![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
August 26 and 27, 2004
Oil and Gas Commission Building
Casper, Wyoming
Senator Bill Hawks, Co-Chairman
Representative Clarene Law, Co-Chairman
Senator John Barasso
Senator Hank Coe
Senator Ken Decaria
Senator Jayne Mockler
Representative Pat Childers
Representative Stan Cooper
Representative Floyd Esquibel [August 27 only]
Representative Pete Illoway
Representative Saundra Meyer
Representative David Miller
Representative Tom Walsh
Representative Frank Latta
David Gruver, Staff Attorney
Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee
Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Cochairman Hawks called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.
Jeff Vogel, Banking Commissioner addressed the Committee. The issue of regulating mortgage lenders has been before the Legislature since at least ten years ago. The banking division tracks calls regarding mortgage lending and they are averaging about 585 calls per year. Currently there is no jurisdiction for the division to oversee mortgage lending but the division does act as a facilitator to send consumer complaints on to the appropriate regulatory authority. The division does regulate some first mortgage transactions under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. Mr. Vogel addressed other financial regulation undertaken by his office, such as bank solvency and post dated check cashing.
Mr. Vogel is proposing to regulate mortgage lending given the huge impact it has on the average consumer. He provided two items to the Committee, a press release regarding a settlement with Household Finance and an example of misrepresentation which his office has been presented with. [Appendices 3 and 4]. A white paper summarizing the issue and previously provided to the Committee is attached as Appendix 5.
Mr. Vogel briefly discussed the proposed legislation. [05 LSO 0074.W1, Appendix 6]. The act requires a business engaged in mortgage lending to be licensed by the commissioner. Employees of the business are not licensed. The person who is licensed is one who controls the business activities, as defined in the act. A number of entities are exempted from licensing requirements. The bill requires certain disclosures by the mortgage lenders and allows for examination and investigations of those lenders by the commissioner. He estimated there would be about 400 to 500 business licensed under the act. Overall, the act would be expected to be revenue neutral.
The Committee discussed the requests for the banking division, complaints, Wyoming problems, small businesses and internet issues. The Committee discussed the need for the bill generally including the ability to pursue civil remedies currently under the federal truth in lending act. The initial licensing fee would be estimated to be about $400 to $500 to make the program self-sustaining and the renewal fee would likely be less.
Laurie Urbigkit, Wyoming Association of Realtors and Wyoming Housing Alliance, addressed the Committee and provided written testimony providing an example of exorbitant fees attempted to be charged by a mortgage lender. [Appendix 7]. Ms. Urbigkit provided other examples of what were proposed closing cost fees that were exorbitant. She was concerned with such fees, prepayment penalties and other such items which allow first time home buyers to be preyed upon by unlicensed mortgage brokers and the failure of mortgage brokers to maintain fees collected in a trust account and then paid to third parties such as appraisers.
Bobbie Larsen, real estate broker in Douglas, testified as to a personal example of an experience with an unlicensed broker, discussing the mortgage broker failing to timely payoff an old mortgage, failing to record a mortgage and file a warranty deed and failing to forward funds he had collected.
Lora Edwards, Wallick and Volk, spoke generally in support of the bill. She did have a number of questions regarding the bill and the extent of the problem in relation to the number of mortgage loans in the state.
Brenda Nunez, Association of Mortgage Brokers, spoke in support of the bill. She clarified that mortgage brokers are not mortgage lenders and that mortgage brokers are not regulated by state or federal authorities; however, mortgage lenders are regulated and mortgage brokers must work through mortgage lenders and thus are indirectly tied to that regulation. She has not seen any infractions by Association members, but noted that Association members are those who favor the regulation of the industry.
Representative Childers asked that the bill draft be made available to brokers and real estate persons before the Committee took any action on the bill. Representative Walsh suggested the bill be assigned to a subcommittee to work on the issue. Cochairman Hawks suggested that the Banking Commissioner be asked to solicit input from interested parties and that the Committee work an amended bill which might result from that action.
Cochairman Law moved that the bill should be taken up as a Committee bill at the next meeting, Representative Illoway seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The banking commissioner was directed to work with industry and return to the Committee with a revised bill.
Tucker Fagan, Steve Achter and Shawn Reese, with the Wyoming Business Council addressed the community development loan and grant program. Mr. Fagan provided a written summary of the Business Ready Community program and a request for additional funding for the program. [Appendix 8]. He also provided a summary of applications and grants made under the program. [Appendix 9].
The Committee discussed the rules, applications and approvals under the Business Ready Community program. Items discussed included the ability of communities to maintaining current infrastructure and ensuring there a mechanism in place to maintain the additional infrastructure. Other Committee questions included whether there are checks in place to ensure continued community ownership of the infrastructure, the possibility of competitive disadvantages when infrastructure is built for any particular business and involvement of schools seeking funding under the program for enhancements not payable by the state for school construction.
Cochairman Hawks suggested the Committee write to the Joint Appropriations Committee supporting the requested additional funding of $11,600,000. Representative Illoway seconded the motion. The motion passed with Senator Mockler voting no. Staff was directed to write the letter for the chairmen's signature.
Mr. Fagan and Patrick Pitet addressed the air services enhancement program. There have been three grants to Jackson, Cody and Casper for enhanced air services. Senator Coe reviewed the Cody air enhancement program and stated the program was a success in terms of load factors which has translated to increased rental car days and tourism activities. Mr. Fagan agreed with that assessment and suggested the program be continued with a $3,000,000 appropriation. Representative Illoway moved the Committee also write to the JAC to support an additional $3,000,000 appropriation to the program.
Mr. Fagan also suggested it might make sense to move the program from the Business Council to the Aeronautics Commission. Senator Coe moved the program should be transferred solely to the Aeronautics Commission. Mr. Pitet suggested if that is done, there should be a full time position added to the program under the Aeronautics Commission and the funding should be adequate for the position. Representative Illoway moved to write a letter to JAC to fund the program at the current level. A position should be funded for an additional fulltime position under the Aeronautics Commission. On the motion for a letter for continued funding - passed. On the motion for a bill draft transferring the program - passed, with the addition that the bill include the funding of $3 million from the general fund. The funding for the position should be included at an unknown amount with the funding from the general fund. The Aeronautics Commission should have an additional full time position and the business council should have a reduction of one full time position.
Ben Avery and Tucker Fagan addressed the challenge loan program and a proposed expansion of the program. The proposed program provides a reduced interest rate to businesses and loan guarantees. [Appendices 10 and 11] Representative Walsh moved a bill be drafted on the proposal to add another option to the challenge loan program as identified in Appendix 10. The motion was seconded by Representative Illoway and passed. LSO staff noted if the proposal is for the state to lend its credit in any fashion either singularly or in conjunction with lending institutions, the program must be limited to Amendment IV funds.
State Treasurer Cynthia Lummis addressed the Committee regarding economic development financing. She provided two written items summarizing her testimony. [Appendices 12 and 13].
Private equity programs were first addressed. Ryan Ford addressed the Committee regarding the state's investments. [Appendix 14]. John Fitzgerald and Phil Parrott with Cheyenne Capital Fund addressed the Committee regarding private equities. They discussed what the private equity market is and what they are attempting to invest in on behalf of the state of Wyoming. Private equities include venture capital and a number of other different investments, such as buyouts or mezzanine investments; but does not include the purchase of stocks in publicly traded companies.
Mr. Fitzgerald reviewed the range of risk in the various private equity investments. He reviewed how private equity investments work, what the current market is for private equity investments and Wyoming's endeavor in private equity. The Cheyenne Capital Fund is a limited partnership, with Wyoming being a limited partner and the general partner being another entity controlled by Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Parrott. [Appendix 15]. The size of the fund is $225,000,000 with a target return of 12 to 20%. He stated private equity involves thousands of hours of review for any one investment. The Treasurer emphasized the fund does not invest in start up companies, but it does assist such businesses with business planning. The Treasurer noted this involves an investment of the state's permanent funds and as such the primary goal must be to seek the best return available with commensurate risks; economic development cannot be the primary driving force but it can be a secondary consideration.
The Treasurer then introduced Diana Smith and Cecilia Prinster of Colorado Enterprise Fund. They provided a packet of written material to the Committee. [Appendix 16]. The fund targets emerging businesses with investments generally being higher risks. The state Treasurer explained the state does not invest directly in private business other than for farm loans. The Treasurer stated the fund was a successful model which was being presented to show the Committee an example of a successful private equity investment vehicle and she thought the Colorado Enterprise Fund could fill a nitch in investment in Wyoming. The Treasurer stated there is a private equity fund being created in Wyoming.
Dave Picard and Gingee Prince from Enhanced Capital Partners provided a Wyoming Economic Resource Initiative and written materials explaining how their proposal would work. [Appendices 17 and 18]. Basically the state would provide tax credits in exchange for investment in Wyoming. The proposal would be for a fund of $25,000,000. Mr. Picard stated the proposal last session would be to use insurance premium tax credits.
The Committee discussed the concept and the lack of review of this topic at this time. Representative Walsh moved the original draft bill be brought back to the Committee for consideration at the next meeting. Representative Illoway seconded. Senator Decaria noted and Cochairman Hawks agreed it was not an approved interim topic and Cochairman Hawks was hesitant to bring the issue to the Management Council. Cochairman Law suggested the item was appropriate under economic development. Representative Illoway suggested the old bill should be reviewed by the business council and Mr. Picard. Representative Walsh agreed the old bill should not just be resurrected and the old bill should be reviewed and worked upon. No vote was taken on Representative Walsh's motion. Senator Decaria asked should the bill be brought back it be given to the Committee well before the next meeting. Cochairman Law noted the LSO had some concerns with the bill as drafted for the last session. Cochairman Hawks directed that before the business council work on the bill with Mr. Picard, the LSO should discuss its concerns with the Senator to see if those could be addressed in any potential redraft.
John Corra, Director of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), addressed the issue of potential changes to the abandoned mine land program. He will work with Cochairman Hawks.
Mr. Corra addressed leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). He provided a background of the LUST program including the fees charged and how the fund operates. A number of sites have been cleaned up. There are some issues to address regarding the LUST program, but Mr. Corra is not ready to make recommendations for change at this time.
Mr. Corra, John Wagner and Todd Parfitt of the DEQ Water Quality Division, addressed the implementation of the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permitting. Mr. Parfitt provided written materials summarizing his testimony. [Appendix 19]. The testimony addressed the implementation of the new program, the turnaround in permitting and issues remaining in implementation of the program. The Committee discussed the classification of the watersheds involved and watershed based permitting under the system. Mr. Parfitt also addressed the permitting fees and use of funds received, which are specifically designated for water quality efforts and not administration of the program. There will be a supplemental budget request of $1,200,000 for the program to allow the use of those fees. Other items such as potential impacts to groundwater and public notice under the program were addressed by Mr. Parfitt. Compliance, based on inspections currently is about 75 to 80%.
Mr. Corra discussed Coal Bed Methane (CBM) noting there currently is not any in channel pond reclamation oversight and he discussed groundwater contamination. Experience has shown at least one pond leaking salt into underground water. The Department is looking at monitoring and prevention activities to determine if there are groundwater problems.
Cochairman Hawks expressed concern about the small window of opportunity to act on building additional pipeline capacity in Wyoming. CBM is currently decreasing at a rate of 7.5%. He questioned whether the reserves can still be produced with increased costs of addressing excess water. He asked the DEQ to consider whether the definition of aquifer should be looked at to address the amount and quality of water being contaminated. He asked DEQ to meet with industry to address those concerns. Representative Miller noted the problem could be very difficult to address since it appears the contamination is coming from the ground between the pond and the aquifer rather than from the CBM water. The Committee discussed whether the aquifer will purify itself once CBM development has stopped. Mr. Wagner noted there would need to be a source of water to "flush out" the aquifer but overall the effect is unknown and is what the Department is trying to determine. Representative Childers questioned why the Water Development Commission could not use funding to address the issue.
John Corra had previously provided a white paper on Regional Haze. [Appendix 20]. Dan Olson, DEQ Air Quality Division, addressed the Committee. An outline of his testimony is attached as Appendix 21. Of the 156 Federal Class I areas in the Clean Air Act, seven are in Wyoming. In 1990 Congress adopted a regional haze law allowing the EPA to establish regional haze standards. In 1997 EPA establish a rule containing two programs, a "308" program and "309" program. The differences between the 308 and 309 programs were addressed. The reasons why DEQ believed 309 was best for Wyoming were set forth. Mr. Olson testified there was still a lot of room under the milestones based upon current emissions to meet the requirements in the future.
Dave Finley, DEQ Solid and Hazardous Waste Division, addressed the Committee regarding solid waste. John Corra had previously provided a white paper to the Committee. [Appendix 22]. One of the largest issues before the DEQ is the problem of municipal landfills and the costs to local governments. Mr. Finley presented a draft report from the DEQ and an advisory citizen's group on the issue. [Appendix 23]. There are 130 community landfills in the state; 52 landfills are active, 78 are closed and 21 are leaking. DEQ predicts 65 more of the 130 will ultimately leak. The cost to clean up these landfills is expected to be anywhere from $500,000 to $6,500,000 per landfill for an estimated total cost of $180,000,000. It does not appear to be cost effective to continue with 52 lined landfills. The options available are to do nothing, which would result in large costs for lining landfills or to allow the local entities to take care of their own problems.
The recommendations from the advisory group are: 1) the state to establish leaking landfill fund, like the leaking underground storage tank fund; 2) to establish local planning and state solid waste goals; 3) for the DEQ to treat all landfills equally (currently small landfills are treated differently); 4) create a state trust for future leaks; and 5) provide adequate DEQ resources for the cleanup and planning program.
Mr. Finley reviewed two draft pieces of legislation previously provided to the Committee. [Appendices 24 and 25]. The first would address community landfill remediation. The fund would be generated on a per capita basis from the local entities, an additional fee for persons in jurisdictions with a leaking landfill and a state general fund appropriation. There would also be a trust account in the amount of $20,000,000 for future leaks. The program would be viewed as a 30 year commitment. $3,500,000 per year would come from the state general fund and the same amount from the local entities fees. Committee members questioned the practicality of regional landfills throughout the state.
The second bill draft reviewed by Mr. Finley would encourage regional landfills by local government cooperation by providing incentives. A regional landfill would serve a multi jurisdictional area. Both bills were deemed necessary in the view of the DEQ and the advisory group. Mr. Corra stated the driving force behind the bills is the cost to local entities in cleaning up the current landfills. In response to Committee questions Mr. Finley noted the state cannot simply prohibit the importation of solid waste, but has enacted a number of statutes which strictly regulate the importation of solid waste. He also explained a liner system and that a system can add as much as $100,000 per acre to the cost of a landfill.
Representative Esquibel moved the recommendations of Mr. Finley. The motion was clarified to direct staff to draft the proposals in the proper bill form. Representative Childers asked for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. [Appendix 26]. There are landfills that have some differences in those groundwater measurements that are not included as a leaking landfill.
Cochairman Hawks asked for clarification of the differentiation and the changeover expected. Mr. Finley stated the short answer is that leaking landfills be closed and that regional landfills take their place. Representative Cooper asked if a large part of the problem poor location of the landfill. Mr. Finley answered that is true, but just relocating will not obviate the need for lining the new landfills. There was a UW study of that issue and it was determined that even if placed in a proper site, there is a 33% leaking rate to be expected statistically. Other questions were why other methods for reducing waste were not addressed, such as recycling. Mr. Finley stated it would be part of the regional planning activities.
The motion to have the bills drafted passed with Representative Miller voting no. The motion was clarified that the drafts can include any changes the DEQ would recommend and that the legislative findings should be reviewed by the LSO and may be deleted as determined advisable.
Marion Loomis addressed the Committee. He provided written materials concerning bonding reclamation. [Appendix 27]. Every mining company must have a reclamation bond on file with the DEQ. The bond is higher than what it would cost industry to fulfill its reclamation obligations. 974 instruments cover a total of $1,800,000,000 in reclamation bonding. There have only been about $2.9 million in bond forfeitures over the last 30 years. The mining industry is having difficulty in securing bonds. The funds for bonds are being paid to essentially one company not based in Wyoming. He urged something be done to attempt to retain more of this bond money in Wyoming and there should be more review of bonding requirements. Mr. Loomis did indicate the DEQ has worked with industry to address some of the concerns and he commended them for that work. He would like to see further work on other issues such as maximum self-bonding limits. One issue of possible future legislation would be to change tail liability faster than currently allowed (10 years before application for release of the bond can be made). A solution might be for the industry to use reserves or other financial assurance mechanisms after a shorter period of time. There was no proposal for legislation at this time from Mr. Loomis.
Senator Mockler asked why bond premiums are rising when there is little risk of exposure based on past history. Mr. Loomis stated he understood the insurers really did not want the business of reclamation bonds. The coal bonding is a federal requirement driven, noncoal is state requirement driven and smaller companies have more difficulty being bonded.
The Committee recessed at 4:10 p.m.
Memo from James Patterson was handed out to the Committee. [Appendix 28].
Cochairman Law called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Cochairman Hawks summarized actions taken by the Committee yesterday as follows: on mortgage lenders, Banking Commissioner Vogel is to bring a redraft of the legislation to the next meeting after discussion with the interested parties; for Business Ready Communities a letter is to be drafted for the cochairmen's signatures to the JAC endorsing the request for additional funding as presented to the Committee by Mr. Fagan; on air services enhancements, legislation is to be drafted transferring the program from the Business Council to the Aeronautics Commission, an appropriation as requested and a position is to be moved from the Business Council to the Commission along with an appropriation as to be suggested by the Commission; for the Challenge Loan Program the LSO is to draft legislation to expand the program as suggested by Mr. Fagan; for CBM permits, Cochairman Hawks reiterated his concern that future discussion with interested parties be held to discuss both the environmental concerns and the need to develop resources; on waste management, LSO is to draft two bills or one bill as determined appropriate based upon the drafts presented by the DEQ, with changes identified by the DEQ; on the LUST program, there is to be a further review the rules and statutes to determine if there is a need for changes; on reclamation bonds, it appears industry and the DEQ are addressing that issue at this time. Cochairman Hawks asked the minutes to reflect this summary and include a summary of the Colorado enterprise fund presentation, so that Committee members could take whatever action they determined appropriate on that item.
Steve Ellenbecker addressed the Committee. [Appendix 29]. He noted no new transmission lines have been built in the West in the past 20 years. He testified the split of ownership between the generators and transmission owners has caused competition in generation but has stymied transmission line building. He provided written material which shows Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study recommendations for additional transmission lines and expected additional generation. [Appendix 30].
Mr. Ellenbecker introduced four of the five members of the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority present - Mike Easley, Bryce Freeman, Don O'Shei and Kyle White. (Jim Tarpey is the fifth member of the Authority.) Mr. Easley addressed the Committee and provided an outline of his testimony. [Appendix 31]. He noted it takes years for permitting to be done for transmission lines and initial funding will not sustain the Authority past start up and the ability to issue tax exempt bonds was limited.
Committee questions and discussion included preplanning and regulation by the FERC directly and indirectly and the length of the permitting process. The Committee also discussed whether the actions of increasing transmission and generation in Wyoming were a diversification of the Wyoming economy and whether there is a benefit to the state of Wyoming, views on both sides of that issue were expressed. Mr. Ellenbecker noted interstate transmission lines are regulated by the FERC and there is an opportunity to work with the FERC and thus far the FERC has been supportive of the efforts of the entity. Representative Illoway asked if Senator Mockler would provide the entire Committee with the questions she noted she would be forwarding to the Authority.
Rick Miller, University of Wyoming (UW) vice president and Bill Gern, UW vice president addressed the Committee. Mr. Miller provided a written report from the University regarding the Wyoming Technology Business Center. [Appendix 32]. The funding for the center has been raised which will allow the University to issue the bonds authorized in prior legislation. Mr. Miller noted he might return to the Committee later to ask the Committee to move the April 1, 2005 cutoff date for the project to the summer. At this time it is not known if that change will be necessary since it depends on the timing for one piece of the funding. The date needs to be changed from April 1 to July 1. Mr. Gern testified the University has raised $61,000,000 for research in the past year. He testified as to the progress being made in developing tenants and other items regarding the development of the center.
Representative Illoway moved for the legislation to be drafted for the next meeting moving the date as discussed. The motion was seconded by Representative Meyer and passed.
Charles Ware, Fred Bronnenberg and Jonathan Downing, Wyoming Contractors Association, addressed the proposed legislation 05 LSO 0075.W1. [Appendix 33]. The white paper previously submitted to the Committee is Appendix 34. He emphasized the bill would not require any specific construction delivery method but would provide additional options.
The Committee was also provided with a written statement from Rich Cathcart, the person overseeing state capital construction projects, expressing concerns about the bill. [Appendix 35]. Those concerns include the different delivery systems do not allow an "apples to apples" comparison and that a bid for a not to exceed number provides little incentive to the construction manager to provide the product at less than the not to exceed number.
Committee members discussed the bill and the difference between the construction delivery methods. The bill would allow the use of methods other than a low bid proposal. Mr. Bronnenberg stated the methods all still provide for competition. One issue raised was how the bill affects architects.
Craig Unger, Design Build Institute of America, addressed the Committee in support of the bill draft. His written support is in Appendix 36.
George Parks, WAM, testified the membership of WAM is generally supportive of the draft, but there are some items that need to be reviewed. He noted the exact draft had not been presented to the WAM membership and asked that it be moved forward for continued examination.
Lloyd Peterson, on behalf of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, spoke in favor of the draft. They like the ability to use a method other than low bid. County Commissioners do not intend to abandon the low bid method, but would use the alternative methods as it appeared most useful. He cited a specific example in which he felt Goshen County could have saved money on a small project if the alternative methods had been available.
Patrick McManus, Martin/Martin consulting engineers, addressed the Committee in support of the bill. [Appendix 37]. One reason is it allows the greater involvement by the contractor up front for greater flexibility in the design to reduce costs by addressing issues the contractor has raised providing for reduced design and construction costs.
Bubba Shivler, school facilities commission, spoke in opposition to the bill. The state has a large amount of funding for school construction at issue. In his view the best means of receiving a true cost estimate is the traditional design bid method. A preestablished group can be more efficient, but it can also become a good old boys club, shutting out competition. Seeking low bids can assure the public of getting the most for public funds. He noted that splitting bonding between a number of contractors and subcontractors can lead to small bonds and reluctance of companies to fix problems. Overall, in view there are a number of pitfalls in the system. A guarantee maximum price brings with it an automatic increase in the price to protect the contractor against contingencies.
Nancy Freudenthal, representing TSP Two, Inc., addressed the Committee. She stated the difference between professional services and construction services should be noted and expressed her concern the bill as drafted blurs that distinction. She provided a written statement for the Committee suggesting a number of amendments to the bill. [Appendix 38]. Her client is satisfied with the current law, but if the Committee chooses to amend the law it is important that the construction components of the law not be inadvertently applied to professional services aspects.
Mike Purcell, American Counsel of Engineering Companies of Wyoming, addressed the Committee. He neither supported nor opposed the bill at this time, but did ask to be included in further development of the bill. He noted it is being assumed the bill only applies to vertical construction or buildings, but was not sure it was so limited and preferred that it would be. He did have reservations with some of the components of the bill. The application of the 5% preference for Wyoming resident needs to be addressed.
Representative Walsh moved the bill draft be forwarded to the next Committee meeting with the various groups working on changes to the proposal to bring the draft back before the Committee for consideration again at the next meeting. Representative Illoway seconded the motion. Committee discussion clarified it is not a Committee bill at this time, but will be given time on the agenda at the next meeting. The motion passed.
Lynne Boomgaarden, Director of the Office of State Lands and Investments (Office), addressed the issue of royalties in kind. She had previously presented information to the Committee and reviewed that information. [Appendix 39], including the authority for the Board to take oil or gas in kind in lieu of money payment of royalties. She explained that due to a price differential for Wyoming gas out of state retail purchasers have inquired about taking of royalties in kind; other entities have contacted the State Board of Land Commissioners (Board) regarding the possibility of obtaining Wyoming gas through the in-kind royalty provision. She stated since the lands are trust lands, there must be a receipt of fair market value for the gas. Ms. Boomgaarden provided an example considered by the Board regarding the Wyoming Sugar Company.
Ms. Boomgaarden noted the Office is not staffed to be an oil and gas marketer. There is statutory authority to take in kind, there is a need to address current rules and there is a need to address statutory change in case there was an intent to help distressed industries.
The Committee discussed the impact of the Wyoming Supreme Court opinion in Riedel v. Anderson,70 P.3d 223 (Wyo. 2003) discussing whether school lands are held in a state statutory versus federally imposed or constitutionally mandated trust. Ms. Boomgaarden stated the issue may be appropriate for legislative debate and there are a number of unresolved issues as to the full impact of the Supreme Court opinion.
The Committee tentatively set its next meeting for Casper on October 12 and 13, with the chairmen adjusting as necessary.
There being no further business, Cochairman Law adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Senator Hawks, Cochairman Representative Law, Cochairman