Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/14/2012 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB292 | |
| HB269 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 292 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 269-COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITIES
3:31:06 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 269, "An Act relating to the amendment of a
declaration that creates a common interest community."
3:31:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, sponsor, stated that HB 269
relates to the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA) that
typically applies to condominium projects. She explained that
the CIOA was passed in 1986, based on the Federal Uniform Common
Interest Ownership Act (FUCIOA). Since then new provisions have
been added to the FUCIOA and the state's act needs to be
updated.
3:32:16 PM
JAMES WALDO, Staff, Representative Lindsey Holmes, stated that
the bill is somewhat simple, but the concept is somewhat
complex. He reported that the Uniform Common Interest Ownership
Act (UCIOA) in state law is currently outdated; however,
provisions have been updated in the FUCIOA. He explained
problems can arise during construction of housing projects that
can stall the project. He related a scenario in which a
developer plans to build certain units under an established
timeline; however, if the time runs out before the units are
completed numerous people are affected. The developer would not
be able to sell uncompleted units and the lender would not be
repaid until the units are finished. He offered that HB 269
takes the updated provision contained in FUCIOA and enacts it
into state law. He said this will address the problem
developers are experiencing. He clarified that the language in
HB 269 is modeled after one provision of the federal act and
will fix what could be a big problem in the state.
3:34:09 PM
MR. WALDO explained that the current UCIOA was written at a time
when the economy was fast-paced, but the economy has slowed down
in terms of construction. Thus the timeframes which were
compressed when the economy was booming worked well; however,
the timeframes don't work as well now that the economy has
slowed down. Currently, the UCIOA allows a developer to extend
the timeline to complete the project so long as the condominium
association votes in favor of extending the timeline, but it
requires a unanimous vote in favor by the condominium
association. He said that obtaining unanimous consent is
difficult to achieve.
3:34:58 PM
MR. WALDO pointed out that if one person out of 400 condominium
association members votes no to extend the timeline it would
halt a project and could adversely affect the developer who must
carry the units not yet built or finished. Additionally, once a
project is stalled, workers are not paid and the bank may become
concerned about the overall financial stability of the project.
He stated that the remedy in the FUCIOA would reduce the
percentage from 100 to 80 percent of the condominium
association's members in order to approve timeline extensions.
This would still show significant support, but represents an
achievable threshold. In Alaska, some tenants travel to warmer
states during the winter to places such as Arizona so it is
difficult to contact them for approval. He reiterated that
reducing the necessary approval to 80 percent of the condominium
association members can help keep the project moving forward at
the right pace. He concluded that HB 269 contains the 80
percent threshold.
3:36:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the term
"development rights."
MR. WALDO explained the development rights process, such that a
developer must adhere to a declaration when a condominium
project is developed. This document outlines the timeline for
the development of the project and during that timeline the
developer has development rights to continue to build units;
however, when the timeline runs out, the development rights
expire and need to be extended. This bill addresses this by
changing the vote from unanimous to 80 percent approval of the
condominium owners.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification on
special development rights as opposed to development rights.
MR. WALDO said he was unsure.
3:38:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT recalled that a super majority of 80
percent of the owners would be necessary. He pointed out the
sponsor statement identifies 67 percent as a majority of the
owners.
MR. WALDO explained that the 67 percent threshold listed in
Section 1 refers to current law; however the main thrust of the
bill is in Section 3. He referred to page 2, lines 15-16 of
Section 3, which requires at least 80 percent of the votes of
the association, including 80 percent of the votes allocated to
units not owned by the declarant. He clarified that the
declarant is the developer so the provision essentially requires
80 percent of the people living in the condominium must vote in
support of a time extension in order to extend the time limit
for project completion.
3:39:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the reason a condominium
association would want to extend development rights.
MR. WALDO answered that a developer may initially plan on
building a certain number of condominiums in each unit, but only
three are completed during the timeline. This would result in
essentially a vacant lot adjacent to the finished condominium
units. He imagined a condominium association and developer
would negotiate the extension process. He deferred to the
developers to more fully define the reasons.
3:40:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether HB 269 is limited to new
construction or if it would apply to conversion of rental
properties to condominiums. He envisioned some units would be
sold and others would be rented.
MR. WALDO deferred to Mr. McCollum to more fully answer. He
surmised that converting rental units to condominiums would form
a common interest community, which would fall under the
governing statutes. He suggested that this bill would apply,
but it may depend on how the conversion is set up, but he was
unsure.
3:41:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a scenario in which an apartment
is being converted to condominiums, but some leases would extend
over a period of years. He asked if the owner sold two units
whether the two unit owners could vote to extend the rights.
Further, he asked whether the owner could execute an extension
without the consent of two condominium owners if the developer
owns 67 percent of the building. He reiterated his question is
whether the building owner could execute the change without the
consent of the two condominium owners.
MR. WALDO related his understanding that the scenario is that an
owner plans to convert a building to condominiums and creates a
declaration to form a common interest community with less than
the total units occupied. He answered that in that situation 80
percent of the owners occupying the units must agree to extend
the timeline for special development rights. Thus the owners of
both units would need to agree.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood the scenario just described
would pose a problem since one person could potentially hold up
the development.
3:43:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification of why the UCIOA
initially set the threshold at 100 percent.
MR. WALDO said this provision dates back to the 1980s when the
UCIOA was written. He stated that the UCIOA group quickly
realized this presents a problem since unanimous consent is
nearly impossible to meet. In 1996, the group released
amendments to the UCIOA that changed it from unanimous to 80
percent and in 2008 the most recent release of the FUCIOA also
included the amendments.
3:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether most other states have
subscribed to the changes in the FUCIOA.
MR. WALDO responded that only a small number of states have
wholly adopted the UCIOA, but he has not researched the number
of states that have adopted some portions of the act.
3:45:43 PM
JAMES H. MCCOLLUM, Attorney, Law Offices of James H. McCollum,
introduced himself.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what types of situations would
require a developer's timeline to be extended.
MR. MCCOLLUM responded that typically long before a developer
performs some construction the developer would declare the
additional units. Thus a property could be partially developed,
including foundations in place, holes, or ditches. In some
instances the property will be in some stage of development, but
units have not been declared. If the project timeline is not
extended, the condominium association would not just inherit
land, but sometimes dangerous grounds. In most instances the
biggest problem in acquiring 100 percent of the owners' approval
is not due to opposition to the time extension, but getting
people to address the issues. He related one issue is that
property under development is taxed to the developer, but when
development rights expire the unit owners will be taxed.
Additionally, if the improvements have not been constructed the
condominium association must complete the remaining improvements
from their budget and expenses shared by the association would
be assessed to a smaller number of people. He offered that
negotiations frequently occur and the association may support
extending the timeline provided the developer adds a flower
garden or swing set. He acknowledged some negotiations occur
during this process.
3:49:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if anything would prevent a
developer from creating a large 50-year window. He asked
whether the problem has resulted from the developers who have
wrongly estimated timeframes or if another dynamic is in place.
MR. MCCOLLUM answered that in addition to the CIOA related to
condominiums, the set of regulations put forth by the Federal
National Mortgage Association (FNMA) commonly known as Fannie
Mae, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known
as Freddie Mac, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development - also known as HUD - and Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) apply. Years ago, the financing agencies
would not approve projects beyond five to seven years without
special consideration. He said it's only been the past few
years since Fannie Mae has abandoned that approach. Currently,
projects have relatively short development times. He offered
his belief that if someone put a 50 or even 20 year timeframe
for development it may scare off financing agencies even though
technically it is not a specific requirement. He said they want
to see a plan of development that will occur since it affects
the value of their collateral to not have construction going on
indefinitely.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER characterized the process as attempting
to reach a sweet spot.
MR. MCCOLLUM agreed.
3:51:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification of the reason for
the 100-percent threshold on extensions.
MR. MCCOLLUM responded he is on list serve of condominium
lawyers that serve as advisors to the uniform act. He related
his understanding everyone realized after the fact that the
requirement set up an impossible situation and simply did not
make sense. He pointed out one oddity is that under current
law, 80 percent of the condominium owners can terminate the
condominium or sell a portion of the common interest, but it
requires 100 percent agreement to extend the development rights.
Additionally, the reality is that the requirement being set at
100 percent has the effect of saying it can't be done. He
recapped that the changes to reduce the requirement from 100 to
80 percent was made almost without comment since the original
requirement was not a reasonable or workable position. He
reiterated that if the whole project could be terminated with 80
percent it didn't make sense to require 100 percent just to
extend the right to complete the project.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER acknowledged that achieving agreement can
be problematic. He pointed out his condominium association had
difficulty determining simple things like what kind of flowers
to plant.
3:53:13 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if this bill would apply to reconstruction for
situations in which a significant amount of damage occurred to a
major condominium and had to rebuild from the ground up. He
recalled a specific project in Anchorage was hamstrung by
ownership issues.
MR. MCCOLLUM answered no, that reconstruction is covered by
other sections of the law. He said he was familiar with the
specific project in question. He recalled the project was
underinsured and the owners were not happy that the other owners
received brand new units, yet all condominium owners were being
assessed substantial assessments; however, this situation is not
governed by this section of statutes.
3:54:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned whether the bill would affect
contractors or developers converting apartments to condominiums.
MR. MCCOLLUM answered that it would depend on whether the
conversion was done in stages or not. Most conversion projects
have been smaller four-plex to six-plex projects that have not
involved reserving development rights since all four or six
units are converted at once. He described the process for a
project that involved an apartment building with 10 units on
each floor and the developer wanted to create 10 condominiums at
a time. Fannie Mae rules require the conversion be done one
floor at a time so the developer would create 10 units on the
upper floor and reserve the right to declare the other units at
a later date. Further, this type of development doesn't create
significant problems since the apartments are already built. As
the deadline approaches the developer would simply declare the
units and not need any time extension. This would simply
accelerate the time for the conversion, but the units exist.
This differs from new development projects the bill remedies
since the physical structure does not yet exist with proposed
new construction.
3:56:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a scenario in which the developer
has 10 apartment units and would like to convert them to five
larger units and sell them as condominiums.
MR. MCCOLLUM answered that if the building is vacant, without
tenants, it is not likely the developer would record the
condominium documents until the work was finished. He related
the developer would then declare all five units. In a practical
sense it would be impossible for the developer to declare units
or reserve development rights since the units must be
substantially complete before they are declared. He reiterated
the developer could not record the conversion of 10 units to
five condominiums until construction was completed so it would
not constitute a development rights issue.
3:57:49 PM
MR. MCCOLLUM characterized development rights as a very narrow
term. He said development rights would allow the developer to
add units and withdraw property. He said, "That is it. It is
very, very narrow. In most cases you are adding units." Thus
the process of converting units to condominiums would not be
considered creating the units pursuant to development rights.
Instead, the developer would create the condominiums by
recording the declaration. He explained the typical process a
developer would use to develop units on two floors. The
developer could reserve the right to create the five units on
each additional floor, but would not record the amendment until
such time as the construction was complete. Theoretically, if a
developer needed additional time to reconstruct the units it
could fall under these statutes and the developer would need to
approach the condominium association to extend the development
rights to create the units.
3:59:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on development
rights. He asked whether "withdrawing property" is shrinking
the footprint and use less real estate.
MR. MCCOLLUM answered that is correct. He defined the term
withdrawing property as a right granted under the act that is
reserved under the declaration. He related a scenario, such
that if 10 acres of a 20-acre parcel is built out, the developer
could withdraw 10 acres. The only limitation would be for the
developer to re-class the 10 acres. He said that sometimes it
is feasible to do so and sometimes it is not. He recalled an
Anchorage project that involved a large parcel. The developer
had planned to build 600 condominiums; however, the developer
did not finish the improvements and defaulted on the property
which went into foreclosure. He described his involvement. He
reported that he has worked with the Municipality of Anchorage,
the developer, and the lender to withdraw a major portion of the
parcel for further development, in part, because the market did
not support the original development plan. He stated that the
developer has been considering building senior housing rather
than building typical condominium units for about 30-40 acres of
the original parcel.
4:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding of special
declarant rights as an umbrella concept that would encompass
development rights as well as other rights.
MR. MCCOLLUM agreed. He said that special declarant rights
include a whole variety of rights given to developers, such as
the right to have sales offices on the property or other things
that allow the developer to continue to develop the property
without interference. He characterized development rights as a
subcategory of special declarant rights. He further clarified
development rights are not considered special development
rights, but rather are considered a subcategory of declarant
rights and are referred to as development rights.
4:01:53 PM
JOE BEEDLE, President; Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Northrim
Bank, spoke in favor of HB 269 and as an Alaska bank executive
urged support and immediate action and said that time is of the
essence. He elaborated the state lags slightly behind on UCIOA,
with respect to the provisions that allow for time extensions on
development projects for condominiums. Further, this bill would
provide consistency with national best practices given the
slowing economy and the absorption of real estate projects,
including condominium projects. He predicted unintended
consequences would result by not amending the existing statutes.
He said condominiums provide higher density construction that
allows developers to allocate land for more efficient
development and spread amenity costs based on the common
interest community development protocol. Additionally, many
obstacles must be overcome with condominium construction and
this committee has just begun to hear some of the challenges.
He said today's banking environment is cautious about
condominiums. He emphasized the projects are significantly more
complicated and to add this five-year timeout is problematic
since projects that go beyond the timeframe encounter financing
difficulties.
4:04:38 PM
MR. BEEDLE elaborated on the five-year timeframe. He said
typically banks don't like to finance projects that will take
more than five years to build due to the cost to carry and the
unknown market environment. He recalled legal counsel
previously mentioned phasing of projects and he acknowledged
that normally banks want a project absorbed within a few years.
Thus the historical creation of UCIOA for the secondary market
addresses the preference that these projects be defined early,
completed, and put into the market. The slow economy has had
unintended consequences which has adversely affected the
contractor declarant and potentially the banks. He reported
that the Northrim Bank currently has eight projects impacted by
the 100 percent unanimity requirement and the developers are
adversely impacted. He predicted not removing the artificial
impediment will guarantee hardships for financing and
condominiums that already face difficulties for various reasons.
He stated that Northrim Bank is a market share leader in
residential construction in Southcentral Alaska, with more than
50 percent of bank financing for residential construction. Thus
Northrim has had experience working on these projects, albeit
not all good experiences. He trusted the committee's action
will be appropriate. He reported he serves as chair of the
Alaska Bankers Association, which is comprised of eight banks
and the group meets on Friday mornings. He anticipated that the
ABA will vote on Friday to support this bill since they have
informally expressed concern. He urged members to pass HB 269
so the problematic projects can move forward. He advised
members that Northrim Bank's Senior Vice President, Tera
Tetzlaff, Senior Vice President, Construction Loan Manager is
available to answer questions.
4:07:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 1, line 12, and read, "A
declaration may not specify a smaller number unless all of the
units are restricted exclusively to nonresidential use." He
asked for clarification on how this language would affect
condominium storage units.
MR. MCCOLLUM answered that a smaller percentage of unit owners
can be specified for commercial projects, since the buyers are
typically more sophisticated. He related that only 67 percent
is required under current law, AS 38.08.250 (a), as listed in
Section 1 of HB 259. He said this will certainly impact
projects and he was unsure he would ever write an amendment for
less than 67 percent or two-thirds. He was unsure he has ever
seen one.
4:09:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether he predicted any problems
for condominium storage units.
MR. MCCOLLUM offered his belief this is a marketing decision.
He related in his experience that commercial buyers are more
careful about reading documents than residential buyers. He
offered his belief that a buyer would not want to buy into a
project in which some ridiculously small number of people could
impact the project. He explained that this is an unrelated
issue for typical amendments to other provisions of the
declaration. This provision will only apply to commercial non-
residential projects. He reiterated this specific provision is
existing law. He pointed out the 80 percent for extension or
granting new development.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the MacKay building which was
converted to condominiums and recalled that at one time a
business was located on the ground floor, yet the language
indicates it must exclusively be non-residential. He asked
whether that causes any concern.
MR. BEEDLE said he is familiar with the project. He explained
that the MacKay building project falls under the UCIOA; however,
the project is not a condominium project, but rather is
considered a planned community. In a planned community some of
the terms are worked out through negotiations and marketing.
The specific project, the MacKay building consists of only two
units. Projects of this type will often will require 100
percent approval although it depends on the division of
ownership. He highlighted that it is important to avoid having
one person control the entire building so if one person owns 70
percent the others must retain some control; however, this
specific project will not be impacted by this bill. The sole
purpose of HB 269 is to reduce the percentage necessary to
extend development rights from 100 percent to 80 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON wanted to ensure it was not an issue.
4:13:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding that
development rights would be described as withdrawing property
and adding additional units. He asked whether that description
is the full extent of development rights.
MR. BEEDLE answered that developer rights are basically owner
rights in which the developer has restricted rights. An owner
would be able to make any decisions. He stated that development
rights would be defined in the declarations. He characterized
development rights as the completion of the original plan as
described in the declarations. A developer could not "willy-
nilly" decide to change the project. He likened developer
rights, such as an entrepreneur making decisions to develop a
project people will like, but if the circumstances change the
developer must go back and obtain amendments to the declaration.
4:15:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER read, "...and additional development
rights created...." He related his understanding this language
would not give the developer the right to change from a ranch to
a skyscraper. He asked for clarification that the additional
development rights would be constrained by the original
declaration.
MR. BEEDLE answered yes.
4:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the reasons the original
timeframe for the eight Northrim projects is insufficient. He
further asked whether changing the threshold to 80 percent will
resolve the issues for the bank with respect to these projects.
MR. BEEDLE responded that the eight situations vary. He
recalled one project in which the absorption was slower. He
pointed out that when the market is slow the developer is also
on hold. Further, the developer may have spec-built more units
which could extend beyond the five-year period. Further, if
property must be sold in the timeframe and not just be leased.
One unintended consequence of carrying rental property which is
later sold is that the timeframe could run beyond the five-year
timeframe.
4:17:02 PM
MR. BEEDLE related a scenario involving vertical developments,
or higher rise condominiums. The developer may have built three
towers, but due to the lack of market response the developer
cannot build the fourth condominium building within the
timeframe. In that instance, the condominium association either
obtains a park or it results in undeveloped property defaulting
back to the condominium association. He highlighted that the
primary reason for this has been due to the slow market and
absorption of projects is taking longer than five years. He
said no one - the developer, the development rights person, or
the bank - anticipated this would happen. He emphasized the
bank did not anticipate the issue arising or it would not have
made the loan in the first place. He pointed out that currently
several projects Northrim Bank is financing now face the five-
year issue.
4:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the 80 percent threshold in
the bill will accomplish the bank's goal.
MR. BEEDLE answered the assumption is that the development
rights owner has a good relationship with the association. He
offered his belief that the developer must be sophisticated to
develop a condominium development. The successful developer
generally sets up the condominium association and has the
majority votes, communicates well, and recognizes the importance
of maintaining good relations; however, this is not always the
case. Sometimes the developer defaults on the loan and
foreclosure results. The new owner could come in and not have
good relationships. He related his understanding that the
current developers Northrim is working with on the
aforementioned projects have good relationships. This bill will
adopt the national standard of the 80 percent threshold. The
advantage of using the national standard is that it provides a
uniform code. Thus the secondary market does not need to
consider that Alaska has a peculiar rule. He testified in favor
of adopting the 80 percent threshold. He acknowledged obtaining
80 percent will still not be easy, as the flower bed example
illustrated.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER acknowledged that uniformity has value.
4:20:10 PM
TERRY BRYAN, Vice President; Manager, First American Title
Insurance Company (FATIC), spoke in support of HB 269. He
related that FATIC provides title and escrow services to all
communities within Alaska via 10 branch offices. He
characterized HB 269 as taking a common sense approach to
correct a statute that has established an impractical impediment
to the traditional flow of commerce due to the restrictive
unanimous vote requirement. He highlighted the evolving real
estate and lending industry needs to update to the UCIOA. This
bill will remedy issues related to absorption rate, the risk of
lending, or the risk of insuring a property. He said that
Alaska has evolved along with the national real estate
marketplace. He emphasized that Alaska requires a continual and
sustained flow of development. This bill would help ensure that
development is not stymied or adversely affected by an
artificial impediment, such as the unanimous approval of project
timelines. He emphasized that the 100 percent approval creates
an artificial impediment from his perspective. The bill would
be more in compliance with the modifications of the UCIOA. He
concluded that the bill is a common sense approach to the issue.
He stressed the difficulty in obtaining 100 percent of the votes
for anything.
4:22:58 PM
BOB PETERSEN, President and Owner, The Petersen Group, stated
that his company is a 30-year construction company in Anchorage.
He said his group was the first builder to build a condominium
in Girdwood under the UCIOA in 1995. He reported that he is on
his sixteenth condominium building project, which makes his
company the most experienced condominium builder in the state
with over 1,000 units completed. He testified in support of HB
269.
MR. PETERSEN gave an example of the type of problem encountered
with the requirement of a unanimous vote to change a declarant
right. He recorded the declaration for one project,
Summerstone, in Anchorage eight years ago, with 164 units
declared to be built over seven year period. The last four
units were finished in year eight; however, since the declarant
rights expired in the seventh year, the developer, the Petersen
Group, cannot get clear title to the last four units. The
Summerstone Board of Directors (BOD) is unanimously in support
to change the declaration to extend the rights since it benefits
the homeowners association. The BOD sent out a proxy to the
homeowners and to date has received 79 or 80 proxies in support
of the extension. He highlighted that there is always a
dissenter. The BOD is sending another proxy to attract
decisions on the other 80. This bill would resolve the issue.
He firmly believes that he will be able to attain the 80 percent
approval or better since the BOD unanimously is in favor of the
extension. It is good for the homeowner's association and will
remove the cloud on the title. It will be impossible to achieve
100 percent approval. The reason it is good for homeowners
associations to have the ability to change a declarant right is
that during a slow market many projects cannot be finished in
the timeframe allowed via the UCIOA at the time the declaration
is recorded. First, when a project is completed it maximizes
the value of the project and avoids vacant lots that homeowners
association must pay taxes on. He pointed out the lot is owned
by the developer, but due to a technicality must transfer the
rights to the homeowners association. He explained that when a
proforma is done and the developer amortizes expenses it helps
keeps homeowners association dues to a minimum. From that
standpoint a homeowners association wants the developer to
finish the project and the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) would
be in favor of completion since it will increase the property
tax base. He offered his belief this bill will address the
technicality and update the UCIOA that most of the U.S. has
already adopted as an amendment to their state statutes.
4:28:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the bill has any known
opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES answered that she was not aware of any.
[HB 269 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB269 ver A.PDF |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| HB269 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| HB269 Supporting Documents-UCIOA Section 2-117.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| HB269 Supporting Documents-Letter First American Title 2-20-12.pdf |
HJUD 4/4/2012 1:00:00 PM HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| HB292 Supporting Documents-Alaska Consitution Art. 2, Sec. 13.pdf |
HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB292 Supporting Documents-Memo re Contracts Clause Issue.pdf |
HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB292 Supporting Documents-Memo re Single Subject rule.pdf |
HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB292 Supporting Documents-Westlaw Croft v. Parnell.pdf |
HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB269 Fiscal Note-DCCED-DCRA-03-14-12.pdf |
HL&C 3/14/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 269 |