Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124

03/31/2016 01:00 PM House RESOURCES

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 1:30 p.m. Today --
-- Will be Continued from 3/30/16 --
Moved CSHB 253(RES) Out of Committee
Moved CSHB 286(RES) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HB 286-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES                                                                     
2:26:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced  that the final order  of business is                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  286, "An Act relating to  sport fishing, hunting,                                                               
or  trapping licenses,  tags, or  permits; relating  to penalties                                                               
for  certain   sport  fishing,  hunting,  and   trapping  license                                                               
violations;  relating to  restrictions on  the issuance  of sport                                                               
fishing, hunting, and trapping  licenses; creating violations and                                                               
amending  fines  and  restitution   for  certain  fish  and  game                                                               
offenses;  relating to  commercial  fishing violations;  allowing                                                               
lost  federal  matching  funds  from  the  Pittman  -  Robertson,                                                               
Dingell - Johnson/Wallop  - Breaux programs to be  included in an                                                               
order of  restitution; adding a definition  of 'electronic form';                                                               
amending Rule  5(a)(4), Alaska Rules of  Minor Offense Procedure;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
2:27:09 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to adopt  the proposed committee substitute                                                               
(CS) for  HB 286, version  29-GH2958\E, Bullard, 3/30/16,  as the                                                               
working document.                                                                                                               
CO-CHAIR TALERICO objected for discussion purposes.                                                                             
2:27:36 PM                                                                                                                    
KEVIN BROOKS,  Deputy Commissioner,  Office of  the Commissioner,                                                               
Alaska Department  of Fish &  Game (ADFG), explained  the changes                                                               
in Version  E.  Drawing attention  to the title, page  1, line 5,                                                               
he  advised that  a semi-colon  has  been added  that creates  an                                                               
exemption  from  payment  of  restitution  for  certain  unlawful                                                               
takings of  big game animals.   Referring  to Section 3,  page 2,                                                               
line 21,  he noted that  the words  "tag or permit"  were removed                                                               
from  an item  that can  be correctable,  and also  removed is  a                                                               
reference to the  court.  This change thereby allows  a person to                                                               
correct a  violation at  any office of  the Department  of Public                                                               
Safety (DPS).  He explained that  the words "tag and permit" were                                                               
deleted  after  a  Senate Resources  Standing  Committee  hearing                                                               
wherein there was  a fair amount of discussion  about the ability                                                               
to fix  a license, but  a tag  or permit have  different purposes                                                               
such as  recording harvest, and  it appeared most  appropriate to                                                               
remove the words tag and permit.                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  said the  third change  is in Section  17 on  page 5,                                                               
line 6,  where the words, "and  (c) of this section,"  are added.                                                               
This comes into play in Section  18 as the changes are worked out                                                               
to AS 16.05.925.   He turned to the fourth  change, page 5, lines                                                               
14-25, and  said those reflect  changes that  Co-Chair Talerico's                                                               
office recommended to  the bill on the restitution  amounts.  The                                                               
fifth change is to page 5,  line 26, where Section 17 was deleted                                                               
from the  previous bill  because there  was a typo  and it  was a                                                               
redundant  section.   The sixth  change on  page 5,  lines 26-31,                                                               
creates a  new section that provides  that a court may  not order                                                               
restitution under  Section 17 of  this bill  in a case  where the                                                               
defendant voluntarily turns  themselves in and is  charged with a                                                               
violation  offense.    It  also   provides  that  a  person  must                                                               
voluntarily and  immediately report  to the Alaska  Department of                                                               
Fish  & Game  or the  Department of  Public Safety  the violation                                                               
that he/she  committed in order  to qualify for  this affirmative                                                               
defense.  This change is in  response to testimony that was heard                                                               
and questions  that were  received about the  bill.   The seventh                                                               
change  is on  page 6,  lines  21-22, and  is a  correction to  a                                                               
typing error  in the drafting.   The eighth change is  to page 7,                                                               
line  7, which  deletes  Section  27 of  the  original bill  that                                                               
referenced a  court rule.   Through  consultation with  the court                                                               
system this was deemed unnecessary and so it was deleted.                                                                       
2:31:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON referred  to Section  6 [page  3, lines                                                               
12-21], and  said it appears  that commercial  fishing violations                                                               
would no longer be jailable offenses.   He inquired as to why the                                                               
possibility  of jail  for a  commercial  fisheries violation  was                                                               
MR. BROOKS deferred to Aaron Peterson, Department of Law.                                                                       
AARON  PETERSON, Assistant  Attorney General,  Criminal Division,                                                               
Department  of  Law  (DOL),  responded   that  there  was  not  a                                                               
possibility of  jail under  AS 16.05.722  previously.   There was                                                               
and still remains in AS  16.05.723 misdemeanor commercial fishing                                                               
penalties up  to imprisonment  for not  more than  one year  or a                                                               
fine of  up to  $15,000, and  that does still  remain and  is not                                                               
affected by the change in AS 16.05.722.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON referred  to Section  8, page  3, lines                                                               
25-29, and  the taking  a brown or  grizzly bear  within one-half                                                               
mile  of a  solid waste  disposal facility.   He  noted the  bill                                                               
removes  the  potential criminality  of  that  action, and  asked                                                               
whether it instead imposes a fine without culpable mental state.                                                                
MR.  PETERSON   answered  that  it   takes  out   "with  criminal                                                               
negligence"  because  the  default   mental  state  in  Title  16                                                               
offenses is  civil negligence.   The  Alaska Supreme  Court found                                                               
that under  State v. Rice, which  was reaffirmed by the  Court of                                                             
Appeals in 1999.   To say that something required  a mental state                                                               
of criminal  negligence would actually  raise the  burden because                                                               
it  is misdemeanors  being talked  about here.   It's  a Class  A                                                               
misdemeanor  and  would  be  treated  as  such  which  carries  a                                                               
potential jail sentence of up to  one year.  There is a potential                                                               
that it could  be charged with a violation but,  if it is charged                                                               
with a misdemeanor  then it does carry a potential  penalty of up                                                               
to one year.                                                                                                                    
2:35:59 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  noted that the bill  reads that hunting                                                               
violations  within an  X  feet or  yards from  the  Yukon to  the                                                               
Arctic will  no longer  be jailable.   He  asked why  that policy                                                               
decision is  good, bad, or  indifferent.   He said Section  12 of                                                               
the  original  bill   treated  that  type  of   offense  in  that                                                               
geographic region as  a violation only, and Version  E appears to                                                               
keep it at a misdemeanor.                                                                                                       
MR. BROOKS  offered that the prior  Section 12 is now  Section 13                                                               
in Version E.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON   concurred,  and  said   the  question                                                               
MR. BROOKS  explained that it  retains the original  language and                                                               
adds this option  so that law enforcement has  the opportunity to                                                               
charge it as one or the other,  it does not replace it but rather                                                               
adds the option.                                                                                                                
2:37:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to Sections  15, 19, and 20, of                                                               
the original bill, and surmised that  Section 15 makes it less of                                                               
a  penalty to  interfere with  a salmon  stream and  it would  no                                                               
longer be a jailable penalty.   He asked what the bill does about                                                               
the criminality  of interfering  or deterring  anadromous streams                                                               
in regard to the above sections.                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  replied that  the bill is  trying to  make consistent                                                               
the charges  for all  of these infractions,  and provide  for the                                                               
opportunity to charge them in a  more severe manner when there is                                                               
a culpable mental state.  He deferred to Mr. Peterson.                                                                          
MR. PETERSON responded  that the entire purpose of  most of these                                                               
changes is  to add  the ability to  charge with  violations where                                                               
appropriate.   For example,  under Section  15 the  Department of                                                               
Public Safety and  Department of Law would retain  the ability to                                                               
charge and prosecute a Class A  misdemeanor for AS 16.05.831.  It                                                               
gives flexibility  where necessary.   Specifically,  with respect                                                               
to  Sections 15  and 20,  it actually  just changes  the specific                                                               
penalties previously  in place.   For example,  in Section  20 it                                                               
was previously  a fine of  not less than  $100 and not  more than                                                               
$500.  Version  E deletes that language and replaces  it with the                                                               
standard  Class A  misdemeanor range  which is  a fine  of up  to                                                               
$10,000 and  jail time up to  one year.  It  allows uniformity in                                                               
prosecuting what  would be expected  from a Class  A misdemeanor,                                                               
in addition  to changing some  of the other penalties  and adding                                                               
in the  ability to be  charged where appropriate as  a violation.                                                               
He reiterated it  is already available in many of  the charges in                                                               
Title 16 and in the  Administrative Code, but for whatever reason                                                               
there was  not that  flexibility in several  of the  statutes and                                                               
that is what is being addressed here.                                                                                           
2:41:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  noted the  original bill  provided that                                                               
if  a person  commits a  violation, restitution  may be  imposed;                                                               
under Version E,  if the person tells the  authorities the person                                                               
may be shown  some pity.  He asked why,  if the public understood                                                               
that, people would not just do that in record numbers.                                                                          
MR.  BROOKS  answered  that this  amendment  came  from  previous                                                               
testimony and it  is trying to put the current  practice into the                                                               
law.  Currently, there is  self-reporting which the Department of                                                               
Public Safety  encourages, such  that if a  person takes  a moose                                                               
and finds  the rack is  one-half inch too  small to be  legal, if                                                               
the  person   immediately  takes   action  to   self-report,  the                                                               
department  wants to  recognize that  action.   That person  will                                                               
still pay a fine and lose the  moose, but the person would not be                                                               
punished to lose his/her weapons  or other things that might have                                                               
happened under a different circumstance.   It is absolutely meant                                                               
to  act  as  an  incentive to  self-report  where  an  accidental                                                               
violation has occurred.                                                                                                         
BRUCE DALE,  Director, Division of Wildlife  Conservation, Alaska                                                               
Department of  Fish & Game  (ADF&G), said another  requirement is                                                               
that the  person must salvage and  care for the meat  and deliver                                                               
the meat  to the state because  it is property of  the state, and                                                               
then the  meat is  put to use.   So that  is another  reason that                                                               
restitution might not be required.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE   JOSEPHSON  asked   whether   from  a   citizen's                                                               
standpoint  there would  be  greater  vulnerability in  reporting                                                               
because  now the  Alaska Department  of  Fish &  Game (ADFG)  and                                                               
Department of  Public Safety  (DPS) would  ask where  the citizen                                                               
was located,  would come  to the citizen,  and that  person could                                                               
now  be charged,  theoretically jailed,  and civilly  fined.   He                                                               
said  that  perhaps  that  strikes the  proper  balance  in  that                                                               
restitution would not be charged,  the civil fine, and probably a                                                               
suspended jail sentence could be imposed.                                                                                       
MR. BROOKS  replied that the  person in the above  scenario would                                                               
pay a  fine and lose the  animal, and not have  anything more; so                                                               
it is trying to strike that balance being referred to.                                                                          
2:44:52 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR   TALERICO   commented    that   he   understands   what                                                               
Representative  Josephson means  when someone  is pulled  over at                                                               
1:30 a.m.  headed down the highway  with an illegal moose  in the                                                               
back and  the person's first  response is  that he was  headed to                                                               
law enforcement  to advise  of the taking  of the  illegal moose.                                                               
He  opined   that  there  was   a  lot  of  judgement   from  the                                                               
municipality  he previously  served in  as  it had  issues a  few                                                               
times.   He pointed out that  the Department of Public  Safety is                                                               
good at determining how accurate those statements might be.                                                                     
CO-CHAIR TALERICO  drew attention to  page 5, lines  14-25, which                                                               
includes changes  made by  his office and  commented that  he had                                                               
thought about  the actual meat  values of some of  these animals.                                                               
He pointed  out that if  the state  is to discourage  people from                                                               
doing  this, the  state should  be closer  to charging  them full                                                               
value rather than a discount rate on volume.                                                                                    
2:46:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  observed that in comparison  to the original                                                               
version of the bill almost all  of the fines increased except the                                                               
black bear and wolverine.  She asked the rationale.                                                                             
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO said  he has  seen poaching  situations happen                                                               
where he  lives and generally  the black bear and  wolverines are                                                               
not "hot  items," whereas  moose is  the "big  ticket item."   He                                                               
posited  that the  general  increases serve  as  a deterrent  for                                                               
people to poach animals.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed  out that in his  district there is                                                               
no closed season on black bear,  every Alaskan can take five, and                                                               
this species has actually become  a nuisance to the moose calves.                                                               
The wolverine is hard to catch anywhere.                                                                                        
2:48:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO removed his objection  to adopting Version E as                                                               
the working document.  There  being no further objection, Version                                                               
E was before the committee.                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on HB 286, Version E.                                                                 
2:49:17 PM                                                                                                                    
AL BARRETTE  related that he would  like to see the  word "sport"                                                               
removed  from the  words sport  fishing.   He commented  that the                                                               
state has  subsistence fishermen not  required to have  a license                                                               
to engage in  subsistence fishing.  Therefore,  tens of thousands                                                               
of Alaskans  are not paying  in to the  system and it  falls upon                                                               
other users, such  as sport fish and commercial fish,  to make up                                                               
that loss  of revenue.   He then referred  to Section 5,  page 3,                                                               
lines 7-11, which read:                                                                                                         
          (d) In addition to any penalty imposed under (a)                                                                      
     or (b) of this section, a  person may be ordered to pay                                                                    
     restitution to  the state  equal to  the amount  of any                                                                    
     lost state  or federal matching funds  from the Pittman                                                                    
     -   Robertson,  Dingell   -  Johnson/Wallop   -  Breaux                                                                    
     programs  incurred from  the person's  violation of  AS                                                                    
     16.05.330  - 16.05.420  or a  regulation adopted  under                                                                    
     this chapter, AS 16.20, or AS 16.40.                                                                                       
MR. BARRETTE  suggested that  instead of the  money going  to the                                                               
general fund,  it go to  the fish and  game fund because  that is                                                               
where money from those acts goes.                                                                                               
MR. BARRETTE turned to Section 6,  page 3, lines 17-20, and noted                                                               
the fines were doubled for the  first two convictions and did not                                                               
quite double  for the third conviction.   In Section 17,  page 5,                                                               
lines 14-25,  regarding restitution,  he noted that  bison, deer,                                                               
elk, goat, and moose are all  over two times the original amount.                                                               
He asked why fish convictions  are only doubled while several big                                                               
game species are more than two times the original amount.                                                                       
2:51:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  requested the  department to respond  to Mr.                                                               
Barrette's suggestion of  deleting "sport" from sport  fish.  She                                                               
understood that  subsistence fishing is managed  differently than                                                               
sport fishing or commercial fishing.                                                                                            
MR. BROOKS confirmed that the  three types of fisheries certainly                                                               
are managed differently.   Sport fishing has been  in statute for                                                               
many years,  he said.   The  department recognizes  the different                                                               
types of  fishing, such as  sport, personal use,  commercial, and                                                               
it is not a change the department would advocate.                                                                               
MR.  BROOKS  addressed  Mr. Barrette's  other  suggestions.    He                                                               
clarified  that the  fines currently  go into  the fish  and game                                                               
fund.   There is  a distinction between  civil and  criminal, but                                                               
they would go into the fish  and game fund.  He recalled previous                                                               
testimony by  Major Chastain  regarding how  the fines  were set,                                                               
and  explained there  was an  attempt to  tie those  to [consumer                                                               
price index (CPI)] increases.   Referring to the fines in Section                                                               
6, he explained that commercial  fishing, as well as the original                                                               
restitution amounts, were tied to CPI adjustments.                                                                              
CO-CHAIR TALERICO thanked Mr. Barrette for his testimony.                                                                       
MR.  BARRETTE referred  to Section  18,  page 5,  line 29,  which                                                               
states, "voluntarily  and immediately reported the  taking to the                                                               
department", and  suggested a  definition be  given for  how much                                                               
time is meant by "immediately" self-reporting.                                                                                  
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO  closed  public testimony  after  ascertaining                                                               
that no one else wished to testify.                                                                                             
2:54:11 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to  adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-                                                               
GH2958\E.1, Bullard, 3/31/16, which read:                                                                                       
     Page 5, following line 28:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new paragraph to read:                                                                                       
               "(1) had the license, tag, and permit                                                                            
       required by AS 16.05.340 for the species of animal                                                                       
     Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.                                                                             
[CO-CHAIR TALERICO objected to the amendment.]                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON explained  Amendment  1.   He said  his                                                               
concern  with  affirmative  defense,   which  allows  someone  to                                                               
voluntarily  and immediately  report an  illegal taking  to avoid                                                               
restitution, is that  there should be the simple  screen that the                                                               
person is already licensed, tagged,  and permitted under Title 16                                                               
for the  species taken.   Otherwise, the committee is  saying the                                                               
person can  be in violation  of fundamental Title  16 provisions.                                                               
He  posited that  a hunter  without the  license, tag,  or permit                                                               
should be penalized because he/she is  not playing fair or by the                                                               
social contract.   Amendment 1  would create a new  paragraph (1)                                                               
at page 5, after line 29,  because coming to the plate and having                                                               
not followed the requirements is not worthy of restitution.                                                                     
CO-CHAIR TALERICO clarified that he  objected to Amendment 1.  He                                                               
requested ADF&G to speak to the amendment.                                                                                      
MR. BROOKS explained that the  department's interpretation of how                                                               
it would work  is that if a person self-reported  and didn't have                                                               
a  license or  tag, that  person would  have many  other problems                                                               
besides  the  taking  of  an  illegal  animal.    The  department                                                               
believes it is  implied and so the amendment  is unnecessary, but                                                               
the amendment cannot hurt anything either.                                                                                      
2:57:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOHNSON posited  that someone  hunting without  a                                                               
license is unlikely to self-report anyway  and so he does not see                                                               
a real need for the amendment.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON described  the  amendment as  a belts  and                                                               
suspenders amendment and he thinks it is fine.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  understood  that   within  this  section  a                                                               
defendant may  not be ordered  to pay restitution.   She surmised                                                               
that through  that process the  person would not be  charged with                                                               
an illegal taking if the person had a license, tag, or permit.                                                                  
MR. BROOKS  replied that a person  could be guilty of  an illegal                                                               
taking  and  not  having  a  license,  there  would  be  multiple                                                               
infractions.   He pointed out the  word is "may" and  so there is                                                               
that  discretion.    He  reiterated  that it  would  not  be  the                                                               
practice to  provide for this  if the person didn't  already have                                                               
the appropriate license and tag.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated he is not  sure that this is a "may"                                                               
because Version E states "may not"  and a "may not" does not have                                                               
flexibility as defined  in the statutes.  A "may  not" means that                                                               
a  person cannot  be required  to pay  restitution if  the person                                                               
fulfills these  things.   He said Amendment  1 ascertains  that a                                                               
person  has  the  required documentation  because  otherwise  the                                                               
person  could be  required  to pay  restitution.   The  amendment                                                               
doesn't harm anything and does help.                                                                                            
2:59:52 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  posed a scenario  in which the hunter  has a                                                               
license, tag, or  permit but takes an animal  out-of-season or an                                                               
illegal female.   She asked whether that would  be a circumstance                                                               
where the person would potentially have to pay restitution.                                                                     
MR. BROOKS  answered that if  a person is  appropriately licensed                                                               
and takes an illegal animal,  but then takes steps to immediately                                                               
report,  that person  would not  be subject  to restitution.   He                                                               
advised that often someone has been  in the field for a couple of                                                               
days tracking an animal and  realizes it's an illegal animal, but                                                               
then someone  else comes in  and shoots it  in front of  them and                                                               
the first hunter will call it in.   So, other people in the field                                                               
will report  and there is  cell phone  coverage in many  parts of                                                               
the state.   There are ways the troopers have  in determining the                                                               
effort taken to immediately report,  such as whether the troopers                                                               
received a  call from someone  else before receiving a  call from                                                               
the person who  illegally took the animal and  these things would                                                               
be factored in.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised that a  person would have to possess                                                               
the  required  license, tag,  and  permit,  and also  immediately                                                               
voluntarily  report  the  taking  to  the  department,  and  also                                                               
surrender to the department.   She therefore inquired whether the                                                               
bill  language  needs to  include  the  word  "and" so  that  all                                                               
requirements are met and not an either or requirement.                                                                          
MR.  BROOKS asked  whether Representative  Tarr is  suggesting an                                                               
amendment to the amendment to add the word "and".                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  pointed out that in  sentence construction                                                               
if "or"  is at the last  then they are  all "or"; if "and"  is at                                                               
the last then  they are all "and".   So, in this  case, all three                                                               
requirements would have to be met.                                                                                              
3:02:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO  removed his objection  to Amendment  1, saying                                                               
he thinks it would provide some  clarity.  There being no further                                                               
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
3:03:05 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how  these proposed fines align with                                                               
other  states  in  terms of  the  Interstate  Wildlife  Violators                                                               
Compact;  for  example,  whether  other states  charge  the  same                                                               
amount or the same kind of parallels.                                                                                           
MR. DALE related that after  the previous hearing, the department                                                               
investigated that issue  and found that many  western states have                                                               
restitution fees even higher than  these.  However, he continued,                                                               
there  was enough  variation  that the  department  did not  feel                                                               
comfortable having a defensive statement  because, as of yet, not                                                               
many states have been polled.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that  while polling those states                                                               
the department  might want  to also ask  how another  state would                                                               
treat  a resident  violator from  Alaska, and  also consider  how                                                               
Alaska would  treat an  out-of-state violator,  because a  lot of                                                               
discrepancy is given to the states in the Interstate Wildlife                                                                   
Violators Compact.                                                                                                              
3:05:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK  moved to report  CSHB 286,  Version 29-GH2958\E,                                                               
Bullard, 3/30/16, [as amended],  out of committee with individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no  objection,  CSHB  286(RES)  was reported  out  of  the  House                                                               
Resources Standing Committee.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
CS HB 253 Amendments Ver. N Packet.PDF HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 253
CSHB 253 Version N.pdf HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 253
HB 253 Legal Memo.pdf HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 253
CS HB 286 Ver E 3 30 2016.pdf HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB0286 Fiscal Note -2-2-012916-DPS-N.PDF HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB0286 Fiscal Note-1-2-012916-DFG-N.PDF HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB286 - Sectional Analysis.pdf HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB286- Fiscal Note F&G-CO-2-2-16.pdf HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB286 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal Letter.pdf HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286
HB286 ver A.pdf HRES 3/31/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 286