Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/01/2016 05:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB247 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 1, 2016
5:30 p.m.
5:30:11 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Kawasaki
ALSO PRESENT
Janak Mayer, Chairman and Chief Technologist, enalytica;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Nikos Tsafos, President and Chief Analyst, enalytica;
SUMMARY
HB 247 TAX;CREDITS;INTEREST;REFUNDS;O & G
HB 247 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 247
"An Act relating to confidential information status
and public record status of information in the
possession of the Department of Revenue; relating to
interest applicable to delinquent tax; relating to
disclosure of oil and gas production tax credit
information; relating to refunds for the gas storage
facility tax credit, the liquefied natural gas storage
facility tax credit, and the qualified in-state oil
refinery infrastructure expenditures tax credit;
relating to the minimum tax for certain oil and gas
production; relating to the minimum tax calculation
for monthly installment payments of estimated tax;
relating to interest on monthly installment payments
of estimated tax; relating to limitations for the
application of tax credits; relating to oil and gas
production tax credits for certain losses and
expenditures; relating to limitations for
nontransferable oil and gas production tax credits
based on oil production and the alternative tax credit
for oil and gas exploration; relating to purchase of
tax credit certificates from the oil and gas tax
credit fund; relating to a minimum for gross value at
the point of production; relating to lease
expenditures and tax credits for municipal entities;
adding a definition for "qualified capital
expenditure"; adding a definition for "outstanding
liability to the state"; repealing oil and gas
exploration incentive credits; repealing the
limitation on the application of credits against tax
liability for lease expenditures incurred before
January 1, 2011; repealing provisions related to the
monthly installment payments for estimated tax for oil
and gas produced before January 1, 2014; repealing the
oil and gas production tax credit for qualified
capital expenditures and certain well expenditures;
repealing the calculation for certain lease
expenditures applicable before January 1, 2011; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
5:31:23 PM
JANAK MAYER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST, ENALYTICA,
relayed that he had acted as an advisor to the state for
the past several years.
NIKOS TSAFOS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ANALYST, ENALYTICA (via
teleconference), briefly provided information about his
role in oil and gas advising.
Mr. Mayer introduced a PowerPoint presentation, "HB 247:
Key Issues and Assessment" dated April 1, 2016 (copy on
file). Headdressed the contents of the presentation on
Slide 2:
AGENDA
· HB 247: Summary of Key Issues
· North Slope: Fiscal Regime Overview
· North Slope: Changes Proposed under HB 247
· Cook Inlet: key issues and Proposed Changes
· HB 247: Summary of Key Issues
APPENDIX
5:33:47 PM
Mr. Mayer turned to Slide 3. He summarized the proposed
changes of the original bill by saying that the bill had
not sought to fundamentally redefine Alaska's fiscal
system, but had offered a broad series of potential changes
that when taken together would have a major impact in
different ways on different companies. He relayed that some
of the changes could be characterized as fixes to things
that were genuine and debatable problems, such as the
"hardness of the gross minimum tax floor" and whether the
state needed to have limits on refundable credits. He
stated that other issues surrounded incremental revenue
raising; how things were calculated annually, versus
monthly, and how things like the gross value at the point
of production were calculated. He thought that the biggest
concern when having these conversations was to recognize
that stability was the most important aspect of any fiscal
regime. He expressed concern from an industry perspective
for the changes proposed in the original legislation,
referring to the tactics in the bill as "salami tactics."
He explained the going about fiscal regime change "slice by
slice" left it unclear where the changes would end.
5:36:49 PM
Representative Guttenberg observed that the state, as the
sovereign and partner with industry, should have a
fiduciary responsibility to observe the nature of credits
on a regular basis, particularly in times of volatility. He
stated that it was important to examine whether the tax
credits were prudent in times of fiscal volatility. He
remarked on an earlier statement that the legislature would
not be looking at the credits if oil prices were higher.
5:38:54 PM
Mr. Mayer did not completely disagree with the remarks. He
elaborated that in the current environment no one could
look at the size of the credit outlay, compared to incoming
revenue, and not want to implement some kind of change. He
felt that incremental revenue raising, like changing things
from annual to monthly calculations, were tweaks that would
not change the fundamental regime structure, as opposed to
the deep and clear-cut policy rationale considered in the
legislation.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the oil industry was
laying off contractors due to the volatility of the market.
He felt that there were parallels in the challenges faced
by the state and industry.
Mr. Mayer felt that it was important to establish a balance
between short-term help and long-term risk.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Craig Johnson
was present in the committee room.
Representative Wilson asked whether the conversation
surrounding SB 21, and oil tax credits, would be happening
if the price of oil had remained high.
Mr. Mayer answered that many things come into sharp focus
when money becomes scarce. He said that the price of oil
had led to the conversation about Cook Inlet Tax Credits.
He relayed that the amount of those credits were greater
than they had been several years ago, and the lack of
revenue had made discussion about those credits more
difficult.
Representative Wilson was concerned about the reason for
the conversation. She referred to earlier comments that the
passage of SB 21 had been to incentivize oil coming down
the pipeline. She queried the primary reason for the
changes proposed in SB 247.
5:43:04 PM
Mr. Mayer replied that questions of the hardness of the tax
floor and limits to refundable credits were conversations
that were occurring because of the drop in oil prices. He
admitted that much less attention would be drawn on these
issues were the price of oil higher.
Representative Wilson was not sure whether the $100 million
would have been available under another regime.
Representative Gara asked whether there was any other oil
producing state in the U.S. that paid out as much in
credits as Alaska. He noted that FY 15 through FY 18,
Alaska paid out more in credits that it had received in
Production Taxes.
5:45:35 PM
Mr. Mayer replied that he could not think of a U.S.
comparison. He could not think of one that had a net profit
tax. He shared that locations outside of the U.S. that had
substantial net-profit tax regimes tended to have their
equivalent of a net-operating loss system be deferred
liabilities of the tax system, rather than things that were
directly reimbursed. He thought there were reasons that
Alaska had made the decisions it had, and that there would
be consequences to try to change the regime, but the
question of timing of cash flow was a particular issue for
the state at the moment in a way that it was not for other
regimes.
Representative Gara asked whether there was another
jurisdiction in the world where a higher percentage of oil
revenue was paid back to industry in oil tax credits.
Mr. Mayer answered that Alaska had a unique and hybrid
fiscal regime, he could not think of a comparison.
Representative Gara restated his question asking whether
there was any other regime in the world that paid out as
high of a percentage in cash payments to companies compared
to the oil revenue that it took in.
Mr. Mayer responded that he did not know. He would be
surprised to see another location where a contrast was as
large as the one in Alaska.
Vice-Chair Saddler corrected that the state was not paying
more in credits than it was receiving in oil revenue. He
said that the production tax was less than the oil tax
credits that were paid out, but that the royalties,
corporate income tax, and property taxes needed to be taken
into account.
5:49:20 PM
Representative Munoz hoped that Mr. Mayer could advise the
committee on the problems with the current tax system. She
relayed that potential problems were often not considered
when tax systems were crafted by the legislature. She noted
that issues with Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES)
had not been fully vetted in never anticipating $40/bbl.
oil. She asserted that her intent was not to try and get
more money for the state, but to address where the problems
were in the current tax policy.
Mr. Mayer agreed to highlight problems with the system
proposed by the bill. He continued to address Slide 3,
which offered the fiscal system feature under the status
quo, under the original bill, the impact from the proposal
in the original bill, and under the committee substitute
out of the House Resources Committee:
Fiscal System Feature
Per-Barrel Credit and Gross Minimum Tax
Status Quo
Tax liabilities assessed annually, smoothing impact of
price volatility.
HB 247 Proposed Change
Calculate $/bbl. credit and Gross Minimum Tax
interaction monthly.
Impact
State would have netted additional ~$100mm in 2014
under this system.
HRES CS HB247
Maintain status quo - tax liabilities assessed
annually
Fiscal System Feature
Gross Value Reduction and Net Operating Loss
Credit
Status Quo
Gross Value Reduction artificially reduces Production
Tax Value, and NOL credit is based on PTV, so 35% NOL
credit can be given on loss greater than actual loss -
effectively more than 35% support for spending.
HB 247 Proposed Change
Assess NOL credit on actual loss (not including GVR),
so
NOL is for 35% of actual loss, and all producers have
35% support for spending.
Impact
Net impact is to reduce state support for all spending
to 35%. Questions exist about whether >35% spending
support for GVR oil was deliberate incentive or
unintended consequence under SB21.
HRES CS HB247
Adopt proposed fix to NOL calculation for GVR-eligible
production
Fiscal System Feature
Gross Minimum Tax
Status Quo
4% rate, binding for legacy output if net value is
positive. If net value is negative, NOL can reduce
taxes below floor. "New," GVR-eligible production can
take to zero due to $5/bbl. and small producer credit
HB 247 Proposed Change
Harden floor for all production: NOL credits can't
take below floor for legacy, and NOL, small Producer
and $5/bbl. can't take below floor for GVR eligible
production. Increase rate from 4% to 5%
Impact
State revenues rise at low oil prices. For many new
fields, taxes rise from 0 to 5% at current prices. For
legacy production, taxes rise at time when value is
negative.
HRES CS HB247
Maintain status quo - no further floor hardening
5:57:44 PM
Mr. Mayer turned to Slide 4, which continued the summary of
fiscal system features under the status quo, under the
original HB 247, and under the HRES CS HB247:
Fiscal System Feature
Net Operating Loss credit reimbursement
Status Quo
Producers with >50 mb/d production must carry NOL
forward, others can be reimbursed by the state
Representative Gara spoke to the net operating loss. He
asked what was meant by rolling forward of the operating
loss.
Mr. Mayer answered that it was the same as almost any
income based tax was carried forward. He said that the loss
could be applied to the following years taxes, and however
many years into he future, until there was enough liability
to deduct against a current year. Expenses that could not
be deducted in a current year could be deducted in the
future.
Representative Gara understood that bigger producers could
roll forward the net operating loss as long as they had the
tax liability and did not go below zero. He wondered
whether the net operating loss could take a larger fields
tax below zero.
Mr. Mayer answered that anyone producing more than 50,000
/bbl. could not go below zero, but would be forced to roll
the credits forward. He added that producers could choose
to be paid out in cash, rather than rolling credits
forward.
HB 247 Proposed Change
$25mm per company annual limit on reimbursement.
Companies with annual revenues > $10bn must carry
forward, regardless of production level.
Impact
Limit substantially increases capital needs for new
developments; and if effective July 2016 would have
major negative impact on developments underway. Raises
hurdle/break-even price for projects by $5 to $15/bbl.
HRES CS HB247
$200mm per company annual limit on reimbursement.
6:00:58 PM
Mr. Mayer continued to address Slide 4.
Fiscal System Feature
Gross Value at Point of Production calculation
Status Quo
GVPP is calculated by subtracting transportation costs
from sale price. If transportation costs for some
production exceed price, GVPP is negative.
HB 247 Proposed Change
GVPP cannot go below zero
Impact
Could limit deductibility of some transport costs.
Particularly likely to be an issue at current prices
if applied on a per-unit or per field basis.
HRES CS HB247
Maintain status quo
Mr. Mayer discussed high tariffs and the underutilization
of pipe built to a certain capacity; this could create
streams with negative GVPP, and the costs of those
pipelines would be written off slope-wide. How the feature
would be applied of concern, which had resulted in the
retention of the status quo in the current version of the
bill.
6:04:12 PM
Mr. Mayer discussed the final point on Slide 4:
Fiscal System Feature
Cook Inlet Tax Credits
Status Quo
25 percent Net Operating Loss credit, 20 percent
Qualified Capital Expenditure credit, 40 percent Well
Lease Expenditure credit; up to 65 percent gov't
support for spending and minimal production tax
HB 247 Proposed Change
Repeal QCE and WLS credits effective July 1 2016,
leaving only 25 percent NOL credit
Impact
Cook Inlet cre4dit regime is clearly unsustainable in
current environment; repeal in present year may have
major impacts on capital commitments already made, and
the viability of producers who have made those
commitments.
Representative Wilson asked why the credits were
unsustainable.
Mr. Mayer replied that the answer would become apparent
when the question of revenues and expenditures was address
in future slides.
Representative Gara asked about GVPP calculation. He
understood that the governor's proposal was to not let the
floor fall below the Gross Minimum Tax Rate. He wondered
where the GVPP calculation entered the equation.
Mr. Mayer responded reiterated that a pipe that was built
for a high capacity would pay a high tariff regardless of
the value of what was being transported through it. He said
that, in net, across the entire North Slope this was not an
issue, but that it had been agreed that all transportation
costs could be deducted.
6:09:59 PM
Representative Gara suggested that the gross value was the
value of the oil, minus minor costs. He hypothesized that a
company paying the minimum tax, whose $30 transportation
costs cancelled their $30 /bbl. gross oil, would pay no
gross minimum tax.
Mr. Mayer responded that the question was really about
whether or not the transportations costs could be deducted
in-full.
Representative Gara thought that if the number was zero, 4
percent of zero would be zero.
Mr. Mayer explained that it was a question of whether a
company would be able to deduct in full all of its
transportation costs, or whether because one little segment
was particularly expensive and could only be partly
deducted.
HRES CS HB247
Reduce NOL credit to 10 percent, keep 20 percent QCE
credit, reduce WLE credit to 20 percent by 2018.
Mr. Mayer turned to Slide 5, which illustrated a history of
credit payouts. Refunded credits reached a new high in FY
15; refundable credits in FY 15 reached $628 million, the
highest point ever. In both 2014 and 2015, the majority of
these credits went to non-North Slope producers. Under
DOR's current forecast, credits would exceed $1.3 billion
across FY 16 and FY 17.
Representative Wilson asserted that you could not look at
the tax credits alone, and then say that the state was
paying too much or not enough, because all of the tax
credits were connected to jobs and other revenue that could
not be seen.
Mr. Mayer answered that on the North Slope credits were
integral to the way that the tax system worked. He said
that there were credits that did not show up in the chart
on the slide, which were credits that were taken against
tax payer liability (the dollar per barrel credits). He
stated that the credits reflected in the chart on the slide
were about the Net Operating Loss Credit, and that the
conversation should be about whether the credits were
deducted against future taxes, or have them paid out in
cash. He said that in net, over time, the results were the
same; the issue was a question of timing and how the timing
worked. He relayed that the reason was to make the impact
of the system the same for both large and small companies.
He asserted that Cool Inlet differed because there was no
profit based production tax there, no tax on oil, and a
minimum gross tax on gas. He asserted that credits on the
North Slope were not intended to incentivize, but were part
of the way the overall system worked and operated; the
situation in Cook Inlet was the opposite. He related that
credits in Cook Inlet were intended to incentives, which
posed the question of what should be incentivized.
6:15:25 PM
Mr. Mayer moved to Slide 6, which discussed North Slope
versus Cook Inlet Credits:
BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTH SLOPE AND COOK INLET:
· The majority of refundable credits go to Cook Inlet
producers
· Cook Inlet production, however, generates limited
direct revenue for the state
· Credits on the North Slope are more limited but also
a far smaller fraction of total value generated
6:17:49 PM
Mr. Mayer stated that looking back at 2015 revealed that
the overall oil and gas fiscal system had yielded
substantial revenue. The system had been designed to be
more about royalties, which were regressive, and in the
current price environment had provided the bulk of the
revenue. He noted that 2015 had seen approximately $1.5
billion in unrestricted revenue. He said that most of the
revenue had come from the North Slope. He pointed out to
the committee that the orange represented the royalties and
settlements plus federal (restricted), the yellow was
royalties (unrestricted), the green was property tax, the
purple was corporate income tax, the grey was production
tax, and the light grey was credits for potential purchase.
He highlighted the difference between Cook Inlet and the
North Slope. He felt that it was important to examine where
royalties came from, and where the credits were paid out,
in order to create reform that would make the system more
sustainable in the future. He offered some background in
the working of the North Slope oil structure.
Mr. Mayer turned to Slide 8, which discussed gross versus
net taxes. He spoke of the difference between gross and net
taxes, and the hardening and raising of the minimum floor.
He stressed that base rates were a net rate; the 4 percent
under the governor's proposal was a gross rate. He asserted
that gross taxes were highly regressive. He walked through
an anecdote as to how regressive taxes worked.
6:21:51 PM
Representative Pruitt asked whether any other regime had
tried to take advantage of both gross and net taxes
combined.
Mr. Mayer replied that most of the U.S. was in a pure gross
tax world, while Norway, Australia, and the United Kingdom
were in a net tax world. He relayed that hybrid system did
exist, but were uncommon. He discussed the advantages and
disadvantages of gross and net taxes:
Gross taxes
Less volatile, shift risk to private sector
Simple and easy to administer
High/low government take at low/high prices
Disadvantages marginal investment
Net taxes
More volatile revenues for government
Harder to administer
Efficient-do not distort decision-making
Enable investment across commodity cycle
6:27:21 PM
Mr. Mayer continued to address Slide 8. He said that
volatile revenues were more easily weathered when an
economy was diversified and when a substantial sovereign
wealth fund was available. He noted that because net taxes
were harder to administer they could result in backlogs of
audits.
Representative Wilson wondered what effect the audit
backlog was having on assessing how well the credits were
working. She assumed that the compounded interest was based
on the backlogged audits.
Mr. Mayer answered that the backlog was not an ideal
situation. He believed that everyone hoped for certainty in
the equation and reducing the backlog was essential.
Representative Wilson asked about interest rates in the
bill (simple versus compound). She wondered how big of an
issue the compound interest issue would be.
Mr. Mayer replied that compound interest made a huge
difference over a period of time, and that simple interest
was an anomaly through the drafting process and not the
original intent of SB 21.
Representative Wilson argued that the audit backlogs were
the states fault. She wondered whether any other states
allowed for audits to fall so far behind, and then charged
companies compounded interest.
Mr. Mayer lamented that he did not have the details. He
noted that this was a challenge only faced by net profit
systems.
6:31:41 PM
Representative Gara interjected that the industry had never
asked for additional auditors to handle the workload, and
that attempts to add auditors had been defeated in
committee. He mentioned taxing high on the gross at the low
end, and high of profits at the high end. He asserted that
the state's gross tax was much lower than other
jurisdictions, and Alaska's profits tax at high prices was
modest or lower than other jurisdictions.
Mr. Mayer replied that the idea of the slide was to
illustrate that all fiscal systems were a balance. He felt
that the state was unique in its hybrid between the gross
royalty and the net profit tax. He stressed that Alaska
could not be both Norway and North Dakota.
Representative Munoz spoke to the 4 percent gross tax. She
asked whether the present system was reasonable or should
it be solidified.
Mr. Mayer answered that there was a slide to address the
question.
Co-Chair Thompson asked members to hold their questions
until the end of the presentation.
Mr. Mayer moved to Slide 9, which discussed an overview of
the North Slope and offered details of cash flow taxes
using a highly simplified cash flow and income example. The
crux of the slide was to illustrate the difference between
cash flow and income. Alaska's net profit tax was a cash
flow tax and not an income tax. Cash flow taxes were more
efficient and more volatile. The purpose of a net tax is to
minimize distorting impact on investment, which is best
achieved by making the state's fiscal cost/benefit as close
as possible to the equity investor, and should result in
outflows during development, receipts during investment.
6:39:59 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised that Alaska was at the 25
percent cash flow line; if the state operated under the
example tax system it would experience big losses, with no
counter income. He highlighted the importance of observing
the figures after the first 3 years, and thought those
projections could inspire the movement of the bill.
Mr. Mayer addressed Slide 10, which offered an intellectual
genesis of the tax system currently in place. He spoke to
the original 2006 proposal, which began with a paper penned
by Dr. Pedro van Meurs. The point of production tax (PPT)
as proposed by Dr. van Meurs reflected a 25 percent flat
cash flow tax, a credit for net operating losses (NOLs),
and a 20 percent capital credits. He relayed that had the
exact proposed system been put into place the state would
have had a constant 45 percent government support for
spending, both for new and incumbent players alike. He
added that there would be a statewide floor of zero as the
credits would be tradable rather than reimbursable.
6:43:09 PM
Mr. Mayer stated that the issue was what happened when oil
prices were low (slide 10) and how would the state handle
the timing of the various cash flows. He elaborated on the
tradable versus the transferrable credits. He pointed out
the impact of the 20 percent capital credit at $80/bbl.,
would move the royalty line down. He said that even without
the any of the questions of the progressivity that existed
under ACES, the system was progressive because the 20
percent of the capital fluctuated with the price of oil. He
believed that the system was intended to balance regressive
and progressive elements. He noted that at prices above
$60/bbl., the royalties and the net tax remained parallel.
6:46:30 PM
Representative Edgmon referred to a point made by Vice-
Chair Saddler earlier. He referred to Slide 9. He asked
whether the net operating loss was incorporated into the
example.
Mr. Mayer turned to Slide 10 and reminded the committee
that the chart on the right was a snapshot in time. He said
that that zero line on the chart assumed that any net
operating loss had to be carried forward into the future.
He hypothesized the 25 percent net tax going negative,
which would be the same thing as having a 25 percent net
operating loss credit, would result in the tax after
credits being negative.
Representative Edgmon asked if he could apply the same
logic to Slide 9.
Mr. Mayer replied in the affirmative.
6:48:56 PM
Mr. Mayer moved to Slide 11, which spoke to the role of the
NOL. He stressed that the idea of the NOL credit was to
equalize the tax system impact across large and small
companies. He repeated the cash flow example; the incumbent
could deduct spending against their liability at the
marginal tax rate; a company without a liability would be
paid out a credit, which would result in that much less
revenue to the state. He noted that the issue would not
exist with an income tax because no one would be able to
immediately write the losses off against their taxes. He
said that the existence of the NOL was the corollary of the
fact that it was a cash flow tax that affected people
equally.
Representative Wilson asked what the impact from asking all
companies to carry forward their credits would be on the
state.
Mr. Mayer answered that there was a slide later to address
the question.
6:51:56 PM
Mr. Mayer continued with Slide 11. He noted that the
original proposal would have enabled tradable, and not
refundable, credits with the idea that the state would
never get to the point where it was spending more on
credits than on revenue coming in because the credit would
be self-limiting. He stated that in reality many of the
credits sold for much less than the face-value of the tax
benefit, as a result, credits were made refundable by the
treasury.
Mr. Mayer turned to Slide 12, which offered a comparison of
the 2006 proposal and ACES. He spoke to the chart at the
right; the green line represented the 2006 proposal and
showed that the impact of the flat 25 percent tax rate, the
20 percent capital credit brought down the liability, and
at $60/bbl. there would be no liability in order to
counteract the regressive royalty. He stated that ACES took
the basic structure of the 2006 proposal, but instead of a
flat 25 percent added progressivity on top. He noted the
introduction of the 4 percent gross minimum floor, and he
discussed the system under $80/bbl. He concluded that,
broadly speaking, in the same way that the 35 percent base
rate under SB 21 could go below 35 percent, the 25 percent
base rate under ACES could go above and below 25 percent,
in both cases the effective credit was designed to create
the progressive component. He relayed that the 20 percent
Capital Credit would bring the effective tax rate down to
zero under ACES, under SB 21 it was the Dollar Per Barrel
Production Credit that was serving the same function.
6:55:45 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler requested to hear the high points of the
presentation. He asked Mr. Mayer to pick the most important
points in his presentation in order to provide the
committee the information it needed more efficiently as it
had been a long day.
Representative Gara suggested that the testifier could
testify again before a better rested committee.
Representative Munoz asked whether there would be a
continuation of the presentation the following day.
Co-Chair Thompson responded that there were other items on
the agenda for the following day.
HB 247 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
6:57:03 PM
AT EASE
7:00:36 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the committee would recess
until 8:30 a.m. the following day.
7:01:08 PM
RECESSED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 247 enalytica, HFIN April 1, 2016.pdf |
HFIN 4/1/2016 5:00:00 PM |
HB 247 |