Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/30/2018 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB331 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 288 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 399 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2018
2:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative John Lincoln, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 331
"An Act establishing the Alaska Tax Credit Certificate Bond
Corporation; relating to purchases of tax credit certificates;
relating to overriding royalty interest agreements; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 288
"An Act relating to the minimum tax imposed on oil and gas
produced from leases or properties that include land north of 68
degrees North latitude; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 399
"An Act disallowing a federal tax credit as a credit against the
corporate net income tax; repealing a provision allowing the
exclusion of certain royalties accrued or received from foreign
corporations for purposes of the corporate net income tax;
repealing the reduced rate for the alternative tax on capital
gains for corporations; repealing an exemption from filing a
return under the corporate net income tax for a corporation
engaged in a contract under the Alaska Stranded Gas Development
Act; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 331
SHORT TITLE: TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/07/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/18 (H) RES, FIN
03/30/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEN ALPER, Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "State of Alaska Department of Revenue HB331: Oil &
Gas Tax Credit Bond Proposal" dated 3/30/18 and answered
questions during the hearing of HB 331.
MIKE BARNHILL, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "State of Alaska Department of Revenue HB331: Oil &
Gas Tax Credit Bond Proposal" dated 3/30/18 and answered
questions during the hearing of HB 331.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:34:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:34 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Birch, Parish, Drummond, Lincoln, and Josephson were present at
the call to order. Representatives Drummond and Johnson arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 331-TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES
2:35:22 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 331, "An Act establishing the Alaska Tax Credit
Certificate Bond Corporation; relating to purchases of tax
credit certificates; relating to overriding royalty interest
agreements; and providing for an effective date."
2:36:27 PM
KEN ALPER, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue,
reported that House Bill 111 had ended the Alaska system of
cashable tax credits, even though there were still "a
substantial amount of them still on the books at some point
needing to be either used by tax payers to offset taxes, sold to
other taxpayers, or purchased by the state pending funding." He
relayed that there was about $800 million outstanding with
another $150 million in process before the final tax credits
were eligible for cash re-purchase. He declared that "we're
looking at a recession in Alaska, private sector jobs are down."
He mused that one aspect of the proposed bill was to give a
boost to the Alaska economy, which had been a component of the
Governor's stimulus package introduced at the beginning of the
legislative session, slide 2. He reported that Alaska had lost
many jobs since the price of oil started to drop in the later
months of 2014; the private sector jobs had dropped about 3.8
percent, 9,200 jobs, and the oil and gas sector jobs had dropped
over 30 percent, according to the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development. He shared the ISER (Institute of Social
and Economic Research) forecast for 2018 indicating an
additional small drop, and not a recovery. He declared that
proposed HB 331 was intended to provide a boost of funding to
help resolve some of the uncertainty for the oil and gas
industry relating to the not full payment of the earned tax
credits in the manner to which they had been paid in prior
years. He explained that this uncertainty meant that companies
were unable to plan their next round of investment. He stated
that the proposed bill would provide about $700 million to the
oil and gas sector and into the economy by incentivizing new
spending in Alaska.
2:41:00 PM
MIKE BARNHILL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue, directed attention to slide 3, "Bill is
Structured to Balance Competing Interests." He pointed out that
the legislature resolved one issue with respect to the oil and
gas tax credits in the previous session by sunsetting the tax
credit program, even though it left an issue with outstanding
tax credits of $700 million to $1 billion. He declared that the
proposed bill was an attempt to balance competing interests
through financing. He explained that the state could not afford
to tap into the state savings to pay all of this today, so it
was being proposed to borrow and pay this off over time through
debt service. He noted that the tax credit program had been
calculated, and actively marketed, to attract investment into
the state from new and small oil and gas exploration companies.
He shared a story of marketing these slide shows to investors
and pointed out that this program was about reliance. He added
that any litigation against the state would include evidence for
the role of the Department of Revenue in trying to attract
investment from outside entities.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked, as the program for repayment had been
created in statute, how it was advertised to companies. She
questioned that companies would not request the details and
potentials for pitfalls included in the statutory formula for
repayment.
MR. BARNHILL offered to share the slide show for marketing to
investors. He referred to the anxiety in 2010 in the Cook Inlet
region regarding a shortage of gas to generate electricity. He
stated that, as there was considerable enthusiasm for this
program, this was reflected in the marketing. He pointed out
that, regardless of any due diligence by the investors, there
had been investment and the state had paid a considerable amount
of money for some period when the credits were tendered. The
state had stopped making payments when the price of oil
"bottomed out." He pointed out that the state had made
statements and actions which would be weighed along with the
enacted statutory language in determining resolution for this.
He reiterated that the committee should be aware of the
enthusiasm for which the program was marketed.
2:48:17 PM
MR. ALPER noted that the statutory formula language had "found
its way in in 2007 and was largely forgotten." He pointed out
that eight consecutive years of budgets had ignored this, and
that language had been written in every year to fully fund the
amount of credits requested. It was not until the fiscal
crisis, when it was realized that the state could not afford to
do this, that the language was brought back to light.
CO-CHAIR Tarr offered her belief that the risk assessment by a
company should have included a very careful review of the
statute, and the corresponding payment schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered an example of a contract offer and
asked if there was an obligation to continue with that anti-
market practice.
2:50:50 PM
MR. BARNHILL said that, ultimately, a court would have to decide
the obligation. He stated that he was just trying to offer the
committee a better understanding of "the various factors the
courts would weigh in evaluating that." He suggested that a
business, which made representations to the public and then
suddenly changed those or changed their practice, could not
expect but that the customers would be frustrated with that
sudden change of practice. He declared that the reputation and
the stability of the business was important. He opined that
state credibility was a similar concept and that the current
administration wanted to emphasize that, as the state was in a
recession, that the state's business arrangements were viewed as
credible and stable, and that the state was a good place to
invest.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated that he would rather the state be
recognized for its honoring of contracts and statutes instead of
the word of a character, Mr. Moose, in a marketing program. He
expressed his dissatisfaction that the previous administration
had "put us on hook and put Mr. Moose's good name at risk."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH declared that this was a "huge issue, talks
about state credibility," and he demanded that the committee
"roll through this presentation and ..."
CHAIR TARR cut off Representative Birch, reminded him that she
was the chair of the committee and affirmed: "I will run the
committee as I see fit, and I will allow you to ask questions.
Everyone is an equal member of this committee. Everyone will
have an opportunity to ask questions." She asserted that there
would not be any continued conversation for how she was running
the committee meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the chair planned to adjourn the
meeting at 3:05 p.m. as stated at the outset.
CHAIR TARR replied, "yes we are."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered his encouragement to finish the
presentation.
2:54:23 PM
MR. BARNHILL offered to meet with members of the committee
individually. He stated that slide 4, "Oil & Gas Tax Credit
Background," was a timeline and that those credits had achieved
their purpose. He acknowledged that there could have been
better ways to do it and that it cost a lot of money. He
pointed out that, as there were gas shortages in the Railbelt,
the tax credit program had been created to solve that problem.
He pointed out that the tax credits had succeeded in bringing
new, small gas explorers to the state to create the
opportunities for new development and new production. He shared
that the hope had been for investment through the tax credit
program to create a "virtuous cycle" of state investment in
development and exploration of new fields for new royalties and
new production taxes to pay for all the important programs,
slide 5. He stated that slide 6, "State-purchased credits
through the FY2018," offered a background for the $3.6 billion
total cash purchases which had produced real production for the
future, with 175 million barrels of oil produced to date. He
reported that there was a current balance of $807 million of
unpaid tax credits, of which $514 million was from the North
Slope and about $300 million was not from the North Slope.
2:58:00 PM
MR. ALPER, in response to Chair Tarr, explained that the $807
million had been offered into the bonding program should the
bill pass, and that about $750 million would be paid, with this
reinvestment into the economy described on an earlier slide. He
noted that the $130 - $180 million was in addition to the $807
million for credits that had not yet been issued. He reported
that the structure of the bill and the bonding would call for a
second and third round of bonds issued for these smaller
amounts.
2:58:52 PM
MR. BARNHILL continued with slide 7, "Forecasted Production
Helped by Known Credits," and shared the forecasted production
for the fields financed by the State of Alaska investments
through the tax credit program, about 106 million barrels from
fields currently producing on the North Slope, an additional 23
million barrels from fields not yet producing, for a total of
215 million barrels financed by the tax credits. He reported
that Cook Inlet now had a large amount of gas to meet the needs
of the Railbelt region, an estimate of 90 billion cubic feet per
year, an equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil. He reported
that the total past and future production in the Cook Inlet
region was almost 300 million barrels of oil equivalent.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how much production would have taken
place in absence of the tax credit program.
MR. BARNHILL offered his belief that prior to the tax credit
program, with respect to the Cook Inlet exploration, there was
not any plan for additional exploration in that region, even as
there was "serious concern about brown-outs and what not."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked about the North Slope.
3:00:42 PM
MR. ALPER stated, "we honestly don't know." He shared that
there had always been a certain exploratory interest, and part
of the perception in the industry about the North Slope was that
it was somewhat controlled by three large companies. He added
that an intangible part of the program was to "help draw new
blood to the oil patch because it was generally understood that
the oil that remained to be found out there was not elephant
fields but were fields in the 25 - 100 million barrel size...
that's simply too small for the BPs of the world to invest their
time and effort seeking." He stated that the large
international companies in Alaska "looked to do large things."
He pointed out that, as the barriers to entry included
isolation, transportation, and logistical issues, the tax
credits were intended to ease the path into Alaska for the new
entities. He said that it was hard to determine what would have
happened in the absence of any credits, noting that a lot of
these credits were operating loss credits. He explained that,
after the transition from a gross based tax to a net profits-
based tax in 2006, for the companies which were producing and
selling oil for profit, every dollar they spent came off the
bottom line and reduced the tax burden. He pointed out that a
company that spent money without production did not get an
immediate tax value for those expenditures. He explained that,
although there were several ways to do this, House Bill 111
allowed the companies to carry over and hold until production.
He stated that a lot of these credits were instead taking losses
and monetizing them in real time, instead of forcing the company
to wait a certain number of years. He opined that this made it
easier for some companies to enter Alaska, although "how much
would or would not have happened without them, I think it's
impossible to say for sure."
3:03:13 PM
MR. BARNHILL moved on to "The Challenge," slide 8, which he
explained was the background for the current bill. He reported
that from FY08 - FY15 the state had paid all the tax credits in
the year that they were presented. Beginning in FY16, the state
had been unable to make the payments, as the governor had vetoed
the tax credits for two consecutive years. After that, the tax
credits were paid pursuant to a statutory calculation: at a
projected oil price of $60 or higher, the formula was 10 percent
of the gross production tax under AS 43.55.011, and if the oil
price was less than $60, the formula was 15 percent of the gross
production tax. He said that the current forecast for the price
of oil had been updated to $63 per barrel. He shared slide 9,
which projected the annual statutory appropriation for the
estimated payment from FY19 - FY24.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there had been an interpretation
for a significantly smaller calculation.
3:05:37 PM
MR. ALPER replied that the tax under AS 43.55.011 had been
interpreted to mean a tax on 35 percent of the net profit. He
said that the per barrel credit could be subtracted from this,
per AS 42.55.024. This formula, 10 or 15 percent of the gross
amount, was not explicit in the statute and others had
interpreted it to say "the amount of revenue actually received
under [AS 43.55.]011, which would be the net of that tax
calculation minus the credits." He said that the amount in the
operating budget, $49 million, reflected the net-based mechanism
to make the same calculation.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked if the difference in the calculation was the
per barrel credit.
MR. ALPER replied that the difference was almost entirely the
per barrel credit. He said that the per barrel credit increased
as the price of oil went down, although it would then decrease
as the price of oil continued to go lower and went into a
minimum tax environment. There was no per barrel credit for
prices below $40. He added that, as the price of oil had moved
up into the $50s and the $60s per barrel, companies had
increased use of the per barrel credit to almost the entire $8
credit per barrel allowed in statute. He noted that this had
created a wider gap between the plausible ways of making the
calculation. He pointed out that, this year, the delta for the
difference was about $130 - $140 million.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH mused that the difference between the tax
amounts was "pretty enormous" and asked why the State of Alaska
was "erring on the side which costs the state more money."
MR. ALPER explained that the calculation was a continuation of
the past practice from 2015 and had been made as an assumption
for a certain way. He stated that it had not been contemplated
to be controversial or be such a large gap, as it was "simply
being consistent in our own interpretation." He offered his
belief that, from the industry point of view, there was an
expectation that the funding would be less. He pointed out
that, as the funding from the past two years had been based on
the formula outlined on slide 8, this was the expectation.
There was now some anxiety and uncertainty regarding a revisit
to the formula.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the administration supported the
historical interpretation for the appropriation.
MR. BARNHILL replied, "yes."
MR. ALPER reported that the proposed bill had to contain a
mechanism to project what a company would have received if the
appropriations had been as the statutory formula, in order to
calculate the offered buy-out.
3:10:27 PM
MR. BARNHILL returned to slide 9 and stated that the state would
appropriate $184 million; in lieu of this, under the proposed
bill, the governor's budget listed an amount sufficient to pay
debt service. He concluded that the impact of reducing payments
from the total amount of tax credits presented in any year to
the statutory schedule had been material, as exploration and
development on the North Slope had, in some cases, been halted.
He said that [DOR] had reached out to speak with some banks
providing financing to the companies, as the banks were not
lending due to this issue. He stated that a primary purpose for
the proposed bill was to create economic stimulus, to unfreeze
credit markets, and to restore some normalcy to the oil and gas
sector in Alaska.
3:12:04 PM
MR. ALPER moved on to slide 10, "Proposed Solution:" and said
that conceptually there was an offer to buy back the credits at
less than face value. He explained that the mechanism was to
ask the company when they expected payment given their pro-rata
share of the annual statutory formula, and then, based on that
schedule, the discount could be implemented. He directed
attention to the chart on slide 10 and offered an example for
the value of the payment schedule versus the offer for immediate
payoff. He noted that the proposed bill offered two different
discount rates, and he shared examples of the payouts using a 10
percent discount and a 5.1 percent discount.
3:14:49 PM
[HB 331 was held over]
3:15:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB331 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Version A.PDF |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Fiscal Note -DNR-DOG 1.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 2.5.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - Presentation Credit Bonds for HRES 3.30.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - DOR.LAW 3.2.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB288 Sponsor Statement 1.21.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 ver A 1.16.18.PDF |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 1.20.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 Sectional Analysis 1.21.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 CS Version D 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Summary of Changes Version A to Version D 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Fiscal Analysis for Version D 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 399 Sponsor Statement 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 O 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Sectional Sectional Analysis ver O 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 3.24.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents DOR Letter 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents CIT Sector Report FY 2017 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Reduced Rate Capital Gains.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Foreign Royalty.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Federal Credits.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Stranded Gas.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition 3.28.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 288 Supporting Document - Oklahoma Legislature passes tax hikes for teacher pay. Washington Post 3.28.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB331 Sectional Analysis 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 331 |
| HB 288 CS Version D Slide Presentation 3.30.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |