Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/22/2017 06:30 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 111-OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX;PAYMENTS;CREDITS
6:36:17 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to the oil and gas
production tax, tax payments, and credits; relating to interest
applicable to delinquent oil and gas production tax; and
providing for an effective date."
6:36:33 PM
KARA MORIARTY, President/CEO, Alaska Oil and Gas Association
(AOGA), informed the committee AOGA is a private professional
trade organization representing the majority of the oil and gas
industry in Alaska, and provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "House Resources Committee HB 111." She began her
presentation, and pointed out state and local governments
received over $2.1 billion in taxes and revenue last fiscal
year. Members of AOGA reviewed HB 111, considering several
principles [slide 3]. An additional important principle is
stability, which was discussed during a previous hearing [on
2/20/17]. Ms. Moriarty noted that the information presented at
the aforementioned previous hearing was out of date, and the
presenter implied industry and AOGA are disingenuous and not
credible [slide 4]. She said she was personally insulted and
explained the reason industry addresses the issues of stability,
competition, and jobs worldwide is because they are factors in
making investment decisions, and changes in government take
impact the three aforementioned issues. Ms. Moriarty stressed
HB 111 will not provide stability or increase competition and
the number of jobs in Alaska. She returned attention to the
previous testimony, and advised more recent information in this
regard is available; in fact, information from January 2016,
indicated that as oil prices went down, governments offered
fiscal incentives, and most of the world recognized that
increasing taxes would discourage investment in a time of low
prices [slide 5].
6:41:39 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Ms. Moriarty to continue her presentation
without further reference to the previous testifier.
MS. MORIARTY returned attention to slide 5.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH appreciated hearing updated, current, and
accurate information and requested the committee hear testimony
from the Oil and Gas Competitiveness Review Board (O&G CRB),
Department of Revenue (DOR), [established in Senate Bill 21,
passed in the 28th Alaska State Legislature].
CO-CHAIR TARR said any member of the committee may contact O&G
CRB, and its testimony before the committee will be considered
as time allows.
6:43:21 PM
MS. MORIARTY directed attention to slide 6 that summarized which
sections of HB 111 constitute a tax increase or increased cost
to industry, and which sections are credit reform - the stated
intent of certain policymakers. Although updated DOR reports
are forthcoming, she said it is known that last year there was
over $6.6 billion in total investment on the North Slope, and
industry earned "a fraction of that in credits on the slope, at
$393 million ...." Based on total production, she estimated
North Slope revenue to state and local government at $2 billion
last year, and advised credits are a good return on the state's
investment as will be demonstrated by the following
presentation. Beginning the sectional review of HB 111, she
said Section 1, which increases interest to six years of
compounded interest, will increase industry's costs, and has
nothing to do with tax credits [slide 7]. The provision in
Section 2, which was part of legislation proposed last year,
raises the minimum tax and is a significant increase ranging
from 25 percent to an infinite increase, which industry believes
will lead to the loss of one drilling rig for at least six
months [slide 8]. Ms. Moriarty stressed HB 111 will impact
investment decisions and more specific testimony will be offered
in this regard. Hardening the floor is another tax increase,
and although Section 3 is directly related to credits, using
credits against the minimum tax is the only way some companies
can continue to invest [slide 9]. She recalled concerns have
been expressed by legislators about the complexity of the
state's tax system, and suggested the second part of Section 3
should be removed because it changes the tax to a monthly tax
[slide 10]. Continuing to Section 5, she noted net operating
loss credits (NOLs) historically have matched the tax rate and
this section penalizes companies for investing in Alaska while
they are losing money. Furthermore, reducing the net operating
loss (NOL) rate was not part of legislation proposed last year,
and previous testimony from DOR has established the importance
of NOLs for all companies. She pointed out according to DOR
testimony, House Bill 247 [passed in the 29th Alaska State
Legislature] was designed to protect NOL credits, and she
questioned the change in policy [slide 11]. In addition, NOLs
level the playing field for certain companies in Alaska, and
reducing the NOL and eliminating cash payments - as does Section
6 - will eliminate all cash credits on the North Slope [slide
12]. Ms. Moriarty discussed the history of tax credits and
provisions of Senate Bill 21 that maintained an effective tax
rate of approximately 25 percent over a range of oil prices, and
that returned an element of progressivity to the tax system
through a per barrel credit. Changes to the "so-called credit"
changes the structure of the tax and is an immediate tax
increase [slide 13]. Experts recognize that the per barrel is
not really a credit, and she read testimony presented by DOR
last year characterizing the credits as an "offset to the tax
and is designed to create a progressive element ...."
Therefore, the proposal in Section 7 is a fundamental change to
an integral part of the tax system, and also does not have
anything to do with tax credit reform [slide 14]. Section 9
creates uncertainty as to when credits are earned and to which
companies Section 9 applies [slide 15]. Continuing to Section
10, she said preventing gross value at the point of production
(GVPP) from going below zero creates uncertainty and has nothing
to do with tax credits [slide 16]. She concluded nine of the
eleven policy sections of HB 111 would increase cost and/or
taxes on industry at a time of low oil prices [slide 17]. Ms.
Moriarty agreed the oil and gas industry is evolving in response
to global changing markets, emerging technology, enhanced
monitoring systems, and geopolitical changes; however, fiscal
systems can remain stable [slide 18].
6:54:18 PM
MS. MORIARTY, referring to six changes in the state's fiscal
policy, noted AOGA only supported the Cook Inlet Recovery Act
[passed in the 26th Alaska State Legislature] and certain
provisions of Senate Bill 21, but did not propose the
aforementioned changes [slide 18]. She advised Alaska has
potential and good geology, but HB 111 will not bring more
production and investment, will make Alaska less competitive,
and may lead to lost long-term revenue through the loss of
royalty, production, corporate income tax, and property tax.
Further, increasing government take through HB 111 will not
solve Alaska's fiscal crisis. She stressed that the industry is
part of the solution [to the fiscal crisis] as it is the largest
revenue generator for the state [slide 19]. Ms. Moriarty said
HB 111 will hurt Alaska's overall economy and urged the
committee to reconsider the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH objected to the interruptions to the
foregoing presentation, and said all of the information in the
presentation is relevant.
6:59:31 PM
DAMIAN BILBAO, Vice President of Commercial Ventures, BP in
Alaska, informed the committee BP sees HB 111 - as currently
written - as a risk to the Alaska economy and a disincentive to
investment in Alaska. He expressed support for the previous
testimony by AOGA and others, and reminded the committee
producing oil in Alaska is tough and expensive work. Mr. Bilbao
said North Slope fields would naturally decline at over 10
percent each year without a material level of investment such as
drilling, facilities work, and innovation to mitigate the
decline. Although there has been a recent increase, Alaska
production currently represents less than 5 percent of U.S. oil
production, down from over 25 percent in the '80s, and must
continue to compete for investment. He directed attention to
the Alaska economy, and advised that Alaska's fiscal gap should
not be addressed at the expense of the health of the state's
economy, which is directly linked to the amount of oil flowing
through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Mr. Bilbao
said the principles used by BP to assess oil fiscal policy were
tested against HB 111, and BP concluded HB 111 would be a
damaging policy for Alaska. The first principle is encouraging
more oil flow down TAPS, and HB 111 makes investment in Alaska
less competitive, because it makes production more expensive.
In fact, higher taxes mean higher costs, and lower profits in
Alaska - compared to other options - and will send investment
dollars elsewhere. The second principle is extending the life
of Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields, and the change to the
sliding scale tax credit for legacy production would be a tax
increase, and would shorten the economic life of each field.
The third principle is encouraging more independents working on
the North Slope, and HB 111 would push independents off of the
North Slope as a result of weaker economics and fiscal
uncertainty. The fourth principle is not picking winners and
losers, and under HB 111 any company investing in Alaska, and
expecting a certain return, would be a loser. He acknowledged
the legislature has a difficult task to address the fiscal gap
without damaging the economy; however, changes to Alaska's oil
taxes and tax policy must be narrowly tailored to correct
deficiencies without causing long-term harm.
7:07:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what flaws BP sees in the existing
tax system that can be corrected to positively impact the
state's bottom line in the short-term.
MR. BILBAO advised the current policy is providing what is best
for the state in delivering more production, more discoveries on
the North Slope, and more exploration by independents in the
short- and long-term.
PAT FOLEY, Senior Vice President, Alaska Operations, Caelus
Energy Alaska (Caelus), expressed support for the previous
testimony and said his presentation would direct attention to
the high level impacts of HB 111, specifically to Caelus and its
projects. He reminded the committee Caelus is an explorer,
developer, producer, and a partner with the state developing
resources. Caelus acquired Pioneer's assets, thus has been
working for 15 years on the North Slope [slide 2]. Mr. Foley
said state oil policy will impact projects, companies'
economics, and the timing of projects, and gave the example of
the Nuna project, which anticipates peak production of 25,000
barrels per day, will create hundreds of jobs, and represents
$2.2 billion in state revenue from royalty, net profit share
leases, and production tax. For a project like Nuna, modeled at
$70 per barrel oil, the changes brought forth by HB 111 have the
effect of increasing the oil price required for a successful
project by $5-$7 dollars per barrel [slide 3]. When the Smith
Bay project - which projects over 100,000 barrels of oil per day
- begins production, Caelus will not be eligible for cash
credits, thus Smith Bay will not draw a huge payment of cash
credits from the state [slide 4]. Mr. Foley said Caelus has the
potential of placing 2 billion additional barrels of oil through
TAPS, creating 2,100 direct jobs, and adding contributions to
the state economy of $34 billion [slide 5]. He provided slide
6, which illustrated how Alaska is going out of business by
selling the oil it has produced, and thus depleting its
resource; therefore, to save Alaska's economy, additional
projects must be found, and tax policy will have a direct impact
on whether projects are completed, and the pace of their
completion. Mr. Foley explained certain provisions of the bill
are harmful to all North Slope investors, and others are harmful
to new companies. Relative to tax policy, he questioned
Alaska's fiscal goal and policy, and whether each of the
elements in HB 111 are helpful to attract investment and grow
the economy, or are harmful [slide 7]. He opined although HB
111 addresses the immediate cash concerns of the state, it is
harmful to Alaska's economy in the long-term. Finally, Caelus
used an economic model to analyze the impact of each component
of the bill on the Nuna project, and he provided a graph [slide
8].
7:17:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for the amount of the expected
outlay for the Nuna project.
MR. FOLEY answered Caelus has spent about $200 million for
drilling two wells and installing facilities. Another $1
billion is yet to be spent.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired as to the cost of Smith Bay.
MR. FOLEY said two exploration wells have been drilled at Smith
Bay, and although development is conceptual at this time, total
development cost will exceed $10 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned how much of the $11 billion
outlay in Smith Bay will be recovered in cash subsidies, and how
much will be held against future tax liability.
MR. FOLEY explained by the time Caelus develops Smith Bay, it
will be producing in excess of 35,000 barrels per day, and thus
would not be eligible for cash credits; therefore, all lease
expenditures would roll forward as NOLs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for Mr. Foley's opinion on what is
good tax policy.
MR. FOLEY restated Caelus purchased Pioneer's assets, committed
to exploration wells at Smith Bay, and sanctioned the Nuna
project under the Senate Bill 21 tax policy regime. He
concluded the Senate Bill 21 tax policy attracted newcomers,
leveled playing fields, and encouraged investment on the North
Slope; however, subsequent to the passage of House Bill 247,
Caelus's projects became less valuable. In further response to
Representative Rauscher, he said if HB 111 passes, investments
in the state will be slowed, the economy will be harmed, and the
industry will have to wait for higher [oil] prices.
7:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated Senate Bill 21 is an unequivocal
success. The fiscal note attached to HB 111 indicated that by
2025, there would be a massive tax increase of over $300 million
for the state. He observed the most significant component of
state revenue is royalty share, which is typically one-eighth,
or 12.5 percent, and asked about the impact of higher royalty
shares on newer fields and investment decisions.
MR. FOLEY explained at Oooguruk Unit, Caelus has one-eighth
leases that are additionally burdened by a 30 percent net profit
share, and also has one-sixth leases. Originally, all the oil
and gas leases in the state had a fixed one-eighth royalty, and
then a net profit share component was added, which was an
additional 30 percent or 40 percent, or a bid variable share.
He opined the state realized the aforementioned system caused
accounting difficulties, and no longer issues leases with a net
profit share. Leases near infrastructure carry one-sixth
royalty, and leases in very remote areas still carry one-eighth
royalty leases.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified that if the bill as written does
not succeed, Caelus would remain eligible for cashable credits
because it produces under 50,000 barrels.
7:25:26 PM
MR. FOLEY said yes, Caelus would remain eligible; in fact, to
develop Smith Bay will take two or three years of building
infrastructure before first oil, and all of the costs would be
eligible for credit. After production begins, Caelus would be
producing over 50,000 barrels per day and would not be eligible.
For a total development cost of $10 billion, Caelus would spend
$3 billion to $4 billion in advance, and another $7 billion or
more drilling wells, thus the first tranche might be eligible
for cash credits under the current fiscal system.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised under the existing fiscal system,
[cashable credits would be] .35 [percent] of $3 billion to $4
billion, and after production in excess of 50,000 barrels, the
state would use a formula to secure NOLs after capital and
operating expense deductions.
MR. FOLEY returned attention to slide 4 that illustrated total
cash paid to the state, for a project like Smith Bay, would be
about $15 billion in royalty, and about $10 billion in
production taxes. Further, if Caelus carried-forward [costs],
the payment of production taxes would be delayed, but the
payment of royalty would not.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated his concern about informing his
constituency that the state made $1.2 billion in fiscal year
2017 (FY 17), but it could make tens of billions of dollars over
the life of a certain oil and gas project by spending $3.5
billion for development cost, without any guarantee of the
result.
7:29:01 PM
MR. FOLEY said he considers the state a co-investor with
industry, and considers cash credits not as a subsidy, but as a
co-investment; for example, a $1 billion investment by the state
in a project similar to Smith Bay would yield a return of $28
billion in royalty, production tax, and ad valorem, which is a
return of 28:1. In further response to Co-Chair Josephson, he
said a return on investment may not be bankable, and certainty
varies between an exploration activity and a development
activity, however, after a commitment is made for development,
the chances of success are very high.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Foley to discuss Caelus's benefits from
royalty relief.
7:31:30 PM
MR. FOLEY said at Oooguruk, a royalty modification was agreed to
when the project was sanctioned, and all the leases in the field
are either a one-eighth royalty, 30 percent net profit, or a
one-sixth royalty. When the royalty modification was granted,
all of the net profits stayed the same, and the royalties were
reduced to 5 percent until one of the net profit share key
leases begins to make a net profit share payment. He said he
anticipates the royalty modification for Oooguruk will end at
some point within the next three years. In a separate royalty
modification application for the Nuna project, a royalty
modification was granted with a condition that first oil would
begin by late in 2017 or in 2018; as the odds of that are low,
Caelus will apply for an extension.
CO-CHAIR TARR observed the state has been willing to use royalty
modification as a means to recognize the impact of low prices to
the industry.
MR. FOLEY said yes. He added that three North Slope fields and
six or seven Cook Inlet marginal fields have been helped by
royalty modifications.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH questioned whether NOLs are limited to $35
million per year by House Bill 247.
7:34:48 PM
MR. FOLEY clarified one of the provisions of House Bill 247 cut
all credits in one-half, so any one company can recoup up to $61
million in any one year.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his understanding the state would
not have a significant investment, but the payment [of credits]
would be "metered out over some period of time."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON restated his concern that even if the amount
of the annual outlay per company is capped, with the present
system, the state has no control over what credits are accruing
above the cap. Thus the state would accrue another liability
similar to pension systems and school debt reimbursement.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned what the effect to the
economics of the Smith Bay project would be if the state were to
offer $3.5 billion as a no-cost loan, instead of as a subsidy.
MR. FOLEY agreed the state could take several actions to return
Caelus to the financial position the tax credits provided; in
fact, low-interest rate loans, the ability to carry-forward loss
credits until they can be utilized, and any investment in
infrastructure, would be helpful.
7:37:28 PM
JEFF HASTINGS, Chairman/CEO, SAExploration, and Managing
Partner, Kuukpik SAE, informed the committee SAExploration is an
explorer and current holder of tax credits, and its main
business is as a prime contractor to the oil and gas community
in Alaska. He provided a brief history of the company, and
stressed its commitment to preferentially hire Native Alaskans
and Alaska residents, and to using Alaska suppliers and
subcontractors [slide 2]. Mr. Hastings provided a list of over
190 Alaska suppliers his company uses [slide 3]. As background
information, he said seismic operations are typically the
beginning of an exploration program, sometimes before leasing.
Seismic data is critical information essential to the success of
an exploration program, and after investment drawn by the
passage of Senate Bill 21, the company used new technologies to
produce higher resolution images of subsurface, which garner
information in direct correlation to recent discoveries.
Further, seismic data is critical to finding new opportunities,
and reserves for the future [slide 4]. Slide 5 provided a
snapshot of a single seismic program, and illustrated the Aklaq
3D Seismic Program in 2016 that employed 15 subcontractors and
75 suppliers. Thus, one job brought benefits to over 1,060
Alaskan families and generated $57 million in revenue, of which
$49 million stayed in Alaska. Mr. Hastings explained seismic is
one part of exploration prior to development, and slide 6 was a
chart of annual seismic revenue in millions of dollars from 2012
to 2017. After the passage of Senate Bill 21, capital
investment in seismic data increased to a peak of $217 million,
which decreased to $105 million following the first tax credit
appropriation cut in the fall of 2015, and to $50 million
following the second tax credit appropriation cut in the summer
of 2016. Slide 7 illustrated annual seismic programs for all
Alaska contractors that gather seismic information, over the
same period of time that ranged from a peak of eleven programs,
to a low of two, following both tax credit appropriation cuts
[slide 7]. Because seismic occurs early in exploration, the
number of seismic programs underway is a good indication of
future capital spending in the industry. Mr. Hastings said from
his perspective, Senate Bill 21 resulted in an increase of
capital spending, which resulted in new discoveries. The
elimination of the tax credit appropriation budget in 2015 and
2016 has had several negative effects: capital spending is
down, the state has not released a schedule of payments for
current tax credit liabilities; liquidity needed for contractors
is gone; many contractors remain unpaid for services rendered
[slide 8]. As a result of the delayed tax credit payout,
SAExploration was forced to restructure its company and seek a
way to extend payments to its Alaska subcontractors and
suppliers until the state pays its tax credits. To do so,
SAExploration eliminated 98 percent of its shareholders' equity,
the majority of which was held by Alaskan employees [slide 9].
Mr. Hastings stated his commitment to working and investing in
Alaska's oil and gas fields has continued for three decades, and
he intends to stay, along with SAExploration's partner, the
village of Nuiqsut.
7:48:51 PM
MR. HASTINGS advised the oil and gas community is making hard
choices - many are working at cost - and many are depending on
the state to make the right choices related to the state's tax
regime. He said HB 111 all but eliminates a secondary market
for tax credits, and the elimination of cash payments for NOLs
hurts explorers. Furthermore, it is unknown when and how tax
credits will be paid, and this information is necessary in order
for his company to operate in the future. A sustainable
structure is needed that is competitive on a global scale, and
which may require additional infrastructure, lower costs, and
more of a partnership with the state. He cautioned against
creating a tax environment that eliminates investment in Alaska.
7:51:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH recalled previous DNR testimony about a
large repository of seismic data on the North Slope that the
state could monetize. He asked whether the state acquired
information for which it has not paid.
MR. HASTINGS explained his company works three ways: 1.
contracts directly to an oil and gas producer that applies for
the credit, and after ten years the data is made public; 2.
speculative data in which his company would acquire data and
sell licenses for the data, typically a speculative survey sells
at multiple of 1.25 return; 3. contracts with a speculator.
Regarding the data referred to by the commissioner of DNR, he
said there are thousands of linear and square miles [of seismic
data] that will become public domain within the next five years.
7:55:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH assumed the actions of the state as a free
purveyor of seismic data have a negative impact on
SAExploration.
MR. HASTINGS clarified if the data were to stay proprietary to
the owner, and is not released to the public after ten years, it
would yield about a multiple of 1.5 [return on investment].
However, industry expects a return of 1.25, and that the data
will become public domain.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH observed the secondary market is uncertain
of the status of tax credit payments. He suggested the state
could issue a larger allocation of tax credit payments disbursed
on a competitive basis, for example, ninety-nine cents on the
dollar.
MR. HASTINGS confirmed all parties in the secondary market need
cash and would have differing thresholds; however, his company
has restructured to survive the delay and low [oil] prices, and
would be reluctant to accept a steeply discounted offer for its
current tax credits.
CO-CHAIR TARR advised the committee written testimony from
Hilcorp can be found in the committee packet, and invited
testimony will be heard from ExxonMobil Corporation,
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., and Great Bear on 2/24/17.
Further, committee questions regarding previous testimony have
been submitted, and the responses from DOR and other sources
have been distributed.
[HB 111 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB111 Opposing Document-Caelus Energy House Resources Testimony 2.22.17.pdf |
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposing Document-AOGA House Resources Testimony 2.22.17.pdf |
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposing Document-BP House Resources Testimony 2.22.17.pdf |
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposing Document-SAExploration Testimony 2.22.17.pdf |
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposing Document-Hilcorp Letter 2.22.17.pdf |
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Supporting Document - Support Letter 2.22.17.pdf |
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 ver O 2.8.17.PDF |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Sectional Analysis 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Sponsor Statement 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |