Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/20/2008 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB243 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2008
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Anna Fairclough, Co-Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 243
"An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program."
- MOVED CSHB 243(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 243
SHORT TITLE: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOULE
04/26/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/26/07 (H) CRA, RES
03/20/08 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 243.
TERI CAMERY, Planner
City & Borough of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong support of HB 243.
DAN EASTON, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with HB 243.
JOHNNY AIKEN, Director
Planning Department
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 243.
TOM OKLEASIK, Planning Director
Northwest Arctic Borough
Kotzebue, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 243, Version
C.
KIM KRUSE, Natural Resource Manager
Deputy Director
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 243.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR ANNA FAIRCLOUGH called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:09:27 AM.
Representatives Fairclough, Dahlstrom, Neuman, Olson, Cissna,
and Salmon were present at the call to order.
HB 243-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
8:09:56 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 243, "An Act relating to the Alaska
coastal management program."
8:10:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt CSHB 243, Version 25-
LS0896\C, Bullock, 2/22/08, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version C was before the committee.
8:10:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 243, provided the following testimony:
This is an effort to improve the partnership between
the State of Alaska and coastal communities under the
[Alaska] Coastal Zone Management Program. This
legislation will give coastal districts a seat at the
table in the review of proposed state and federal
resource development actions. An effective review
process that accounts for local concerns will
encourage local support for important, responsible
development projects in our coastal communities. The
bill focuses on three primary areas: clarifications
that districts may develop meaningful policies; it
creates a policy board made up jointly of resource
agencies and coastal districts; and it brings water
and air quality concerns of the Department of
Environmental Conservation back to the table.
Now, a few years ago [during the Twenty-Third Alaska
State Legislature] we passed out House Bill 191, which
did away with the coastal zone as it had been run for
years where ... local coastal districts felt that they
had a seat at the table. ... as I look forward to the
development of Alaska's resources, much of this
development is going to continue to happen in the
rural and coastal areas of Alaska. And if there's
buy-in from the local areas in bringing the agencies
and the people together as this development is being
considered, I actually think it can be expedited. And
hopefully we can stay out of the courts because that
seems to be the place that people are headed right
now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE then opined that what was done with the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) is analogous to Senate
Bill 36, regarding education funding. He pointed out that in
funding education some communities were left behind with the
district cost factors. Arguments about those went on for 10
years. "Now we're looking forward to ... continued development
of our coastal resources and we want the communities brought
back to the table to have the discussion, to be part of the
process," he opined. This issue is very important to the
coastal communities of Alaska, he reiterated.
8:15:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to what DNR hasn't done that
seems to make it necessary to have the board.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said that there will be testimony
forthcoming on that issue. He recalled that of the 40-some
proposals the Northwest Arctic Borough brought forward, only 1
was adopted. Therefore, a single agency makes it difficult.
The lack of action from DNR in regard to the implementation of
proposals resulted in the introduction of HB 243.
8:17:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to what the sponsor meant by
the statement that districts can create meaningful policies.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE reiterated that the committee will hear
from district representatives. However, as an example he
highlighted that in rural communities the development of
policies around subsistence, which isn't under consideration at
this time, is very important. He then mentioned water and air
quality issues and the development of mineral resources.
8:19:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON recalled working on earlier versions of HB
243. He mentioned that he didn't recall the term "subsistence"
on page 6, lines 2 and 5, was included in prior versions of this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE answered that the term "subsistence" was
included because it's a real issue that should be acknowledged
and addressed. In any coastal zone, [subsistence] has always
been an important issue to the local areas. Still, to have
those issues acknowledged at this level could expedite the
decision-making process, he opined. He pointed out that there
was a huge issue with regard to subsistence and the Red Dog
Mine, yet the project still moved forward. Therefore,
Representative Joule viewed [the inclusion of subsistence] as an
opportunity rather than a threat.
8:20:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to paragraph (5) on page 5, lines
28-31, and opined that the aforementioned language brings to
mind Pebble Mine. He asked if [paragraph (5)] means that the
value of Pebble Mine has to be measured as compared to Bristol
Bay fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE deferred to others with more knowledge.
8:22:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled that in 1975 in Kodiak she was
part of a community process in which there was a large town
meeting that brought together locals. She requested more
explanation regarding the different kinds of things the board
can do to bring in the far-reaching areas of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that one of the advantages of the
development of this proposed board is that it would bring much
expertise, that is balanced expertise that can be utilized by
state agencies. He said that [this proposed board] could be
advantageous to the state. In the history of North Slope
development, he recalled that "they" didn't really oppose any
development, although there may have been concerns that they
were able to work through. He recalled that it was after the
passage of House Bill 191 that there was opposition, which may
have been coincidental.
8:26:29 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH clarified that the objectives listed in AS
46.40.020 is existing language and the only change in Version C
is from "which" to "that". However, she highlighted that
Version C includes new language in Section 1, new subsections in
Section 10, and a new subsection in Section 14.
8:28:02 AM
TERI CAMERY, Planner, City & Borough of Juneau, related that the
City & Borough of Juneau strongly supports HB 243. The basic
measure outlined in this legislation is a positive step toward
restoring the integrity of the coastal management program, which
has been under heavy criticism over the last few years. This
legislation clarifies much confusion with regard to the
allowable district policies and requirements, which she
characterized as the most important thing HB 243 does. With
regard to Juneau, Juneau's original coastal management plan had
99 policies that is now down to about 12. She estimated that
the language in HB 243 would've taken 2-3 years off Juneau's
permit process. Ms. Camery opined that it's in everyone's best
interest to make the criteria for district enforceable policies
as clear as possible.
MS. CAMERY then turned to the earlier question regarding why the
proposed Alaska Coastal Policy Board is necessary. The Alaska
Coastal Policy Board is very important for the ACMP because it
provides district representation and representation from three
different agencies. The most critical reason to reestablish the
board, she opined, is that any comprehensive review of coastal
management issues will overlap in a number of areas which can't
be separated out. To have a fair and balanced review of
statewide standards, there must be broader agency participation.
She then pointed out that the proposed new board is half the
size of the previous council, which she saw as efficient. Ms.
Camery emphasized the importance of the inclusion of the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) into the process,
particularly in Juneau where there are five impaired water
bodies that are exclusively regulated by DEC. When DEC comes in
after the fact, it causes problems, particularly for the
developer. Ms. Camery said that the legislation doesn't go far
enough as it isn't a complete restoration of DEC's role.
MS. CAMERY then turned to the question regarding why this
legislation is necessary since DNR has launched its own
reevaluation program. The issues addressed in HB 243 have been
raised by the districts over and over again. She mentioned that
the Alaska Coastal District Association has drafted a letter
that outlines a list of concerns. Ms. Camery said that she
didn't see the need to wait for DNR's reevaluation as the
problems addressed by HB 243 are well-documented. Furthermore,
she said she is disturbed that DNR is opposed to SB 161 because
it seems to indicate that DNR isn't open to these proposed
changes, which are critical to achieving a balanced decision-
making process. Ms. Camery then informed the committee that the
coastal management program isn't an environmental program but
rather is a decision-making tool that brings in all the various
parties and allows the districts and agencies to have a voice.
She characterized the program as a permit coordination process
that brings in all parties and benefits the developer overall.
She noted that it's extremely rare for a project to be denied.
8:37:13 AM
DAN EASTON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, said that DEC's interest is in regard to the
changes on page 8, lines 1-3, which addresses the instances in
which [DEC] would make a consistency finding but not issuing a
permit or other form of authorization. He explained that when
DEC issues a permit or other authorization, there is public
notice and the opportunity for comment. The new language
requires that even when no permit is issued, separate public
notice and the opportunity for public comment would be held.
The department doesn't have a problem with the aforementioned,
although it could add a bit of time to the process. He related
his understanding that this new language has been highlighted as
a way to bring DEC back into the program, to which DEC is
amenable. The legislation also adds a new subsection (e) on
page 8, lines 16-20, which is problematic. New subsection (e)
requires that the coordinating agency evaluate whether air or
water discharges are consistent with ACMP standards in the
enforceable district policies. However, subsection (b) of [AS
46.40.040] clearly states that the state's air and water
standards are the exclusive enforceable policies of ACMP.
Whenever there's an air or water discharge, DEC reviews those,
which are only authorized if they comply with state air and
water standards. Therefore, the review called for under
proposed subsection (e) is something that DEC already does and
thus proposed subsection (e) creates confusion. In conclusion,
Mr. Easton acknowledged that there is concern that the coastal
districts have been adversely impacted by recent changes to
ACMP, and thus it must be addressed. He related that DEC
believes there is the opportunity for better coordination
between the DEC permitting process and the ACMP processes. Mr.
Easton related [the department's] commitment to working with the
districts to determine what improvements can be made.
8:41:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, referring to the sectional analysis,
related that proposed subsection (e) clarifies that aspects of
the air and water discharges not covered by DEC's laws or
regulations may be reviewed for consistency with statewide
standards or district policies. However, DEC retains authority
to determine a projects' consistency with its laws. Therefore,
Representative Neuman surmised that DEC retains full authority
and the language "may" doesn't mean that anyone has to do
anything.
MR. EASTON pointed out that the language used in proposed
subsection (e) is "shall", which is mandatory language. He
mentioned that DEC's attorneys might not agree with the
interpretation in the sectional analysis.
8:43:26 AM
MR. EASTON, in response to Co-Chair Fairclough, said that DEC
has no official position on HB 243 as it defers to DNR, the lead
agency.
8:44:22 AM
JOHNNY AIKEN, Director, Planning Department, North Slope
Borough, provided the following testimony:
On behalf of the North Slope Borough I would like to
speak in support of HB 243, the companion bill to SB
161. This bill goes a long way to fix the problems we
face during the required amendment process for our
coastal management plan. Because most of the
enforceable policies and designated areas we proposed
in the process ... were denied by DNR, even after
multiple attempts on our part to meet the demands of
the agency, the North Slope Borough has requested
mediation to resolve our plan revision. One of the
biggest problems we had is gaining approval of the
relatively few policies we have proposed. Enforceable
policies are the backbone of a coastal district
program, and without effective policies coastal
management has little value. The reasons used by the
last administration to deny our old policies are
difficult to understand. DNR has recently
acknowledged that approval criteria it has utilized
are more stringent than what was intended under House
Bill 191, the original 2003 legislation that
drastically amended the Alaska Coastal Management
Program [which] has thrown the program into confusion.
The bill before you would create more certainty
because it makes the enforceable policy approval
criteria more clear. The bill would also fix some of
the problems we faced with what has come to be known
as the DEC carve out. DEC would still have the final
word on all matters it regulates, but it would be at
the table with other agencies during the consistency
review process. Right now we believe there are no
provisions for comment on air and water quality issues
during the coastal management program reviews of the
Outer Continental Shelf projects. This bill fixes
that. Also, this resolves an unanticipated problem
resulting from the carve out. Currently, the North
Slope Borough cannot comment on possible effects on
subsistence from an oil spill. Bringing DEC back into
the process will allow review of air and water quality
issues not regulated by DEC. I would also like to
express support for the coastal policy board. If this
board was in place during the last few years, I don't
think we would be in mediation right now because the
board would include representatives of coastal
districts and the state resources agencies. It is
more likely to make sound decisions with widespread
support. ... I'd like to conclude testimony today by
saying that the North Slope Borough supports
responsible development. Before the Coastal
Management Program was reformed in 2003, it provided
an excellent forum to work on project-related issues.
HB 243 creates more incentives for agencies,
districts, and applicants to work together; it fixes
the problems with the DEC carve out and it clarifies
the criteria for approval of coastal district plans.
I would just like to thank the Senate Community and
Regional Affairs Committee and especially Donny Olson
for passing SB 161. I hope this committee will do the
same with HB 243 and fix the problems created by House
Bill 191. I hope that you will hear our comments and
the comments submitted by other districts. I'd like
to also thank Representative Joule for introducing
this HB 243 ... and urge you to approve HB 243.
8:50:20 AM
TOM OKLEASIK, Planning Director, Northwest Arctic Borough,
testified in support of CSHB 243, Version C. He informed the
committee that like the North Slope Borough, the Northwest
Arctic Borough has been revising its coastal management plan
since 2005 and have met all the deadlines, requirements, and
efforts requested by the agency. However, the borough hasn't
been able to receive approval of the plan, primarily due to all
the changes that have been made. He noted that although the
Northwest Arctic Borough has proposed numerous policies, only
one has been approved. Furthermore, the borough's designated
areas have also been denied. Currently, the Northwest Arctic
Borough is in the mediation process with the state, which has
taken over a year. He noted that this is the first time in the
history of ACMP that it has ever had to use the mediation
process. For many years the ACMP helped the borough assist the
state in cooperative efforts to promote responsible development,
especially by the residents most impacted in the area. The
removal of the borough's ability to establish meaningful and
enforceable policies has reduced the value of the program as
well as the opportunity to promote balanced development that
respects all Alaskans. Mr. Okleasik stated that the Northwest
Arctic Borough supports HB 243 because it believes it brings
more balance into decision making for coastal management issues
and clarifies that coastal districts can establish enforceable
policies so long as these policies address matters that aren't
adequately covered by state or federal law. The legislation
also brings balance back to the program decision making by
bringing DEC back into the ACMP consistency review process.
Furthermore, creation of the Coastal Policy Board will ensure
that the coastal districts and the resource agencies work
together on major coastal issues. Mr. Okleasik related his
belief that HB 243 will prevent many of the problems the borough
has faced over the past few years to effectively implement the
area's coastal management program and establish approval of the
revised plan. In conclusion, Mr. Okleasik reiterated the
borough's support of HB 243 as it clarifies legislative intent,
reduces complexity of the ACMP regulation, and brings more
predictability to the ACMP, which will be good for the districts
as well as the developers.
8:53:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to why DNR didn't accept any
of the Northwest Arctic Borough's recommendations.
MR. OKLEASIK answered that it was simply interpretation, which
is why the matter is going to mediation. He noted that the
borough performed all of the changes requested by DNR. However,
[the department] lacked consistency with regard to the changes
it requested because after changes would be made, the department
would specify others that lead the borough in a different
direction.
8:54:58 AM
KIM KRUSE, Natural Resource Manager, Deputy Director, Division
of Coastal and Ocean Management, Department of Natural
Resources, explained that ACMP is a state-managed program that
has been in place since the late 1970s. One of the primary
purposes of the ACMP is to provide project applicants with a
single point of contact when the project is located within a
coastal zone or requires certain state permits for other federal
authorization. The ACMP also serves as the state's voice on
federal agency activities when those activities impact the
state's coastal zone. As has been mentioned, ACMP is a network
program that attempts to balance competing state resource agency
interests, federal agency interests, local government interests,
applicants, industry interests, and other nonprofit and public
interests. The key component of ACMP, as has also been
mentioned, is the local input provided by the coastal districts
on state and federally permitted projects. She then echoed
earlier comments that the statutory changes over the past
several years have distanced many of the coastal districts.
While many of the coastal districts have challenged themselves
to meet some exceptionally difficult district planning revision
timelines, others remain disenfranchised and are actively
challenging some of the statutory changes to the program. Ms.
Kruse opined that this legislation illustrates some of the
dissatisfaction some of the coastal districts continue to have
with the current management program.
MS. KRUSE turned to DNR's proposed program reevaluation. Ms.
Kruse related that DNR's commissioner and deputy commissioners
have the administration's support for and are committed to
reevaluating the ACMP changes. She noted that the committee
should have a letter dated February 22, 2008, that outlines the
key steps and pertinent issues. Due to the perception of the
process that occurred during the past administration, this
process is very important. The importance of addressing the DEC
carve out has also been recognized. The department would like
to revisit the coastal districts' authority and ability to write
meaningful and enforceable policies. Ms. Kruse clarified that
this isn't necessarily a discretionary DNR action as it requires
either a statutory or regulatory change. This reevaluation
process will begin in July and go through December. The
important part of the evaluation is to bring in all network
parties, which is a bit different than HB 243. When
coordinating projects, the department has to also consider many
other agency and industry interests, and therefore she opined
that the reevaluation process would allow legislation that
represents the wide range and diverse interests of the entire
network to be ready for introduction in January. The department
proposes that any necessary regulations would be drafted between
May and August. Ms. Kruse reiterated the importance of the
program reevaluation and any subsequent legislation to be done
in a fashion that allows input from all interested participants.
9:00:39 AM
MS. KRUSE, turning to the legislation before the committee,
related DNR's opposition to HB 243, as currently written.
However, she said that the legislation serves to start the
dialogue and highlight key elements that DNR believes should be
reevaluated. Mr. Kruse informed the committee that DNR does
share the sponsor's goal of developing coastal district policies
that are both meaningful and effective as well as the goal of
revisiting DEC's participation in the review process. With
regard to creation of the board, as currently written the
management authority for the state's coastal management program
would transfer from the state to a newly created policy board,
which consists of four appointed public members and three
commissioners. The aforementioned, she opined, seems to create
an imbalance and transfer state authority to local decision
makers. The legislation appears to transfer many day-to-day
operations, including administering the program, setting and
approving policies, managing and approving the district planning
process, approving regulations, and accepting and managing grant
funds, to the board. Some past experience, she related,
indicates that the creation of a coastal policy board can result
in delayed decision making, duplicate authority, and is perhaps
likely not the most efficient way to manage a program. In
conclusion, Ms. Kruse requested that the committee not endorse
the language and provisions in HB 243, particularly those
addressing the coastal policy board and transferring the
operations and state management authority to the proposed board.
She reiterated that DNR does believe that in order to be
effective any proposed legislation should include input from all
network partners.
9:04:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled hearing the frustration that the
state government is far away and makes recommendations without
hearing from the locals in the impacted area. She pointed out
that the earlier-mentioned letter relates the calendar for DNR's
reevaluation process. The review process starts in June, which
is when many people are performing subsistence or industry work,
and therefore they will likely not be available to be involved.
Furthermore, although DNR's process is to result in the drafting
of legislation, there is legislation that has been drafted with
local concerns. She questioned how the [legislative] process
can be shaped in order that the impacted area can shape the
process. Representative Cissna reminded the members that they
were sent by the local communities.
9:09:24 AM
MS. KRUSE pointed out that the ACMP reviews the beginning of a
project slated for development and tries to pull in the local
piece while looking to other partners in a project and identify
key issues upfront. Once DNR's portion of the review process is
complete, the project then moves to the responsible permitting
agency. She noted that local districts have the opportunity to
submit comments and notice through those processes. One of the
unique things that has made the ACMP successful in the past is
it's one of the few programs that is a voluntary outreach.
Since the districts have chosen to participate, the districts
and local perspective have historically been a very important
part of ACMP. She acknowledged that the changes under the
Murkowski Administration have made it difficult for districts to
develop policies without duplicating state or federal policies.
Ms. Kruse expressed hope that the districts will participate in
the review process. With regard to the timeline of DNR's
reevaluation, Ms. Kruse commented that in Alaska there never
seems to be a good time to start or finish anything. She
interpreted the districts' support for HB 243 to mean that they
care, and she opined that the districts care enough to find a
way to have a representative present. Ms. Kruse offered that
DNR can assist with the reevaluation to make the program more
balanced.
9:12:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that Ms. Kruse has pointed out
why HB 243 is important legislation.
9:12:45 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH, upon determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:13:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE informed the committee that the prior board
consisted of 14 members, including 9 coastal communities and 5
state agencies. That board had more authority and no mediation.
However, since the inception of House Bill 191, there has been
at least three instances of mediation. Representative Joule
opined that as the state develops its resources, locals should
be involved in the process. One of the reasons HB 243 was
introduced was due to DNR's overreaching fashion and
nonresponsiveness to community issues. Representative Joule
said that he wants this legislation to move forward and to have
more of a consensus view regarding how to build this state. He
reiterated that the best way to do so is to involve those at the
local level. He noted that the committee should have the new
sectional analysis, which addresses some of the issues discussed
today.
9:16:59 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to the will of the committee
with regard to hearing this legislation next Tuesday. She noted
that she and Co-Chair LeDoux won't have a chance to meet and
discuss the legislation. She further noted that legislation
sponsored by Representative Gatto is on the schedule for
Thursday. She then asked if the committee wants to meet on
Tuesday.
9:18:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related her preference to meet on
Thursday in order that the co-chairs may talk and in order that
she be able to participate. She related that she won't be
present Tuesday morning.
9:18:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that although she's scheduled to
attend a series of constituent meetings, she's willing to change
her plans to be present on Tuesday morning as there are only
three to four weeks left in this session.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH clarified that the issue is that she and Co-
Chair LeDoux won't have time to discuss the legislation, which
Co-Chair LeDoux didn't hear. Furthermore, Co-Chair LeDoux
represents a coastal community and thus she may want to weigh in
on HB 243. She also noted that Representative Neuman had
expressed concerns and although she thought she had addressed
those, she hasn't discussed them with him.
9:20:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON announced that he is going to call for a
vote on HB 243 because it's very important legislation and
waiting means that the legislation won't be heard until next
Thursday. "I hate seeing it lose a week for obvious reasons,"
he said.
9:21:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report CSHB 243, Version 25-
LS0896\C, Bullock, 2/22/08, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH objected.
9:21:29 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Salmon, Dahlstrom,
Olson, and Cissna voted in favor of reporting CSHB 243, Version
25-LS0896\C, Bullock, 2/22/08, from committee. Representative
Fairclough voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 243(CRA) was
reported out of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.
9:22:09 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:22:15 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|