Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205

04/13/2016 03:30 PM Senate 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
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Moved CSHB 274(RES) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
Moved CSHCR 17(TRA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
         HB 274-STATE LAND; EXCHANGES; LEASE EXTENSIONS                                                                     
4:17:13 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR GIESSEL  announced consideration of HB  274 [CSHB 274(RES),                                                               
version 29-LS0234\N, was before the committee.]                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  CATHY MUÑOZ,  Alaska  State Legislature,  Juneau,                                                               
Alaska, sponsor of  HB 274 said about four or  five years ago she                                                               
was  contacted by  a local  non-profit who  had been  working for                                                               
many  years  on a  potential  land  exchange  with the  State  of                                                               
Alaska. The  state wanted  to acquire the  trail land  that leads                                                               
out to  a state park that  is on private property,  and the owner                                                               
of the trail  wanted a piece of nearby land  to get better access                                                               
to their camp.  Discussions to try to initiate  and finalize this                                                               
land exchange began in early 2000.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ  said when she  became involved she  found a                                                               
number of  inefficiencies in land exchange  statute. Two sections                                                               
of  code  govern  land  exchanges; one  is  land  exchanges  with                                                               
municipalities, and that  section of code works  pretty well, and                                                               
the other  is private  land exchanges,  which is  very cumbersome                                                               
and  almost impossible  to finalize  a  successful land  exchange                                                               
The section of code that  governs private land exchanges includes                                                               
private  entities,  the  Mental Health  Trust  Authority,  tribal                                                               
entities as well  as the federal government.  The last successful                                                               
land exchange  under this section  of code happened in  2006 near                                                               
Skagway where a piece of state  land was exchanged for a piece of                                                               
federal  land near  Gustavus for  the  Falls Creek  Hydroproject.                                                               
That took close to 20 years to finalize.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained  that the reason it  takes so long                                                               
is  because  one  needs  to  have exact  value  between  the  two                                                               
parcels, which  is very difficult  to achieve, and the  fact that                                                               
the appraisal is only good for  one year. So, after going through                                                               
an  extensive public  process, the  best interest  finding, three                                                               
public hearings, the  surveying and the appraisal, at  the end of                                                               
the one  year the  whole process  has to  start over  because the                                                               
appraisal is only  good for one year. Under  this legislation the                                                               
best interest finding will continue,  but instead of exact value,                                                               
it  calls for  approximate equal  value. It  has the  same notice                                                               
provisions  under   AS  38.05.945   and  best   interest  finding                                                               
provisions  that are  used for  all  oil and  gas leases,  timber                                                               
sales, and leasing of mineral land.                                                                                             
4:21:26 PM                                                                                                                    
HB 274 has  language that affirms that a mineral  estate can only                                                               
be  executed  consistent  with the  State  Constitution  or  with                                                               
federal  law. In  particular the  Statehood Act,  Section (6)(i),                                                               
affirms that  the state can only  convey a mineral estate  to the                                                               
federal government.  Other language  requires the exchange  to go                                                               
before the  legislature for review  and approval if  the exchange                                                               
has a value of $5 million or more.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ summarized  that the main changes  in HB 274                                                               
are that the exchange procedures  will follow AS 38.05.035(e) and                                                               
the   notice  provisions   under  AS   35.05.945.  The   one-year                                                               
limitation has been  removed on the validity of  an appraisal and                                                               
approximate equal  value is used  instead of exact value  for the                                                               
potential exchanges.                                                                                                            
4:22:59 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for a sectional analysis.                                                                                   
4:23:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CRYSTAL  KOENEMAN, staff  to Representative  Muñoz, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, provided a sectional analysis of HB 274 as follows:                                                                
Section  1.  Removes  a  reference   in  AS  38.05.030(c)  to  AS                                                               
38.05.090 which is repealed in sec. 13 of the bill.                                                                             
Section 2.  Adds two new  subsections to AS 38.05.070.  The first                                                               
subsection   permits   the   Department  of   Natural   Resources                                                               
(department) to extend  certain existing land leases if  it is in                                                               
the  best  interest   of  the  state  and   necessary  while  the                                                               
department   considers   applications.  The   second   subsection                                                               
provides that the  extensions are not subject  to AS 38.05.035(e)                                                               
and  it requires  public notice  of a  lease extension  under the                                                               
Section  3.  Applies  existing notice  standards  to  state  land                                                               
4:24:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Section 4.  Clarifies that in AS  38.05 the terms "state  land ''                                                               
and "land"  include shoreland and  tideland. It was  suggested by                                                               
Legislative Legal Division as cleanup language.                                                                                 
Section 5. Amends AS 38.50.010  to add two new requirements: when                                                               
the director disposes of state land  or an interest in state land                                                               
the disposal  must be in the  best interest of the  state and the                                                               
director must provide notice under AS 38.05.945.                                                                                
Section  6.  Adds three  new  subsections  to AS  38.50.010  that                                                               
establish  procedures  for  the  exchange of  state  land  or  an                                                               
interest  in  state  land  and  requires  legislative  review  of                                                               
exchanges valued at $5 million or more.                                                                                         
4:25:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Section  7.  Removes  a  requirement   that  the  director,  when                                                               
negotiating  a  land  exchange involving  more  than  one  party,                                                               
"consider only the  land and other consideration  which the state                                                               
would convey and receive if the exchange were executed."                                                                        
Section 8.  Removes an existing  limitation in AS  38.50.050 that                                                               
was deemed by the Legislative  Legal Division to not add anything                                                               
and references "significant public  purpose" which is not defined                                                               
in statute nor is it used anywhere  else and there is no case law                                                               
referencing  it.  It is  clean  up  language clarifies  that  any                                                               
conveyances must be  authorized by the Constitution  of the State                                                               
of Alaska and by applicable federal law.                                                                                        
Section 9.  Amends AS 38.50.070  to provide that,  unless waived,                                                               
the appropriate  state agency will  continue to  administer valid                                                               
existing rights in land, or  interests in land, conveyed under AS                                                               
38.50 and that revenue derived  from existing rights in the land,                                                               
or an  interest in  land, will  continue to  accrue to  the state                                                               
until the land is conveyed under AS 38.50 .150                                                                                  
4:26:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Section 10. Changes the requirement  that the director hold three                                                               
public hearings  concerning the exchange  of land valued  at more                                                               
than $5,000,000 to a requirement  that the director hold at least                                                               
two public  meeting, one  of which  must be held  in person  in a                                                               
municipality close to the proposed land exchange.                                                                               
Section 11. Conforms AS 38.50.140 to  changes made in secs. 6 and                                                               
13 (repeal of AS 38.50.020). Makes de minimus editorial changes.                                                                
Section 12. Clarifies  that in AS 38.50 the terms  "state land ''                                                               
and "land" include shoreland and  tideland and was recommended by                                                               
Legislative Legal.                                                                                                              
4:27:39 PM                                                                                                                    
Section  13.  Repeals   AS  38.50.020,  38.50.040,  38.50.080(b),                                                               
38.50.090,  38.50.100,  38.50.110, 38.50.120(b),  and  38.50.130.                                                               
She said  an explanation was in  their packets, but she  would go                                                               
over those if that was the committee's will.                                                                                    
4:28:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  STEDMAN   asked  for  clarification  of   references  to                                                               
"submerged lands  below mean  low tide and  tidelands up  to mean                                                               
high tide" and "in-shoreland."                                                                                                  
MS.  KOENEMAN said  that Alpheus  Bullard from  Legislative Legal                                                               
was on line to clarify.                                                                                                         
SENATOR  STEDMAN   asked  Mr.   Bullard  to   define  "shoreland,                                                               
tideland, and submerged land."                                                                                                  
4:28:57 PM                                                                                                                    
ALPHEUS  BULLARD, Legislative  Legal,  Alaska State  Legislature,                                                               
Juneau, Alaska,  answered that shoreland and  tideland don't have                                                               
a specific definition  in statute. These changes  are included in                                                               
this bill to  make all the provisions consistent.  So, instead of                                                               
calling "shore or  tide," now they say  "shoreland and tideland."                                                               
The  normal understanding  of those  words is  that shoreland  is                                                               
along  the shore  and tideland  is land  that is  touched by  the                                                               
SENATOR STEDMAN  said he  wanted some help  from DNR,  because he                                                               
thought  there  was  a clear  delineation  of  separate  property                                                               
rights  whether one  is  in  the uplands  or  shoreland versus  a                                                               
tideland versus submerged lands.                                                                                                
CHAIR GIESSEL said that could be done.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  MUNOZ interrupted  that that  Ms. Koenaman  would                                                               
read the definition into the record.                                                                                            
MS. KOENEMAN read from AS 38.05.965, subsection (23):                                                                           
     Shoreland means  land belonging to the  state, which is                                                                    
     covered by non-tidal water that  is navigable under the                                                                    
     laws of  the United  States up  to ordinary  high water                                                                    
     mark as modified by accretion, erosion or election.                                                                        
4:30:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  asked if "when  it is in the  best interest                                                               
of the state"  on line 5 in section 5  is an appealable decision,                                                               
and  if  it  is  subject  to  a lawsuit  and  if  there  are  any                                                               
recommendations on how the department  is supposed to define what                                                               
is in the best interest of the state.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ  replied that  the best interest  finding is                                                               
necessary and is  outlined in statute. That same  finding is used                                                               
on all  existing land lease deals  with DNR. It is  an appealable                                                               
decision.  That was  affirmed by  Wyn  Menefee, Deputy  Director,                                                               
Alaska  Mental   Health  Lands   Trust,  Department   of  Natural                                                               
Resources (DNR), who was also in the audience.                                                                                  
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  said line 8  looks like a  very significant                                                               
change, but he was  told it is not. It says  the director has the                                                               
right  to dispose  of state  land or  interest in  land and  then                                                               
language is added: including the  land estate, the mineral estate                                                               
or both.  And when they  start talking about mineral  estate that                                                               
means oil  and gas, which  triggers a  lot of strong  emotions in                                                               
this  committee.  He  asked  her to  explain  the  rationale  for                                                               
including mineral estate and to  reassure him they are not giving                                                               
the director  the ability to  give away oil  and gas rights  to a                                                               
private individual.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  MUNOZ  replied  that  an exchange  of  a  mineral                                                               
estate  can  only  be  conveyed  by  the  state  to  the  federal                                                               
government  and  the  section   8  language  is  consistent  with                                                               
existing  statute. It  says "exchanges  must be  pursuant to  the                                                               
State  Constitution  and applicable  federal  law,  which is  the                                                               
Statehood Act,  Section (6)(i), which  requires the state  not to                                                               
dispose of those  interests to any entity other  than the federal                                                               
government." However, the state can  receive a mineral estate and                                                               
having that language is helpful in clarifying that.                                                                             
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI said  it  looks like  language  on page  3,                                                               
lines  10-14, deletes:  "exchanges shall  be for  the purpose  of                                                               
consolidating state  land holdings, creating land  ownership, and                                                               
use patterns, which will permit  more effective administration of                                                               
the  state public  domain, facilitating  the objectives  of state                                                               
programs or  other public purposes."  He asked the  rationale for                                                               
taking that out.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MUNOZ  replied   that  language   is  considered                                                               
superfluous.  The department  is  focusing on  just  five or  six                                                               
categories, when  in fact  there might  be a  broader opportunity                                                               
which is  covered through  the best  interest finding.  The state                                                               
would not  enter into an  exchange unless  it clearly was  in the                                                               
state's best interest.                                                                                                          
4:34:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI asked  the  rationale for  the repealer  in                                                               
section that says:                                                                                              
     The  director in  implementing the  provisions of  this                                                                    
     chapter  may  not alienate  or  agree  not to  exercise                                                                    
     selection  rights granted  to the  state in  the Alaska                                                                    
     Statehood Act  or other applicable law  authorizing the                                                                    
     state to select land or interest in land.                                                                                  
MS. KOENEMAN replied  that the state has already  selected all of                                                               
its land  under the  Alaska Statehood  Act, and  since it  has no                                                               
further  ability to  select land,  that subsection  is no  longer                                                               
necessary. She  added that the state  hasn't necessarily received                                                               
the selections.                                                                                                                 
CHAIR  GIESSEL pointed  out that  it is  actually explained  on a                                                               
page in the document, which is on BASIS.                                                                                        
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI asked  for  the rationale  for removing  AS                                                               
38.50.090 language on coordinating with other state agencies.                                                                   
MS. KOENEMAN replied that language  was removed, because there is                                                               
now reference  to AS 38.05.035(e),  which includes  a requirement                                                               
for state agencies to provide  a summary through public comments.                                                               
The  department  would collect  those  public  comments from  the                                                               
other  agencies and  work  with the  other  departments on  their                                                               
concerns. Basically, it ties back to another version of statute.                                                                
4:37:08 PM                                                                                                                    
WYN  MENEFEE, Deputy  Director, Alaska  Mental Health  Trust Land                                                               
Office, Department  of Natural  Resources (DNR),  Juneau, Alaska,                                                               
said he was chief of operations  for the Division of Mining, Land                                                               
and Water for 12.5 years and  this issue is very important to DNR                                                               
as they have  had "much trouble" getting  exchanges done, because                                                               
of existing language.                                                                                                           
Many  needs are  coming  before them,  he  said, everything  from                                                               
consolidation   of  land   ownership  and   access  to   business                                                               
opportunities where  a lease  or an  easement doesn't  handle the                                                               
problem, and numerous people have been turned away.                                                                             
He  said  the department  disposes  of  a  huge amount  of  state                                                               
interests   through   AS   38.05.035(e)  decisions,   which   are                                                               
appealable and can  be taken to court. If they  do something that                                                               
is not in  the best interest of the state,  the public surely can                                                               
challenge them. The department needs  a very supportable decision                                                               
if  they are  going  to go  through with  an  exchange, but  they                                                               
believe that can be done with this modification.                                                                                
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI  asked him  to  provide  some exchanges  he                                                               
would  consider doing  under  this language  that  have not  been                                                               
considered before.                                                                                                              
MR.  MENEFEE answered  that there  have  been proposed  exchanges                                                               
from  native corporations  and private  individuals for  purposes                                                               
that were wholly  for their purposes and weren't  in the interest                                                               
of the state, at  all.  Those were easy to  turn away. But others                                                               
offer up  something that would  be very beneficial to  the state,                                                               
for instance creating a landownership  pattern or maybe a mineral                                                               
estate  offering that  would be  good for  miners to  develop, or                                                               
maybe  the state  has been  wanting to  do work  on some  sort of                                                               
project and  hasn't been able  to without  the land. He  has seen                                                               
exchanges  proposed  for  conservation purposes  and  development                                                               
purposes, but only a few have been successful.                                                                                  
He  explained  that  because  of   the  decision  process  in  AS                                                               
38.05.133(e)  the department  has to  describe why  it is  in the                                                               
best  interest of  the  state to  do an  exchange.  They have  to                                                               
articulate the analysis  of things they have  considered and what                                                               
it will do for the state that is good.                                                                                          
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  asked what  deference the court  would give                                                               
to the best interest finding.                                                                                                   
MR. MENEFEE  answered that there  is a lot  of case law  on state                                                               
best interest,  and the court  does not replace its  judgment for                                                               
the department's  as long  as it is  not acting  capriciously and                                                               
arbitrarily. They  look at whether  the statutes  and regulations                                                               
have been followed and if a  logical train of thought was used in                                                               
explaining  why it  is in  the best  interest of  the state.  The                                                               
courts  have said  they  don't want  to  define "best  interest,"                                                               
because it changes over time.                                                                                                   
4:43:05 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI said  this  measure really  is investing  a                                                               
huge amount  of power in  the DNR director and  commissioner, and                                                               
maybe  it would  be  good and  maybe not.  The  courts have  very                                                               
little say about the arbitrary  and capricious standard and it is                                                               
"extremely  difficult" to  overcome.  He asked  if  opening up  a                                                               
whole lot of land for exchanges is a big policy call.                                                                           
MR.  MENEFEE responded  that he  thinks there  will be  plenty of                                                               
opportunities for  land exchanges.  He didn't  think it  opens up                                                               
anything more  grandiose than  before other  than the  process is                                                               
cleaner.  The   department  still  must  make   sound  defensible                                                               
decisions  and  the public  can  challenge  their decisions.  The                                                               
courts have told them numerous  times when they have gone astray;                                                               
so he feels the system has a check and balance.                                                                                 
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI  said  it  doesn't  appear  that  they  are                                                               
changing  any legal  standards  that  a court  would  look at  as                                                               
diminishing the public process.                                                                                                 
4:45:18 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  MENEFEE agreed  with that  and added  the only  exception is                                                               
that "hearings" was  changed to "meetings" in one  section and it                                                               
went from three to two, the  main reason being they would have to                                                               
go through the  whole legislative process again  on anything that                                                               
fits into that one area of the statute.                                                                                         
4:45:48 PM                                                                                                                    
DOUG  ISAACSON, General  Manager, Minto  Development Corporation,                                                               
Fairbanks, Alaska,  said he supported  HB 274. He noted  at least                                                               
three  letters  of  support  in   their  packets:  one  from  his                                                               
president,  Roxanne Frank,  one  from  their parent  corporation,                                                               
Seth-De-Ya-Ha Corporation, and one  from Edna Riley, president of                                                               
the Board of Directors.  There  was also a letter of support from                                                               
Mike  Kelly  who is  the  COO  of  the Dinyea  Corporation.  They                                                               
support it, because it cleans up the process.                                                                                   
He appreciated  Senator Wielechowski's question about  it causing                                                               
a stampede,  and his corporation  in applying will have  to prove                                                               
that it's a  good idea for the state. When  he contemplates doing                                                               
some development on the Steese  Highway, he has his shareholders'                                                               
interest  at heart,  but he  also has  workforce development  and                                                               
benefits to the local community in  mind. But they aren't able to                                                               
use that  as a consideration  without the language in  this bill.                                                               
They still  have to  meet high  hurdles, but  this will  make the                                                               
process worth looking at.                                                                                                       
4:48:16 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  said a  new section  is being  added saying                                                               
that land or  an interest in land exchange  must be approximately                                                               
of equal value,  and then it says the director  may enter into an                                                               
exchange with a  finding that the value of  the property received                                                               
together  with  the  value  of other  public  benefit  equals  or                                                               
exceeds  the value  of the  property relinquished  by the  state.                                                               
He surmised  that some people will  want to trade swamp  land for                                                               
valuable state land  and he wanted "some findings"  on the record                                                               
about  what  "approximately  equal   value"  means  in  terms  of                                                               
protecting the citizens from that happening.                                                                                    
MR. MENEFEE replied the rationale  behind going with "approximate                                                               
equal value"  rather than "appraised  fair market value  only" is                                                               
that when  you start taking "other  considerations" into account,                                                               
the  Universal  Standards   of  Professional  Appraisal  Practice                                                               
(USPAP), which is used nationwide  for coming up with fair market                                                               
value  doesn't   allow  using   "other  considerations"   in  the                                                               
For example, he said currently  an exchange is happening at Point                                                               
Bridget and  because of  the survey  an appraisal  couldn't quite                                                               
get to an exact equal value.  Two things could be done to resolve                                                               
the issue. It  could be equalized with cash or  one could say the                                                               
value is pretty  close, because the state now has  road access to                                                               
a state park,  which it did not have before  and the private land                                                               
owner  could have  shut down  access  to that  park. People  were                                                               
trespassing across it at all times  to get to the state park, and                                                               
the question  becomes is  that public  access valuable  enough to                                                               
warrant  covering the  difference  in value.  The decision  would                                                               
have to articulate  that and then it would have  to go before the                                                               
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked  him to clarify when they  have to get                                                               
legislative approval.                                                                                                           
MR. MENEFEE replied for unequal values.                                                                                         
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI asked  if the  value is  unequal by  $1, do                                                               
they still have come to the legislature for approval.                                                                           
MR. MENEFEE  replied because there was  terminology about unequal                                                               
value in previous statute, regulations  had clarified that it had                                                               
to be a small percentage.                                                                                                       
4:52:45 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI  asked  how he  would  define  "approximate                                                               
equal value."                                                                                                                   
MR. MENEFEE replied that regulations  go through a public process                                                               
and  they think  that  would  be a  good  way  to further  define                                                               
"approximate equal  value" if  this measure  passes. In  his view                                                               
the  intent  is to  always  try  to  reach  equal value,  but  in                                                               
thinking  of "other  considerations"  it's hard  to  get to  that                                                               
exact equal value.  In the case of Point Bridget,  because of the                                                               
way the subdivision went, it  threw off the appraisal, making the                                                               
values  a little  off. So,  in that  case they  would have  to go                                                               
through another  cycle of trying  to do another  subdivision plat                                                               
to make it equal. Maybe one  could get close enough with $1000 to                                                               
$5000; it's hard to say, because  if you are dealing with a small                                                               
parcel an  unequal value  is going to  be a big  deal, but  for a                                                               
larger parcel that unequal value is a little bit more.                                                                          
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  said hypothetically someone has  a piece of                                                               
swamp land that  is worth $50,000 and it happens  to be access to                                                               
a river where people want to go  and fish - the Kenai River - and                                                               
they  want to  swap that  for a  half-million dollar  parcel. The                                                               
director says  that piece is  only worth  $100,000, but it  has a                                                               
$400,000  approximately  value  to  the public,  because  of  the                                                               
access. So, they deem it to  be of approximately equal value. The                                                               
court gives them  broad deference in their decision.  As he reads                                                               
it that  wouldn't have  to come before  the legislature.  Is that                                                               
4:55:15 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. MENEFEE replied  that his hypothetical would  come before the                                                               
legislature,  because he  would  consider that  an unequal  value                                                               
land   exchange.  Approximate   equal  value   gives  them   that                                                               
flexibility for  when the exchange  can't be made exact  and that                                                               
is the flexibility they are looking for.                                                                                        
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI countered that  the statute they are passing                                                               
gives the  director the ability  to say approximate  equal value,                                                               
but  also  the ability  to  include  the  value of  other  public                                                               
benefits in  that consideration.  So, could he  not say  we think                                                               
the value of access to this river is worth $450,000?                                                                            
MR. MENEFEE replied for the  department to feel secure with that,                                                               
they would have  to be ready to  go to court and  uphold it. They                                                               
would  have to  say  why they  think the  other  benefit of  that                                                               
access is  worth that much  in monetary  terms. That could  be in                                                               
lost opportunities where the department  can say it knows it will                                                               
have to  later buy that  access for this  much or they  will lose                                                               
this opportunity that  will make the state this  many millions of                                                               
dollars. He would work to state the value in terms of money.                                                                    
4:57:20 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  said he appreciated  the dialogue  and sees                                                               
where he is  trying to get, but he is  naturally suspicious about                                                               
a bad deal escaping legislative oversight.                                                                                      
MS.  KOENEMAN closed  by thanking  the committee  for considering                                                               
the bill.                                                                                                                       
SENATOR COGHILL  moved to report  CSHB 274(RES), version  N, from                                                               
committee  with  individual  recommendations  and  attached  zero                                                               
fiscal note. There were no objections and it was so ordered.                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB274 Sponsor Statement Ver. N.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Legislation Ver. N.PDF SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB 274 Explanation of Changes Version N.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB 274 Sectional Analysis Version N.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Fiscal Note-DNR.PDF SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-Letters of Support-Dinyea 041216.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-Letters of Support-Minto 020316.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-Letters of Support-Seth-De-Ya-Ah 020316.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-Repealer Explanation.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
CSHB216(RES)-Amendment in SRES-Coghill-4-13-2016.PDF SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 216
HB274-Updated Fiscal Note-DNR-4-13-2016.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 274
CSHB216-Updated Fiscal Note-DNR-4-13-2016.pdf SRES 4/13/2016 3:30:00 PM
HB 216