Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
02/21/2024 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB190 | |
| SB168 | |
| SB199 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 199-STATE LAND: DISPOSAL/SALE/LEASE/RESTRICT
4:13:39 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
199 "An Act relating to access roads; relating to state land;
relating to contracts for the sale of state land; relating to
the authority of the Department of Education and Early
Development to dispose of state land; relating to the authority
of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
dispose of state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources over certain state land;
relating to the state land disposal income fund; relating to the
sale and lease of state land; relating to covenants and
restrictions on agricultural land; and providing for an
effective date."
4:14:37 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, said Alaska manages over one
hundred million acres of uplands and 65 million acres of
tidelands that belong to the state's residents. He stated SB 199
would create flexibility and responsiveness within state
departments and generate additional opportunities to put our
lands to work for everyday Alaskans. The bill would serve to
streamline land transfer functions, enable the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), and the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to directly
transfer land that is no longer needed for its original purpose
to private parties, therefore reducing bureaucratic
administration and complicated multi-agency efforts. SB 199
would also work to create flexible leasing requirements that
would allow DNR to decide when surveys are necessary for long-
term leases to support applicants' needs and potentially lower
costs for lessees. It would further incorporate adaptable road
standards that allow for more economical pioneer road standards
for land access and align right-of-way widths with municipal
zoning codes. SB 199 would provide necessary financial support
for the development of state lands in preparation for sales to
Alaskans, as well as extend the contract terms of sales to 30
years. This legislation would help facilitate commercial land
sales by introducing a new statute for commercial land leasing
and sales. It would expand agricultural use to be inclusive of
activities to help offset agricultural development costs. This
is an important piece of legislation that could help create new
opportunities in making Alaska's lands open to everyday
Alaskans.
4:17:05 PM
CHRISTY COLLES, Director, Division of Mining, Land, and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), moved to slide 2 and
provided an overview and sectional analysis of SB 199:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Overview
Authorize the Department of Education & Early
Development (DEED) and the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to
directly dispose of surface land, rather than
transferring land to the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) for conveyance
Increase the cap on the Land Disposal Income Fund
(LDIF)
Update and improve provisions relating to DNR's land
disposal procedures in AS 19.30, AS 38.04, AS 38.05
Amends agricultural use restrictions
Add a new statute relating to leases and sales of land
for commercial development
4:18:02 PM
MS. COLLES moved to slide 3 and explained the authority for the
direct disposal of state land:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Authority for Direct Disposal of State Land
• Proposed amendments allow the Department of
Education and Early Development (amending AS
14.07.030) and Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (amending AS 35.20.070) to sell
land directly to private parties
- Streamlining land disposals, reducing multi-
agency involvement
- Expanding eligible recipients beyond federal,
state agencies, and political subdivisions
• Department of Natural Resources first right of
refusal for disposal of lands no longer needed
for transportation public facilities
MS. COLLES said this amendment would eliminate the need for DNR
to include any restrictions imposed by department statutes in
the disposal process, as these requirements may be inconsistent
with the needs of sister agencies. This change would expand the
pool of eligible recipients beyond federal and state agencies,
as well as political subdivisions. Under the Alaska
Constitution, DEED would comply with art.VIII, sec. 10 for
public notice and art. IX, sec. 6 for a public purpose. SB 199
would also repeal and reenact DOT&PF's authority under AS 35.
This amendment would streamline the disposal process by removing
the multi-agency factor and any constraints imposed by DNR
statutes. The bill would require DOT and public facilities to
offer land deemed suitable for disposal to DNR before disposing
of it themselves. DNR would then have 45 days to accept, reject,
or ignore the offer. If land is not accepted within 45 days, DOT
could dispose of the land according to standards established by
the commissioner. If SB 199 becomes law, DOT would have direct
disposal authority for lands acquired for Public Facilities and
projects under AS 35. If these lands are no longer needed for
such projects, DOT&PF's current disposal regulations would apply
and these actions would be conducted under DOT's public notice
requirements that implement art.VIII, sec. 10 of the Alaska
Constitution.
4:19:52 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked for confirmation of his understanding that
the goal of SB 199 is to streamline the process to make more
state lands available for public purchase or leasing and
eliminate the 10-year survey requirement. He asked if DNR has
the first right of refusal between DEED and DOT.
4:20:26 PM
MS. COLLES replied yes. She said that the provision was added in
the Senate Transportation Committee to give DNR the first right
of refusal for the DOT piece, but the provision is excluded in
the section specific to DEED.
4:20:50 PM
MS. COLLES moved to slide 4 and reviewed the land disposal
income fund (LDIF):
[Original punctuation provided.]
Land Disposal Income Fund (LDIF)
• The LDIF holds deposits from the state land
disposal program
• Under current law, the portion of the fund in
excess of $5 million is to be deposited in the
state general fund
• The bill raises state land disposal income fund
cap from $5 million to $12 million
• Boosts spending authority for larger projects
• Addresses inflation since 2000; cap unchanged for
20 years
• Adjustment to funding cap, not appropriation
• Department can request limit increase in annual
report
Capital authority operates over multiple years. SB 199
also includes provisions that authorize gifts,
donations, and grants in accordance with memo.
MS. COLLES said the proposed increase to $12 million to the land
disposal income fund aims to bolster the LDIF balance and
facilitate the department's efforts in land development and
disposal, while accounting for inflation since its inception in
2000. Concern over a minimal fund balance resulting from fiscal
sweeps, revenue expenditures, disparities, and escalating land
development costs underscore the necessity for the proposed
increase. DNR is closely monitoring the fund's status and is
adjusting general fund expenses including core costs. Elevating
the cap is an initial measure to sustain the funds'
effectiveness in supporting multi-year large-scale development
projects. Capital authority for subdivision improvements
operates over multiple fiscal years with vigilant oversight of
contractual agreements to prevent revenue shortfalls. However,
funding constraints may hinder land preparation for future
sales. This request is not for an appropriation, but for a
higher fund balance for land sale receipts. LDIF supports the
Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW) and the Division of
Agriculture within DNR. SB 199 also includes provisions that
authorize DNR to accept gifts, donations, and grants for the
purpose of providing signage for an asset under the control of
the department in accordance with a memorandum of understanding
agreed on by the donor and the department.
4:22:20 PM
MS. COLLES moved to slide 5 and explained the agricultural land
lease and sale procedures:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Agricultural Land Lease and Sale Procedures
• Amendment to AS 38.05.321 allows broader use of
agricultural land and improvements
• Currently an agricultural landowner can only use
the land for purposes that are incidental to and
not inconsistent with agricultural land
• Proposed amendment would now allow an
agricultural landowner to use land for purposes
that are consistent with and do not interfere
with the primary purpose
MS. COLLES conveyed that SB 199 proposes amendments to existing
statutes that would broaden the scope of agricultural activities
beyond primary use. These would enable ancillary endeavors like
bed and breakfast operations to supplement and alleviate
agricultural development expenses. While it is crucial to
preserve agricultural land for its intended purpose, the limited
availability of land underscores the need for flexibility.
Granting the director greater discretion and permitting diverse
economic activities within agricultural farm developments could
foster a more robust economic framework for farmers and ripen
greater success.
4:23:06 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked how primary use and ancillary land use are
determined.
4:23:29 PM
MS. COLLES deferred the question.
4:23:50 PM
BRYAN SCORESBY, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Palmer, Alaska, responded that he would
follow up with the committee with additional information in
writing.
4:24:21 PM
MS. COLLES moved to slide 6 and explained access road
construction:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Access Road Construction
Amends AS 19.30.080 to specify that access roads to
surface disposals may be developed at a pioneer
standard
Clarifying language on right-of-way widths within
municipal boundaries
Align with municipal zoning requirements to the same
extent as private developers
4:24:51 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether SB 199, Section 2, requires
municipalities to maintain the roads that are built under
Section 2 of SB 199.
4:25:20 PM
MS. COLLES replied yes and said if the roads are within a
municipality or borough and they are the designated planning
authority and that signs the plat, they would be responsible for
road maintenance.
4:25:34 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the state could take away local
control and prevent a municipality from mandating higher
standards for access roads.
4:25:57 PM
MS. COLLES replied no and said the existing zoning code helps
DNR plan for a subdivision. She stated if the planning authority
wants to mandate a higher requirement for a subdivision than for
a private owner, it becomes cost prohibitive. DNR seeks to be
treated with the same standards as private land developers.
4:26:53 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR conveyed that a common concern he has heard from
Anchorage residents is that too much responsibility is placed on
private developers for planning. However, there is extensive
negotiation with every project that involves planning and
zoning. Oftentimes, there are additional standards placed on
private landowners. He asked how to define equal standards when
private landowners are often held to different standards
depending on the project.
4:27:52 PM
MS. COLLES replied that DNR has experienced the Mat-Su Borough
holding it to a higher standard. Not holding private landowners
to a higher standard should receive consideration. However, DNR
perceives that it has been held to a higher standard and seeks a
level playing field.
4:28:22 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR opined that there is a non-uniform standard
shortcoming of local law. It is often political forces that push
to increase development costs for certain developers. He
expressed uncertainty that the phrasing in SB 199 would overcome
the issue.
4:28:48 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP requested an example of how the standard would
apply.
4:28:58 PM
MS. COLLES stated that DNR seeks to analyze the municipality or
borough zoning codes and design and plan for road development
based on those codes. She noted it often takes up to two years
to go through the plat process. The department does not always
have extra funds available to extend the process and make
changes when the municipality adds new criteria. SB 199 holds
municipalities to the standards that they have written in zoning
codes.
4:30:11 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP provided a hypothetical scenario and asked if
the amendment applies to DNR-owned land within a municipality.
4:30:20 PM
MS. COLLES replied that is correct.
4:30:29 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if DNR wants to build to the pioneer road
rather than the municipal road standard.
4:30:41 PM
MS. COLLES replied DNR has little land within the municipality
of Anchorage. However, it does have land in and near boundary
lines of boroughs. She referenced the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
as an example. DNR would have to follow the zoning requirements
of all boroughs and municipalities.
4:31:17 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP commented that the Alaska Highway was originally
a pioneer road.
4:31:26 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether DNR would build to pioneer road
standards or the Mat-Su Borough standards given the land is
inside and alongside the borough.
4:31:50 PM
MS. COLLES said DNR would build to the standards of the Mat-Su
Borough, but it does not want to be held to higher standards.
The department designs plats off of borough codes. DNR then
takes the plat to the borough for signing, but the borough then
raises the ban on its requirements.
4:32:27 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if the concern is that boroughs can elevate
development standards on DNR projects, so DNR is seeking to
limit this authority.
4:32:41 PM
MS. COLLES replied that is correct.
4:32:51 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP opined that "pioneer" may be wrong term to use
because DNR only wants the same zoning requirements that
municipalities require.
4:33:16 PM
MR. GOODRUM said DNR worked closely with Alaska Municipal League
on the provision under SB 199 to ensure consistency with several
municipalities and boroughs. He conveyed the department worked
to find an agreement and did not receive any disputes regarding
the provision.
4:33:42 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP expressed appreciation for the end goal and
stated he frequently hears about the shortage of housing and
land in Alaska. He stated the aim of SB 199 is to ease these
burdens to make more homes available for first-time homeowners.
4:34:15 PM
MS. COLLES moved to slide 7 and explained land sale procedures:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Land Sale Procedures
• Land sale disposal contracts
- Longer purchase terms from 20 years to 30 years
- Consistency in terms from "Foreclosure" to
"Termination"
- Allows for paid in full purchase when existing
infrastructure would increase liability of
financing a land sale purchase contract
MS. COLLES added that the terminology is more consistent and
aligns with administrative processes rather than banking terms.
She said the provision also includes a definition for public
auction that would pave the way for online auctions. While
traditional DNR sale methods would persist under SB 199,
defining public auctions would enhance the structure of online
platforms. Through a best interest finding, DNR could require
payment in full within 120 days following the sale of land.
Infrastructure that exceeds $10 thousand, this amendment
protects the state from receiving the infrastructure in poor
condition and having higher liability.
4:35:12 PM
MS. COLLES moved to slide 8 and explained survey requirements
for leases:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Survey Requirements for Leases
• Discretion of cadastral surveys for long-term
leases
- Survey could be required where infrastructure
boundaries or access management is in the best
interest of the state
- Reduces the financial and administrative burden
on industries
- Industry is challenged by current requirements
Ex: Renewable energy projects, grazing leases
MS. COLLES said SB 199 proposes several amendments that aim to
streamline processes and reduce barriers for development on
state land. She stated that AS 38.04.045(b) would grant the
commissioner through a best interest finding the option to
determine the necessity of a cadastral survey that would provide
flexibility while maintaining state oversight. Statute provision
AS 38.05.070 would eliminate the requirement for surveys for
long-term leases. This change acknowledges that surveys and
appraisals for leases exceeding ten years can pose significant
hurdles for industries seeking land development, especially in
grazing, renewable energy, and agricultural industries. These
requirements not only deter development, but also incur
prohibitive costs, especially for industries with extensive land
needs. These amendments aim to promote economic growth by
reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and expenses
associated with land development processes. DNR would maintain
the ability to require a survey if desired.
4:36:19 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if a miner would have ten years to obtain
and convert a survey to a lease.
4:36:43 PM
MS. COLLES said DNR does not require surveys for mining leases
because it is a different type of land right. She stated the
amendment is specific to land leases such as one obtained for
agricultural farming. Some developments are remote and require
$20,000 - $30,000 to complete the survey. If land is remote,
alternative proof could be provided to the department in lieu of
a survey, such as GPS coordinates, to demonstrate land
boundaries. If the developer wanted to purchase the land, the
survey would be required.
4:37:45 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked her to repeat the cost of the survey.
4:37:50 PM
MS. COLLES replied that the cost ranges between $20,000 -
$40,000 dollars.
4:37:57 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL requested the definition of a cadastral survey.
4:38:05 PM
MS. COLLES replied that the cadastral survey mandates that land
must be marked with survey markers, which is often costly.
4:38:33 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP recalled seeing a local survey marker marked in
concrete.
4:38:45 PM
MS. COLLES moved to slide 9 and described land used for
commercial development:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Land for Commercial Development
• Stimulate economic development
• Offers land for leasing, and sale, by requesting
proposals
- For state land identified or nominated as a
Qualified Opportunity Zone
- For state land nominated by the public
- For any other state land the commissioner deems
appropriate for commercial development under 640
acres
- Nominated land may need to be reclassified
- Provide additional public notice beyond normal AS
38.05.945
MS. COLLES said under AS.38.05.840, DNR would need to evaluate
land nominations, identify land offering areas, prepare
documents relating to planning and classification, prepare best-
interest findings under AS.38.05.035(e), title due diligence,
title report issuance, and provide an appraisal of the land. The
DNR commissioner would be required to prepare a report for each
property deemed appropriate for commercial development. The
report would highlight the municipal and state government
services that the commissioner anticipates as necessary for the
area. It also includes municipal and state tax revenue required
to provide these services if the land undergoes commercial
development.
4:39:43 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked her to define commercial development and
wondered whether there are any restrictions for land use.
4:40:03 PM
MS. COLLES replied that DNR seeks individuals who hold a
business license and are willing to invest capital into the
property. Initially, a developer enters into a lease agreement.
Therefore, DNR would like to see evidence of a viable
development plan and proof of a commercial enterprise operation.
Proof of immediate profit is unnecessary given the time it may
take for operations to generate revenue. She noted that hunting
guides have previously shown interest in obtaining lodges,
uncertainty of land ownership makes it challenging for them to
invest capital.
4:40:59 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if any activities are prohibited for
commercial development, such as mining, oil, or gas operations.
4:41:15 PM
MS. COLLES replied that no activities are currently prohibited
under commercial operations. However, subsurface activities
would require additional authorization for operations. The
provision is specific to surface operations, so subsurface lands
could not be purchased under the provision.
4:41:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what discretion the commissioner has
in the reclassification of land and wondered whether any
parameters exist.
4:41:59 PM
MS. COLLES replied there are statutes that mandate DNR to go
through a public process to reclassify lands that often take 2-5
years and involve much public input. She said documents that
demonstrate that the reclassification of land is in the best
interest of the state are required, as well as coordination with
sister agencies.
4:42:31 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a best interest finding is
required for reclassification.
4:42:40 PM
MS. COLLES replied that the process is not identical to the best
interest finding under AS 38.05.035, but it requires a decision
under its own statute. She stated that plans that determine the
decision are appealed on a regular basis.
4:43:02 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if land would go to a competitive
auction if a developer requested to purchase and reclassify
property.
4:43:25 PM
MS. COLLES deferred the question.
4:43:37 PM
RACHEL LONGACRE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land
and Water (DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Anchorage, Alaska, replied that in the instance of two
overlapping nominations with solicited interest, there is a
competitive process in which the highest bid is collected.
4:44:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI acknowledged that a separate bill included
similar provisions and wondered how the reclassification process
would unfold under SB 199. He envisioned that a substantial
number of people could request to convert land for commercial
use and asked whether there is a requirement for fair market
value.
4:44:54 PM
MS. LONGACRE replied that the highest bidder would enter the
lease, but the lease requirements would include terms that prove
the commercial aspect. She said the actual land sale would be
for fair market value and go through the normal disposal
process. The highest bidder would need to meet the necessary
threshold.
4:45:32 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked how fair market value is determined.
4:45:37 PM
MS. LONGACRE responded that DMLW follows an appraisal process.
4:45:48 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR wondered if the public has a chance to bid in the
nomination process to eliminate an unfair advantage of first-
mover parties.
4:46:29 PM
MS. LONGACRE replied that once the nominated land meets the
program requirements, it goes through a public process that
solicits public interest.
4:46:45 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked for clarification of his understanding that
interested parties without a first-mover advantage could place
bids.
4:46:53 PM
MS. LONGACRE replied that is correct and said with a
solicitation of interest, a bid proposal is required. The
proposal must be vetted against program requirements for
commercial development.
4:47:13 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN provided a hypothetical of two competing parties
seeking land nomination. He asked if commercial development
would hold an advantage over residential development in the
nomination process.
4:47:56 PM
MS. LONGACRE replied that the advantage would only apply for
settlement lands. She said there is a detailed process to
determine the eligibility for obtaining a commercial lease on
state land. Residential or subdivision land undergoes a similar
assessment process. This in not opening new land. This tool
serves to provide commercial land options alongside subdivision
or remote recreational land, rather than introducing entirely
new land, so the settlement classification remains.
4:48:58 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether that would prompt DNR to reconsider
its assessment regarding the allocation of land for commercial
or residential purposes.
4:49:20 PM
MS. LONGACRE replied that it would be included in the analysis.
She said if DNR determines that the land is best suited for
residential use, the state would proceed with developing a
subdivision in that area while ensuring critical habitat
preservation is part of the assessment. Conversely, if an area
is deemed most suitable for commercial activity, DNR would
assess what is in the state's best interest. She emphasized that
there isn't necessarily competition between residential and
commercial uses, but rather a determination of what best suits
the land in that particular area. The state currently has the
option to offer land for sale under the subdivision disposal
program, which could eventually be utilized for commercial
purposes once under private ownership. The program allows the
state to ensure that offering the tracks of land would generate
commercial enterprises on the land that would help support
community economics in the area.
4:50:34 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referred to Section 17 of SB 199,
highlighting that it grants the commissioner the authority to
identify land suitable for commercial development. He expressed
concern over the broad scope of these standards, which could
potentially open up a vast amount of land across the state.
While acknowledging that the consensus favors opening up more
land, certain areas, such as state parks or wildlife refuges,
may not be suitable for commercial development. He noted that
according to the statute, the commissioner could potentially
open up any land.
4:51:54 PM
MS. LONGACRE replied that the land must be classified as
settlement land for DNR to go through the disposal process. She
said land identified under any other classification would need
to be reclassified. Statute provisions indicate how
reclassification goes through a public process and would not be
amendment by SB 199.
4:52:29 PM
MS. COLLES clarified that legislatively-designated areas and
parks could be reclassified or disposed of. DNR follows a public
process and allows for appeals if the public is affected by a
decision. This provision serves as another tool in the process.
While there are existing private programs, none currently exist
for commercial use, which is why DNR is seeking this type of
authority.
4:53:26 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR referenced the subsection on reclassification and
asked whether the commissioner already has the authority to
classify or reclassify lands. He said he does not understand
what subsection (c) changes under SB 199.
4:54:00 PM
MS. COLLES replied that DNR seeks to make it known that the
reclassification of land could occur and aims to ensure clarity
moving forward.
4:54:43 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR referenced slide 3 and said he understands the
desire to remove DNR from the process, noting there is already
an established disposal process in place. He asked for an
explanation of differences between DEED, Public Facilities, and
DNR processes. He suggested that DEED may have less experience
with the reclassification process compared to DNR.
4:55:57 PM
MS. COLLES said she would provide follow-up information to the
committee.
4:56:44 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP held SB 199 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 168 ADFG Fiscal Note 02.10.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Sponsor Statement Ver. A. 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Sectional Analysis Ver A. 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 190 Public Testimony as of 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 199 Ver. S.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Explanation of Changes v. A to S.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM STRA 2/20/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Presentation DNR SRES Ver. S.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| HB 282, SB 199 State Land_Disposal_Sale_ Briefing Paper 02.13.2024.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2024 1:30:00 PM SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 282 SB 199 |
| SB 199 Transmittal Letter 01.22.2024.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Fiscal Note DNR 02.12.2024.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM STRA 2/13/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Fiscal Note DEED 01.24.2024.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM STRA 2/13/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 190 Amendment 1.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 199 Sectional Analysis Ver. S. 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |