Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/10/2004 09:51 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 319(RES)
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land by lottery;
relating to the reservation of rights by the state in land
contracts and deeds; relating to the disposal, including sale
or lease, of remote recreational cabin sites; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this bill would establish a public
nomination lottery process through which remote cabin sites could
be sold. He noted that the bill's sponsor, Representative Hugh
Fate, has voiced concern in regard to some changes made in the
Senate Resources committee substitute, SCS CS HB 319(RES), Version
23-LS0477\B, that is before the Committee. He stated that, in
addition to fiscal notes #4 and #5 that pertain to Version "B,"
Members' packets include fiscal notes #2 and #3 that would apply
were a forthcoming amendment adopted. He remarked that this is a
"controversial" bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, the bill's sponsor, stated that this bill
evolved from "a simple concept" of developing a method through
which people could select State land, have it surveyed and
privately appraised at their own expense or appraised by the State
under a reimbursement arrangement, and subsequently be granted fee
simple title. Continuing, he noted that while the concept was
simple, the details of the process became complex, and that it has
taken four years to reach this point.
Representative Fate characterized the bill as a land acquisition
bill that has no intent of furthering subsurface mineral
development issues such as those that have recently occurred in the
Matanuska Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough as he recalled, at one point,
the bill contained language that would have allowed the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources to withdraw
from consideration land with high mineral content, including gas
and oil. He declared that the regulations associated with this land
selection legislation are "very strict."
Representative Fate reiterated "that the very core of the
legislation" is to provide individuals the ability to nominate a
piece of State land that he or she wishes to purchase. He clarified
that, at any point in the process, the Commissioner could withdraw
the land from consideration.
Representative Fate reminded the Committee that currently the only
method through which individuals could acquire State land is
through a lottery or auction process. He shared that approximately
40-percent of State land that is available through the lottery
method is acquired and that the remaining land selections, as well
as those acquired but repossessed by the State due to lack of
payment, are disposed of over-the-counter. He argued "that very
seldom is an individual able to" acquire land of their choosing
under the current land disposal methods. This, he declared, is the
reason this legislation is being brought forward. He stated that
were this legislation enacted, it "would be a very popular
program." He shared that the House bill, CS HB 319(FIN) am, Version
23-LS0477\X.A, that was transmitted to the Senate for consideration
would have required general funds to support start-up expenses in
the first few years, but that, beginning with the fourth year, the
program would have generated money for the State. He also noted
that Version "X.A" would require the creation of eight new
positions.
Representative Fate informed the Committee that the Version "B"
committee substitute would require lower start-up costs, would not
require an increase in personnel, and would, like Version "X.A,"
generate funds for the State. However, he communicated that he does
not support Version "B" as it changes the concept of the
legislation and would probably "meld" the program into a lottery
program, which, he declared "would be disheartening" as it would
not allow people to select land.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for further information regarding how the
bill's language was changed in Version "B," specifically language
in Section 4, subsection (f) on page three, beginning on line 24.
(f) A resident may nominate a parcel for disposal under this
section. The commissioner shall review the nomination and may
(1) offer the nominated parcel for sale;
(2) offer additional parcels within the surrounding area
for sale; or
(3) find that the parcel or area is not appropriate for
disposal.
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Fate, expounded that Section 4,
subsection (f) of Version "B" would allow the Department of Natural
Resources to convert the program into a lottery. Continuing, he
noted that as in Version "W.A", an individual could nominate a
specific parcel; however, contrary to Version "W.A", once the
Commissioner approved the land for nomination, the person who
nominated the land would, rather than being able to pursuing
purchasing that land, would be placed on equal footing with any
other person who might become interested in that parcel of land.
Mr. Pound voiced that many Alaskans would be interested in
acquiring land through the land nomination program and that, were
an individual to seek out and nominate a specific parcel, there
would be the "assumption that they have a prerogative to that
parcel." He warned that the language proposed in the Version "B"
committee substitute could be costly to the State as were someone
to nominate a parcel and not be awarded it, they could argue that
they have an assumption of prerogative.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore, that the language in this
section is the difference between the House bill Version "W.A," and
the Senate Resources bill, Version "B".
Senator Dyson observed that the language in Section 4, subsection
(f) of Version "B" continues the original goal of the legislation,
as, he contended, it would allow a person to select land which the
Commissioner could nominate for sale.
Mr. Pound affirmed; however, he explained that while both versions
of the bill would allow a person to nominate a parcel of land,
Version "B" differs from Version "W.A" in that, under Version "B",
once the selected land is approved for nomination by the
Commissioner, the Department has indicated that the land would be
disposed of via a lottery or auction process rather than selling it
to an individual.
Senator Dyson understood therefore, that the Department "would
absolutely ignore this clear direction from the Statute."
Mr. Pound responded that the Department "will interpret it in a way
that they wish to interpret it, which so far, it has been indicated
to us that their interpretation is that they can put it into their
existing program which is a lottery or auction."
Senator Dyson surmised therefore, that the problem lies with the
Department's interpretation of the language in Version "B" rather
than with the language.
Mr. Pound replied that, during the bill's progression through the
House, "a negotiated agreement" between the sponsor and the
Division of Mining, Land and Water in the Department of Natural
Resources had been reached regarding such things as the size of
nominated parcels; the timeframe allowed for the survey and
appraisal; buffer zone requirements; and the provisions providing
the Commissioner the authority to make the determination regarding
the land selection. He declared that the language in Section 4,
subsection (f) of the Senate Resources committee substitute "has
nothing to do with what was agreed to between this office and the
Division. This was decided by a third member of the Division who,
to my knowledge, at been advised to stay out of the process and
decided to, when he came to Senate Resources, to get involved."
Representative Fate, responding to Senator Dyson's comment, stated
that the Senate Resources Committee's adoption of the amendment
that added Section 4, subsection (f) to the bill appeared to be
"innocuous" in that it changed the application fee for a nomination
from $100 to $25. He stated that upon questioning, it was explained
that the fee was lowered because applicants have less chance of
having their name drawn in a lottery process. Upon further
investigation, he explained, it was discovered "that there was the
assumption" within the Department that this program "would be
melded into the present lottery program." He exclaimed that he "was
really startled" that the addition of this amendment opened up the
lottery interpretation by the Department, "and that was what they
were going to do in fact." He reiterated that this direction was
not the intent of the legislation.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the Department of Natural Resources to
explain their interpretation of Section 4, subsection (f).
NANCY WELCH, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from
an offnet site in Anchorage, to explain that the amendment adopted
by the Senate Resources Committee addressed the Department's on-
going position of being "fundamentally opposed" to the right of an
individual to nominate a parcel and then "perfect that into a sale
through whatever means." Version "B" she continued, would allow the
Department to accept land nominations that would then be melded
into the Department's current land disposal lottery program. The
cost of disposing land through the lottery program would be
substantially less than the land nomination program outlined in the
House bill, Version "W.A" as it would require fewer personnel to
operate. She reiterated, however, that the Version "B" proposal
would not entail "individual processing."
Co-Chair Wilken asked the Administration's position regarding the
Version "B" committee substitute.
Ms. Welch responded that the Administration supports the Version
"B" committee substitute.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the Department had developed a
position on the House bill, Version "X.A."
Ms. Welch responded that, while no official position had been
developed regarding the House version of the bill, attempts were
undertaken to move away from individual processing. She stated that
the Department agreed to accept such issues as parcel sizes, buffer
zones, and appraisal/survey language "against our better judgment,"
because the bill's sponsor had agreed to language allowing the
Commissioner, at his discretion, the right to remove nominated
parcels from consideration.
Senator Dyson questioned the reason for the Department not being
supportive of the individual Alaskan land selection process,
provided all criteria is met; particularly since the State "has
such vast State holdings."
Ms. Welch replied that the Department is fundamentally opposed to
the individual selection process as its position is that State
"land should be offered to all Alaskans equally." She stated that
the Department questions allowing a person to nominate land and to
be given the first right to purchase it. She noted that this was
the aspect opposed by the Senate Resources Committee as they
questioned providing someone the first right to land that perhaps
other people were also interested in or objected to being
privatized, as it might, for example, be someone else's favorite
hunting ground.
Senator Dyson, recalling that discussion, noted that "the flip
side" to the Department's position is that someone might, after
months of exploring perhaps by air or by foot, locate a remote
piece of land that others had not demonstrated an interest in or
had not utilized, go through the lengthy process of determining
whether the land is acceptable for nomination, and then be told
that all their efforts were for naught as the Department would
allow that parcel of land to be disposed of via a lottery in which
numerous people could participate.
Ms. Welch responded that, in the Department's experience, the vast
majority of people who apply for staking authorization are able to
receive that authorization; however, she noted that when people
realize the difficulty of reaching and developing property, the
staking rates drop. She acknowledged that while some parcels might
draw no other interest and would, thereby, allow the applicant to
stake the land, it would be unfair to allow one individual to have
the advantage to a very popular parcel.
Amendment #1: This amendment would delete the words "in regulation"
in Section 4, subsection (d) (1) in Version "X.A" on page three,
line 14. This section currently reads as follows.
(1) prepare a schedule of land offerings under this section
and identify the parcels for disposal each year; the land
offering may not include mineral land selected by the state or
land identified by the department as having a high mineral
potential; the department's identification of land having a
high mineral potential shall be based on standards adopted by
the department in regulation and shall include consideration
of a geophysical survey or geological evaluation, if any, that
was conducted within 15 calendar years before the year for
which the schedule is prepared:
In addition, this amendment would delete Section 4, subsection (f)
in Version "X.A" and replace it with the following language:
(f) A resident may nominate a parcel for disposal under this
section. The commissioner shall review the nomination and, if
the nomination is accepted, will advertise the parcel for sale
or lease. The commissioner shall accept bids for the parcel
during a period not to exceed 45 days. At the end of the
period for accepting bids, the resident nominating the parcel
shall have the first right of refusal to purchase the land or
apply for a lease under (b) of this section. After receiving a
nomination under this subsection, the commissioner may provide
for the sale or lease of additional parcels within the
surrounding area or may find that the nominated parcel or area
is not appropriate for disposal.
Co-Chair Wilken moved for the adoption of Amendment #1 and objected
for discussion.
SENATOR SCOTT OGAN, Chair of the Senate Resources Committee,
testified in opposition to the amendment. He stated that in his
experience, individuals would "cherry pick some of the best land;"
specifically popular hunting or fishing spots. While he agreed with
the bill's sponsor that more State land should be made available to
its citizens, he stated that "this amendment is bad public policy"
and that the compromised bill was good in that it allowed for a
nomination process. Furthermore, he opined that the Senate
Resources bill was good in that it would allow the Commissioner, at
his discretion, to make available additional land around a
nominated parcel. This, he attested would provide for good land
management. This amendment, he declared, would require the
Department to provide "a best interest finding for each individual
parcel," thereby tying "up a lot of staff time." Therefore, he
declared that allowing the Department to issue a best interest
finding on a whole area would better serve the State. He exampled
that, in this scenario, the Department could take into
consideration the fact that an area had historically been utilized
by a lot of people for hunting and fishing camps as opposed to
limiting the review to an individual parcel within that area.
Senator Ogan stated that this issue "should be done right" and that
the Senate Resources version of the bill strikes a good balance.
Co-Chair Wilken understood, therefore, that Senator Ogan, rather
than objecting "to the land being claimed and owned", objects "to
the manner through which this" would be done. Continuing, he voiced
the understanding that the Senate Resources version of the bill
would treat the land disposal as a lottery.
Senator Ogan disagreed. He stated that the Resources version of the
bill specifies, in the aforementioned subsection (f), that this
land nomination disposal program would be separate from the lottery
program.
Co-Chair Wilken understood, however, that the Department of Natural
Resources would interpret that section of the Senate Resources
language, to provide them the authority to establish the program as
a lottery.
Representative Fate reiterated that this is his understanding of
the Department's interpretation of that section and that the
testimony from Ms. Welch upheld that position.
Ms. Welch responded that subsection "f" would provide the
Department the required authorization to process the land
nomination through the Department's lottery program.
Co-Chair Wilken clarified, therefore, that while the Senate
Resources Committee version of the bill would continue to support
the land nomination process, it would allow the Department to
conduct a lottery process as opposed to the House version of the
bill that would allow land to be nominated and claimed.
Senator Ogan concurred.
Co-Chair Wilken summarized that the method through which the land
is disposed of is the issue.
Senator Dyson stated that it appears that the Department is putting
"their own spin" on the interpretation of the Senate Resources bill
language, and is "very close to the edge of defying what the
Legislature, as the policy body, is saying." He declared this to be
of "great concern".
Co-Chair Wilken understood Senator Dyson's comments to be that the
language in Section 4, subsection (f) "doesn't say what we're
hearing" from the Department of Natural Resources.
Senator Dyson affirmed.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that he shares that concern.
Senator B. Stevens recalled that, over time, the State has
identified certain regions of the State as areas in which people
could survey and stake a parcel of land and then negotiate a
purchase agreement with the State. Continuing, he asked whether the
Department would specify a region of the State to which this
legislation would apply or whether this land selection proposal
would apply to any State land holding.
Representative Fate responded that, while the Department has the
authority to select areas for land disposal for such things as
lotteries or auctions, there are not parameters currently in place
that would allow people to go out and select parcels of land in
areas that have not been identified.
Senator B. Stevens asked how the proposed program compares to the
State's Homesteading program through which people go out and stake
land in designated areas.
Representative Fate stated that this program would allow a person
to identify, stake, and nominate a piece of land for a cabin as
opposed to the Homestead program that identified areas in which
people were allowed to live and develop a piece of land for a
certain amount of time and then petition for title to it. He stated
that the Senate Resources committee substitute would additionally
allow the State to select an area surrounding a nominated parcel
and allow it to become available through either their existing
lottery/auction program or through the proposed program. He
characterized the proposed legislation as being "another tool in
the toolbox" in that it would provide the Department, in addition
to its lottery/auction program, another means through which people
could acquire land.
Senator B. Stevens asked for confirmation that the Department would
have the final determination as to whether or not a parcel of land
could be nominated.
Representative Fate affirmed that the Department would have the
ability to withdraw a parcel of land from being nominated based on
best interest findings.
Senator Olson asked Senator Ogan whether he is comfortable with the
decision-making opportunity provided to the Department by Amendment
#1.
Senator Olson responded that he "is not always comfortable with
bureaucratic decisions;" however, he stated that there are good
professional people in the Department of Natural Resources.
Continuing, he voiced being uncomfortable with the amendment's
language that would provide an individual with the right of first
refusal to purchase or buy the land. He pondered how the process
would work.
Senator Olson voiced concern that Department of Natural Resources
staffing changes, over time, might be an issue. In addition, he
asked whether Native corporations have presented a position
regarding this legislation.
Representative Fate responded that comment time has been provided
during the hearing process. For further clarification, he noted
that encumbered lands would not be included in this program.
Senator Dyson requested that the Department provide "language that
would close the loophole by which they have slipped out of the
intentions of both" the sponsor's and the Resource versions of the
bill.
Co-Chair Wilken concurred.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to withdraw Amendment #1.
There being no objection, Amendment #1 was WITHDRAWN from
consideration.
Representative Fate reiterated that the concern with the
legislation lies with the Department's intent to change the
proposal into a lottery system.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the sponsor to work with the Department and
others to further clarify the bill.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
[NOTE: This bill was re-addressed later in the meeting.]
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 319(RES)
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land by lottery;
relating to the reservation of rights by the state in land
contracts and deeds; relating to the disposal, including sale
or lease, of remote recreational cabin sites; and providing
for an effective date."
[NOTE: This bill was heard earlier in the meeting.]
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Bud Fate, stated that, following
the morning hearing on the bill, discussions ensued between the
sponsor and Commissioner Tom Irwin of the Department of Natural
Resources. As a result, he continued, language was developed that
one: meets the sponsor's intent for the bill; and two: has the
approval of the Department.
[NOTE: Amendment #2 was not offered for consideration.]
Amendment #3: This amendment amends language in Section 4,
subsection (f), on page three, beginning on line 24 to read as
follows:
(f) a resident may nominate a parcel or area for disposal
under this section, and, if the resident has not leased or
purchased land under this section during the three-year period
preceding the date of nomination, may apply for a right to
stake the nominated parcel with the intent to lease under (b)
of this section. The commissioner shall review the nomination
and may
(1) offer {THE NOMINATED] the right to stake a parcel for
lease through a sealed-bid or outcry auction and subsequently
purchase the parcel for fair market value;
(2) offer the parcel and additional parcels within the
surrounding area for sale in a simultaneous filing period in
the manner provided for lottery parcels by AS 38.05.057; [OR]
(3) offer already surveyed and platted parcels for sale
at a sealed-bid or outcry auction as provided under AS
38.05.055; or
(4) find that the parcel or area is not appropriate for
disposal.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt Amendment #3 and objected for
explanation.
Mr. Pound explained that this amendment addresses several sponsor
and Department of Natural Resources concerns including: the process
pertaining to how an individual nominating a parcel would be
recognized in the process; the length of time required between an
individual's ability to stake additional parcels; clarification of
the staking language pertaining to the leasing/purchasing
provision; and language providing the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources the ability to offer for disposal
land surrounding a nominated parcel or to deny a nominated parcel
for disposal.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for further clarification regarding how a
person would nominate land.
Mr. Pound responded that a person would locate a parcel of land and
file for the right to stake that particular parcel with the
Department of Natural Resources.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that this would entail a written request
for the right to stake the land. In other words, he continued, the
individual is requesting the right to lease and eventually purchase
that parcel of land.
Mr. Pound responded that the request would entitle someone to a
five-year lease with a five-year renewal option. He noted that "at
any time you have a lease, you have the right to purchase."
Co-Chair Wilken asked the sequence of events that would occur after
the land has been staked; specifically whether a sealed bid or
outcry auction would occur.
Mr. Pound stated that, were another individual to express interest
in a parcel of land to which a right to stake has been filed, a
bidding process would be implemented.
Co-Chair Wilken asked how public notification regarding the staking
request would occur.
Mr. Pound explained that a public notice process would be
implemented.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for confirmation that, were more than one
person interested in a parcel of land, the Commissioner would
determine whether a sealed bid or outcry auction would occur.
Mr. Pound affirmed.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that the land's purchase price would be
based on fair market value.
Mr. Pound concurred.
Senator Bunde asked regarding language pertaining to someone being
able to stake a parcel of land every three years; specifically
whether this would entail relinquishing a parcel of land previously
received through this program.
Mr. Pound responded that another parcel of land, in addition to
previously received parcels, could be staked at three-year
intervals.
Senator Bunde opined that "there is a limited amount" of desirable
land available for remote cabin sites. Continuing, he voiced
concern that the provision allowing individuals to acquire numerous
parcels of land could result in "land barons."
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether Senator Bunde wished to propose an
amendment to address this concern.
Senator Bunde responded that two options exist to address this
concern: one being that were a person to desire to stake another
parcel of land any previous land they had acquired in this manner
must be relinquished; or two, a longer timeframe between land
nominations could be required. He reiterated his concern that, even
though the State has vast land holdings, suitable land with such
things as a water source and accessibility is limited and that one
individual might" tie that up."
Senator Bunde suggested that the timeframe between nominations be
increased to between six and ten years.
Senator Dyson opined that, over time, the people who receive these
lands would probably develop and perhaps sell their land to others.
He voiced that this would be beneficial, as it would open up more
sites to others. Furthermore, he stated that the expenses involved
with surveying and developing land might be a deterrent to the land
baron issue. Therefore, he commented that he does not share Senator
Bunde's concern "that this would be abused."
Senator Bunde stated that this legislation could also lead to
frustration in that someone might desire to access a particular
valley and find it staked or that the person who staked the valley
might be upset to have another person trespassing on their land.
Amendment-to-Amendment #3: This amendment proposes to change
language in subsection (f) in that the length of time required
before an individual could stake another parcel of land be
increased from three-years to five-years.
Senator Bunde moved to adopt the Amendment-to-Amendment #3.
Co-Chair Wilken objected for discussion.
Senator Olson agreed that the amount of desirable land with
suitable water and other amenities is limited. He also supported
Senator Bunde's concern regarding the potential for a "land baron"
scenario.
Senator B. Stevens voiced the understanding that a person would be
responsible for staking the land and having it surveyed, before
purchasing it.
Mr. Pound concurred.
Senator B. Stevens commented, "that the value of the land is only
intrinsic to the person who wants to go pay and go out there and
stake it and survey it." He stated that the market value of the
land is probably less than the cost of the survey. Therefore, he
voiced being opposed to the amendment-to-Amendment #3, as he opined
that the amount of State land that is available now and not bought
is indicative of the fact that not a lot of people would be
clambering to pursue this land acquisition proposal.
Co-Chair Green inquired as to whether other State land disbursement
programs have look-back provisions or limiting factors.
NANCY WELCH, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources testified via teleconference from
an offnet site in Anchorage and informed the Committee that the
Homestead program has a minimum five-year limiting provision. She
clarified that this legislation's three-year timeframe
specification applies to the nomination process rather than to the
acquisition.
Co-Chair Green clarified that the three-year time limitation refers
to the right to stake rather than the purchase.
Ms. Welch specified that the three-year time frame would apply to
an individual's "right to nominate a parcel and if they actually
not required one in three years then they can apply for a right to
stake the nominated parcel." Therefore, she summarized, "it only
applies to the provision of applying for a right to stake the
nominated parcel; it doesn't apply if the person just wanted to
participate in any land sale program other than this special
provision for staking a special parcel."
Representative Fate voiced no objection to the amendment to
Amendment #3, as he recounted this provision had, at one time,
specified a five-year timeframe. He stated that the reason for
reducing the timeframe to three years was to allow more land to be
sold.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Olson, Senator Bunde, and Co-Chair Wilken
OPPOSED: Senator Dyson, Senator B. Stevens, and Co-Chair Green
ABSENT: Senator Hoffman
The motion FAILED (3-3-1)
The Amendment-to-Amendment #3 FAILED to be adopted.
Amendment #3 was again before the Committee.
Mr. Pound reiterated that Amendment #3 would allow the Commissioner
of the Department of Natural Resources to offer additional parcels
surrounding a nominated parcel. He also noted that were an
individual to nominate a parcel and then decide not to stake it,
the amendment would allow the Commissioner to offer that parcel for
disposal through other land disposal programs. In addition, he
noted that were already surveyed and platted lands not purchased,
this amendment would allow those lands to be made available through
a sealed bid or outcry auction.
Co-Chair Wilken removed his objection to Amendment #3.
There being no further objection, Amendment #3 was ADOPTED.
Conceptual Amendment #4: This amendment specifies that the
provisions of this legislation would terminate in ten years.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt Amendment #4. He stated that due to
the fact that this bill is "plowing new ground" and has encountered
some controversy, it would be advantageous to review the outcome of
the bill at a later time.
Representative Fate stated that a ten-year time frame would be
acceptable. He noted that, as reflected in the accompanying fiscal
note, the State would not begin to realize the benefits of the
legislation for at least five years.
There being no objection, Amendment #4 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the adopted amendments would alter
the bill's fiscal notes.
Mr. Pound stated that the fiscal note that accompanied the Senate
Resources version of the bill would not be affected by the changes.
Senator Bunde moved to report the bill, as amended, from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 319(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with zero fiscal note #4, dated May 8, 2004 from the
Division of Oil & Gas, Department of Natural Resources and $69,000
fiscal note #5, dated May 8, 2004 from the Division of Mining, Land
and Water, Department of Natural Resources.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|