Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/19/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB135 | |
| HB161 | |
| HJR26 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 161-AUCTIONS FOR BIG GAME HARVEST PERMITS
1:52:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 161, "An Act relating to auctions or raffles
for big game harvest permits and to the selection of nonprofit
organizations to conduct auctions and raffles for the Department
of Fish and Game."
1:52:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, stated the
committee held a hearing last year on HB 161 and she has
subsequently worked on the bill with the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) as well as several sporting groups to create
the work draft in members' packets.
1:53:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 161, Version Y, labeled 28-LS0530\Y,
Bullard, 2/17/14 as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected for discussion purposes.
1:53:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS stated that the ADF&G operates several
programs that allow big game permits to be donated to nonprofit
sporting groups to support state wildlife management. Three
separate auction programs are authorized in statute, including
the Delta Bison, Etolin Elk and Big Game programs. The current
statutory framework governing the two most prominent programs
has become outdated - Delta Bison and Big Game - and therefore
many groups are ambivalent about participating in these
programs.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS explained HB 161 [Version Y] would expand
the previously mentioned program's scope by allowing additional
permits to be issued for more species and increase the current
statutory limit of 19 permits to 42 permits. The bill would
further invigorate the program by giving the designated
nonprofit organizations a greater share of the proceeds from the
auction of the permit[s].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS indicated the reason for this is that not
enough folks wanted to participate in the permit fundraising
effort [when the organization could only retain [10] percent of
the net profits]. By increasing the nonprofit's share to [30]
percent, the program could attract more interest and the permit
raffle or auction should be more attractive to organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS highlighted changes in the guidelines that
allow the department to auction off permits [in Section 1].
This language would allow the ADF&G to limit the donations to
nonprofit organizations that are established to promote
education in outdoor traditions and conservation and wildlife
protection programs in partnership with the department.
1:55:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS noted that two types of permits can be
issued under the bill. She explained that permits under Section
1 allow 100 percent of the proceeds from the auction to be
retained by the sporting group operating the auction. Permits
under Section 2 of the bill would allocate 30 percent of the
proceeds to qualified sporting group organizations while 70
percent will be retained by the department and deposited in the
fish and game fund.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS reported the sale of these specific game
permits brought in $460,000 in revenue from 2009 to 2013. She
reiterated that this money is deposited in the fish and game
fund and has been used to directly benefit purchasers of general
hunting, fishing and trapping licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said the "North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation" has been removed from HB 161. This language
brought some confusion that was never intended, she said.
1:56:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 161.
1:56:53 PM
WAYNE E. HEIMER provided background on the permit auction
system. He said this system has always existed in western
states, in which governors would give hunting and fishing
permits away as a form of political patronage. In fact, until
the 1960s Alaska's permit system was very much like this, but
was withdrawn by the legislature after Governor Egan issued a
governor's permit for the taking of Dall sheep in the Brooks
Range by the nephew of the Shah of Iran. He related his
understanding the Shah was really was there to steal peregrine
falcons, which were considered an endangered species. The idea
to use these permits for conservation purposes arose in Wyoming
during the time that he was the Dall sheep research biologist
for the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. He offered his belief
that he was the first person to advocate using permits to raise
conservation money although the department was not interested in
the program. Thus, he shifted the program idea to the
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, now known as the Wild
Sheep Foundation. The Alaska Chapter of the Wild Sheep
Foundation later worked with Senator Con Bunde on the enabling
legislation that allows permit auctions to take place in Alaska.
MR. HEIMER related his background, such that he spent over 15
years with the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep and Wild
Sheep Foundation, having served three terms on the board, as
well as having served as the Alaska Chapter president. These
organizations generate "big dollars" for permits, in particular,
for Dall sheep. In fact, he previously worked to advertise and
sell Dall sheep permits in the market when the permits weren't
as attractive as they are now.
1:59:16 PM
MR. HEIMER said he is opposed to HB 161 because the premises are
highly questionable. The idea that the permit system is a
"Golden Goose" from which one can repeatedly squeeze eggs is
false. The auction prices for these permits can vary much as
100 percent. "Sometimes they attract significant dollars but
sometimes they don't," he said. These buyers typically state
that they want to give back to the resource that they enjoy and
he acknowledged that benefit. He noted these hunters are also
looking for an unusual animal although they will not pay more
than the other bidders are willing to pay. He characterized
this market as a "volatile" market and he questioned the
assumption that one could simply make more permits available and
maintain the high price for permits.
MR. HEIMER also questioned the rationale or ethos behind HB 161.
He stated his preference to have amateur non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) but not industrial ones auctioning the hunt
permits such as the Wild Sheep Foundation. He questioned
capitalizing the NGOs over the manager. He said that having one
permit go specifically to an NGO for education seems to presume
that this action will be more beneficial in the long run than
capitalizing the managers who produce the benefits from the
resource under Alaska's Constitution and state statutes.
MR. HEIMER said non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often
confuse themselves with the [governmental] managers, which they
are not. In fact, the NGOs exist to support and assist the
managers. The aforementioned reasons lead to him to question
the premise of HB 161. Further, someone will need to market
these permits, which will entail substantial work. Although an
organization might earn 30 percent of the proceeds, but again,
he wondered whether 30 percent of the proceeds could be better
spent by the agency providing benefits or if it would just be
used to pay the NGO's overhead costs. In response to a
question, he answered that he had previously submitted written
comments last April but has not recently done so.
2:02:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether his main objection to HB 161
has been that expanding the number of permits will deflate the
value in a pretty small market.
MR. HEIMER replied that is a major concern of his since the
buyers at auction really tend to appreciate the appearance of
exclusivity of the permits.
2:03:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood the concern that the NGOs or
organizations really end up paying [administrative costs] for
the managers and the proceeds are not used for the NGOs' goals
and activities to enhance wildlife.
MR. HEIMER related a scenario in which a permit brought in
$100,000, with 30 percent being spent to market the NGO. The
state would need to assume the NGO will produce more benefits
with the $30,000 than the [state's] managers would produce with
the same funds. He offered his belief it is likely that the
NGOs will spend it on overhead.
2:04:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, lines 13-14 of Version
Y. He understood 30 percent of the net proceeds from the permit
auction would be retained by the organization, noting the costs
of marketing, advertising, and holding the auction would be
deducted first.
MR. HEIMER remarked that this troubles him even more.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said anyone who has organized fundraisers
knows the costs and efforts involved in doing so. She explained
that this bill seeks to make it worthwhile for fundraisers to
fundraise. She characterized the situation as a "win-win"
situation when the fundraising organization can raise more money
for the organization and the state through the auction process.
The bill would allow the state to obtain 70 percent of the
proceeds with 30 percent retained by the NGOs. She stated that
the current level of allowing 10 net proceeds be retained by
NGOs has resulted in people simply not willing to raise the
funds.
2:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the bill relates to one
permit out of several permits in an area. He further asked
whether the auctioned permit is a guaranteed permit rather than
an opportunity to participate in a drawing permit hunt.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS agreed it was a guaranteed permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how much the state typically
receives for other permits in the hunt area.
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn Gattis, the prime
sponsor of HB 161, said he deferred to the ADF&G to answer. He
confirmed the permit would be guaranteed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how much revenue the state receives
from any permit that is a drawing permit.
MR. HARRIS deferred to ADF&G to answer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated his question by posing a
scenario in which 10 permits are available in one area and one
permit is auctioned off. He asked how much revenue the state
receives on the remaining nine permits for drawing permit hunts.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, responded the department only
makes the amount of money equivalent to the license fees and
application fee to enter the drawing hunt.
2:08:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the amount would be
approximately $25-$50 fees for the drawing hunt entry fees.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether any drawing has made less
than $50.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON summarized there isn't any comparison
between the [permit hunts being auctioned] for regular hunts in
terms of generating funds for the state. For example, if an
auctioned hunt raises $100,000 and the state receives 70
percent, or even 50 percent of the proceeds, the state will
still receive $50,000 as opposed to the $50 it would receive if
the department issued drawing permits. Therefore, this bill
represents an opportunity to increase the state's treasury by
allowing qualified organizations to raise money to help preserve
species. He summarized this bill would allow organizations to
auction one hunt per area per species. He emphasized the
difference in terms of economics alone is significant; however,
the bill would not adversely affect the species. He
characterized HB 161 as making it economic for someone to make
money for the state.
2:10:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she was familiar with Etolin
Island. She asked how many elk permits would be issued and of
those the number that would be auctioned off.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that the number of permits in
the game management system allow for a certain number of animals
to be taken. One hunt would be reserved for the ADF&G's auction
and the remaining permits will be issued to citizens, he said.
He reiterated the number of permits issued would depend on the
size of the herd.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her interest in how many
permits will be auctioned off and the total number of permits
that will be issued.
MR. HARRIS said the original bill removed all four tags
designated for Etolin Island out of the ADF&G's auction permits.
He said the Devil's Thumb Archers Archery Club objected since
this organization has been the recipient of the elk raffle
permit for some time. In fact, the club has applied for and
received a tag nearly every year and has typically been the only
organization applying for the permits. The sponsor decided not
to change the Etolin Island elk permit language so the language
in Version Y will reinstate the language [under AS
16.05.343(b)].
2:12:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI removed his objection.
[Version Y was before the committee].
2:12:42 PM
KAREN GORDON, testifying on behalf of herself, noted she
currently serves as a board member for the Wild Sheep Foundation
and has been involved with this foundation for several years.
She previously wrote an article about the ADF&G's permit system
and has followed the [auction or raffle of big game harvest
permit] program. She offered her belief that this bill is a
"clever scheme" to fund a special interest private organization
without any benefit to the state. Current enabling legislation
- enacted in 1995 - prescribes profit as a motive to sell
permits. The laws in place provide significant funds to the
state since the permits go to the organizations best experienced
in [conducting the auctions.] She questioned reducing the
state's percentage of net proceeds from the 90 percent to 70
percent under the bill. She said, "This doesn't make sense."
This bill would preclude permits being sold where they have
proven to be the most profitable to the state. Instead, under
the bill, 30 percent of the net proceeds will generously fund a
private organization. For example, if the bill was applied to
the recent Dall sheep permit sold at the Wild Sheep convention
last month the process would cost the state $52,500 in net
proceeds rather than $17,500. She characterized the Wild Sheep
convention as a place where "sheep-crazed" wealthy hunters
congregate to specifically buy these permits. She reported the
first Dall sheep permit was auctioned off for $200,000, a second
one was auctioned off for $200,000 several years ago, and the
most recent one was auctioned off for $175,000.
2:14:43 PM
MS. GORDON said the permit system in place for the Wild Sheep
Foundation alone raised $926,000 in state permits since 1997.
Thus, it isn't as though this process doesn't already bring
money to the state. She cautioned against setting up a monopoly
without any controls on how the money is spent. In fact, funds
could be used for political contributions since safeguards will
be removed under the bill. She questioned whether a conflict of
interest exists since the Wild Sheep Foundation's board includes
the commissioner of the ADF&G and another department employee,
but the commissioner sets the terms of the permits that are
awarded, rather than by law, as it appropriately is now. She
concluded that this bill entirely fails to benefit the state and
should not proceed any further in any form. This plan will
decrease profit to the state over the short and long term and
will establish a funding stream from the state to a private
organization managed, in part, by several ADF&G employees. This
bill is an example of fixing something that is not broken, she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS respectfully disagreed, saying that
offering 30 percent is far more of an incentive to get
organizations to participate. She offered her belief that the
state will receive more revenue by having more people involved
and the process will gain more funding for the state.
2:17:12 PM
DAVE CAMPBELL, Donations Chairman, Southcentral Alaska Chapter,
Ruffed Grouse Society, stated he has resided in Alaska for over
47 years. He detailed his membership in relevant organization,
including that he is a member of the Ruffed Grouse Society, a
life member of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the National
Rifle Association (NRA), the Boone and Crockett Association, the
KwaZulu-Natal Hunting and Conservation Association, the One-Shot
Antelope Hunt Club, as well as a member of Trout Unlimited and
the Arctic Bird Dog Association. He said he supports ethical
and legal means of flora and fauna throughout the world, but
especially in Alaska. He said, "I believe with all my heart
that HB 161 is needed by 501 (3) (c) organizations in Alaska to
benefit their individual programs for conservation, legal sport
hunting, and sport fishing." This bill will aid the nonprofit
organizations in their fundraising endeavors as well as
increasing funds to the general fund in Alaska. He offered his
belief that this bill is long overdue for passage in this
legislature.
2:18:59 PM
GARY STEVENS, speaking on behalf of himself, said he also serves
on the Board of Directors for the Outdoor Council. He pointed
out the number of permits would increase from 19 to 46, not
including ones for wolves. He offered his belief this is too
many permits. He agreed with Mr. Heimer's testimony in terms of
the sheer volume of permits being detrimental to the state, in
particular, in terms of bison and Dall sheep. In terms of the
value of the permits for the raffle, he estimated over 20,000
applicants apply for the bison hunts in Delta. Based on $10
resident and non-residents fees he further estimated that the
bison hunt generates over $200,000. He noted the permittee can
enjoy the natural resource that belongs to all Alaskans.
Although he does not have a copy of the proposed committee
substitute, (CS) for HB 161, Version Y, he referred to page 1,
line 8 of HB 161 as introduced, [Version U] which reads, "The
donation may be made only to a nonprofit corporation established
to promote outdoor and conservation programs in partnership with
the department ...." He understood the sponsor to say this
language changed, but he was not aware of any nonprofit
organization that would qualify using this language. He
expressed interest in identifying which organizations could
qualify.
2:21:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related her understanding that management
issues and a perceived shortage of Dall sheep and bison have
prompted him to comment on these species.
MR. STEVENS responded that it is not a "perceived" shortage
since the bill will create a shortage of opportunities for
Alaska and non-residents to participate in hunting Dall sheep
and bison. He questioned taking five permits from those two
species from the limited number of permits available for the
general public, which he found to be excessive.
2:22:39 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, Regional Representative, Safari Club
International (SCI), stated he lives on the Kenai Peninsula and
is a member of the Legislative Outdoor Heritage Caucus Advisory
Committee and is the Chair of the Kenai Soldotna Advisory
Committee of Fish and Game. He represents two award-winning
chapters in Alaska. He reported that SCI has over 50,000
members and over 200 chapters. He stated that the SCI is a
nonprofit organization, a leader in defending hunting rights and
conservation around the world, the U.S., and Alaska. He offered
SCI's support of HB 161. He offered his belief that the main
objection to this bill is that people might think that the
organization is being greedy. He disagreed, noting that SCI has
given over $750,000 to fish and game projects and State of
Alaska fish and game projects, including the Wood Bison
reintroduction project, the recent Kenai Peninsula moose calf
survival study, the Kodiak Island chronic wasting disease
affecting deer, the Kodiak brown bear. The SCI spends more time
and money on the permit tags for a small return. He related a
scenario in which the SCI held a Friday night auction for a Tok
[Dall sheep] tag, which drew $16,000. Recently, the Wild Sheep
Foundation sold the same Dall sheep tag for $180,000. He
indicated the same people attend these conventions and if the
SCI had held its auction on a Saturday it may have needed more
funds. He said the auctions benefit the wildlife, the hunters,
and the state. The SCI looks forward to advancing conservation
and hunter's rights by working with the state on projects for
years to come.
2:25:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, Version Y, and asked
whether SCI will fit under the definition. The language in
subsection (a) read, in part, "The denotation may be made only
to a nonprofit corporation established to promote education in
outdoor traditions and conservation and wildlife protection
programs in partnership with the department subject to the terms
of a memorandum of agreement developed by the department."
MR. CRAWFORD replied he believes so.
2:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the administrative burden and
motivation of nonprofits to participate in permits. She asked
whether simply increasing the 10 percent to 30 percent alone
would have a positive benefit for the organization.
MR. CRAWFORD answered that he believed it would. He stated that
when the fundraiser is done, the organization knows a set amount
of money will be raised, and if the organization must give up 90
percent of the proceeds, it is more likely the nonprofit will
use something to generate more income. Of course, the SCI would
also like to help the ADF&G and the state on conservation
projects and interests, but the increase in the percentage is
what he is most interested in [rather than an increase in the
number of permits].
2:27:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the donor license auction
proceeds in 2011 and 2012, which identifies species for permits
that have been held, including bison, musk ox, brown bear, and
Dall sheep, but not for moose. He asked whether the
organization chose not to auction them off.
MR. CRAWFORD believed that is the case. He said his
organization attempts to get the most money it can for its
efforts. He indicated that receiving a greater percentage [30
percent of net proceeds] would create an incentive.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON wondered if 19 permits were available at
[30] percent if the organization would apply for more permits or
if the SCI would only offer one at its fundraiser.
MR. CRAWFORD related that he receives an invitation from ADF&G
each year to apply for those tags. He reported that the SCI has
declined to offer certain tags. He suggested that the [30]
percent will get everyone's attention. He offered his belief
that this should generate additional income for the state. He
anticipated the tag would be auctioned off for more money so the
state' portion will be greater, too. He characterized the SCI
organization as a great organization and people attending will
be willing to pay for these experiences in Alaska.
2:30:41 PM
HELEN NETSCHERT, President, Alaska Kenai Peninsula Chapter,
Safari Club International, reported that her club is a 501 (c)
(3) nonprofit corporation consisting of approximately 200
volunteers and none of their officers are compensated for any
work they do. She stated that HB 161 will benefit all of her
organization's educational, wildlife, and conservation efforts
on the Kenai Peninsula. Currently, the organization has been
focused on moose. Additionally, the club offers educational
programs for children ages 10 and above. She said her club
supports HB 161.
2:32:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the tag alone is sold or if
the club packages the hunt and includes a guide.
MS. NETSCHERT responded that the Safari Club International (SCI)
markets it as a hunt and the person buying the hunt must obtain
a [big game guide-outfitter] and transportation. The SCI
provides this information in the explanation of the hunt. Of
course, an out-of-state person is required to have a guide for
Dall sheep anyway. She recapped that the SCI markets it as a
hunt.
MR. CRAWFORD added there have been times when the tag was
matched with a guide as a package, but not always. Thus,
sometimes the SCI packages the hunts and will probably do so in
the future.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for further clarification on how
the cost of the permit would be broken out in packaged hunts.
MR. CRAWFORD advised that the SCI tries to get the guide to
donate 100 percent of his/her services and the club may cover
some costs involved.
2:34:47 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Chairman, Legislative Outdoor Heritage Caucus
Advisory Council, stated he wears many hats but today represents
the aforementioned organization, which he chairs. A number of
organizations have seats on the council, including SCI, Kenai
River Sportfishing Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,
National Rifle Association, and Ruffed Grouse Society. He
offered support for HB 161 and believes it will greatly benefit
the state in terms of conservation and enhanced revenues for the
ADF&G. Based on over thirty years of fundraising, he
highlighted clarification on several points. He noted that in
Version Y, one Dall sheep has been added, but no additional
bison so it takes it back to the original statutory language.
Thus, no additional bison are added in Version Y. Additionally,
the organization can raffle permit package hunts in the
marketplace, especially for prevalent species, such as moose and
caribou to enhance fundraising. He acknowledged a popular area
is the Nelchina Basin, although it is a subsistence tier 2, tier
1, area so those permits are not available for this type of
permit.
MR. GRASSER reinforced what Mr. Harris stated about Etolin
Island. He said that the four permits for Etolin Island elk are
in current statute. In terms of money going to private
organizations, the 30 percent must be spent in consultation with
the department. Therefore, if SCI obtained one of these permits
and raised $100,000 and obtained 30 percent, it would need to
consult with the department on how the funds will be spent. He
characterized it as being a built in safeguard. Further, the
department has memorandum of agreements (MOA) with several
organizations. In fact, any of the aforementioned nonprofits
has the ability to enter into MOAs with the department. He said
there isn't any exclusionary language that prevents any
organization such as the Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF), the Ruffed
Grouse Society (RGS), the Alaska Outdoor Council, or the SCI.
MR. GRASSER said the LOHCAC has made this bill a priority for
the session since the organization believes it will greatly
benefit Alaska.
2:38:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated that part of the rub of the bill
as introduced had to do with being able to use the proceeds to
pay for expenses associated with lobbying. He understood that
Mr. Grasser lobbies for some groups. He asked whether the
organization have any objections to the change and how the
information is audited.
MR. GRASSER referred to page 2 of HB 161 [Version Y, lines 14-
17]. He emphasized that the organization would need to consult
with the department on how to spend the 30 percent of the net
proceeds.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked for further clarification on how
the department currently audits to ensure the funds are not used
for lobbying.
MR. GRASSER deferred to the department.
2:40:34 PM
DON QUARBERG, said he speaking on behalf of himself, but noted
he also serves as Chair of the Delta Advisory Committee;
however, the advisory committee has not discussed HB 161. He
expressed concern about the supply side economics, noting the
committee has already discussed this; however, he agreed that
saturating the market with permits will reduce their value. He
would prefer not to focus only on the economics. He highlighted
that the chances of obtaining a Tok management area Dall sheep
permit is about one percent. He suggested that with the limited
number of tags the department could auction the permits off, but
the department must manage based on a sustained-yield basis for
Alaskans. The bill provides the commissioner with a lot of
latitude and discretion to design how the funds are spent. He
suggested the bill should have some sideboards. He referred to
page 2, lines 13-17 [of the original bill] to language
restricting contributions for political campaigns and lobbying.
He did not object to that language being inserted. He preferred
not to allow proceeds to be spent on lobbying.
MR. QUARBERG added that he thought 10 percent profit was
acceptable. He expressed concern about the potential for
creative accounting in administrative costs associated prior to
the net proceeds from permits. He said until these concerns are
satisfied he did not think he could support the bill. He
understood the organizations wanting to support the bill to
increase funding for these worthy nonprofits especially since
these organizations benefit the public, too.
2:44:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 161. He then passed the
gavel to Co-Chair Feige.
[HB 161 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 135 2010 DNR Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Legal question memo.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Michele Stevens Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Petersville Mine Map II.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Petersville Mine Map.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Sponsor.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Version A.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB135-DNR-MLW-2-14-14.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB161 Auction Proceeds.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Explanation of Changes U to Y.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Permit count.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 SCI Support.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Sponsor.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Support JHall.xps |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Support LOHCAC.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Version Y.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HJR 26 BOEM Alaska OCS Lease Sales.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR 26 BPC Revenue Sharing 101.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR 26 OCS States Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR 26 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR 26 Version N.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR26-LEG-SESS-02-18-14.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HB161 SCI President Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB135 AMA Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Tileston Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HJR 26 FAIR Act (S.1273).pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR 26 FAIR Act Summary.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR 26 Mayor Brower Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |