating it from the capital list.
The case revolves around the issue of adequate schools in
rural Alaska.
Ms. Rehfeld did not think that the case had been resolved.
She recommended contacting the Department of Law. The
current focus is on existing facilities and buildings rather
than new ones.
Co-Chair Hoffman remembered the legislature authorizing
school districts to indebt the state for school
construction. The governor signed the legislation, but
continues to ignore the Kasayulie case, which gave him grave
concern. He asked that the message be conveyed to the
administration regarding the need for approved spending for
school construction in rural Alaska. He wished for the
ongoing lawsuit to be settled.
10:25:00 AM
Ms. Rehfeld stated that she would deliver the message and
find a way to resolve the issue.
Senator Olson pointed out that the George Morgan Sr. High
School in Lower Kalskag burned down last week. He asked if
there was consideration for new construction of the school.
Ms. Rehfeld recalled that the Department of Education and
the Fire Marshalls office were evaluating the needs for the
school including the insurance coverage. She stated that she
would bring the information to the committee as soon as she
had it.
Senator Olson asked if that meant that there would be a
provision under the capital budget to include the school.
Ms. Rehfeld answered that she had not received the request
for a provision from the Department of Education.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the retirement system with the
contribution to unfunded liability of $451.2 million. He was
pleased to see this in the budget. He asked if the
administration planned to review the status of unfunded
liability and to adjust the number in the event of a
substantial revenue decline. Ms. Rehfeld answered yes that
the contribution would be preferred, but stressed that the
revised forecast would tell more.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that it would be prudent to adjust
the amount, although he was thankful to see it in the
budget.
Ms. Rehfeld introduced a chart outlining the budget request
and the provision of statewide programs and services (copy
on file).
10:33:59 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if there would be assistance in the
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Development Authority (ANGDA)
bullet line. Ms. Rehfeld stated that there is not a specific
appropriation for the bullet line. She believed that $5
million would be designated to ANGDA.
Co-Chair Stedman requested better understanding of the
difference in the capital expenditures. He read $1.7 billion
on Ms. Rehfeld's presentation, yet understood that
legislative finance had arrived at $1.8 billion in capital
expenditures. He asked if a portion of this amount was
allocated to the legislature. Ms. Rehfeld stated that she
could not answer the question. Co-Chair Stedman agreed to
address the subject later.
Senator Huggins asked about money allocated for the ANGDA
line. He asked if a portion would be allocated for a bullet
line provision.
Ms. Rehfeld stated that there is not a specific
appropriation for the bullet line. She understood that
discussion was necessary to assist the development of that
project. She did not have a request for funding for a bullet
line, it required a piece of legislation to move foreword.
10:35:34 AM
Ms. Rehfeld addressed the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
payment and inflation proofing.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for the dividend amount with 675,000
people living in Alaska. Ms. Rehfeld did not know the amount
of the PFD, and deferred the question to the Department of
Revenue.
Ms. Rehfeld explained that the goal was to protect the
economy and to move the state foreword. Savings and
efficiencies are sought. Budget reductions are made where
practical. Management tools have been implemented through
the hiring freeze and the restriction of purchases. Prudent
use of reserves will be necessary.
Co-Chair Stedman commented on the complexity of budget
reductions versus budget surplus.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Galvin Revenue Forecast 020509.pptx |
SFIN 2/4/2009 9:00:00 AM SFIN 2/5/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| OMB 20609 $20 Mill Savings with Enclosures.pdf |
HFIN 1/26/2009 1:30:00 PM SFIN 2/4/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Supplemental Submitted February 2 2009.xls |
SFIN 2/4/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| SFC Q&A Op Budget 3-5-09 with attachments.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2009 9:00:00 AM |