Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Property Inventory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee amends H.50 inventory language to tie excess land to an agency’s statutory purpose
Summary
A legislative committee agreed on a committee amendment to H.50 that changes the state-owned property inventory language to ask whether land is unnecessary for the statutory purpose of the agency that controls it, rather than for the state generally.
On May 20, 2025, a legislative committee considering H.50 agreed to a committee amendment that narrows the property-inventory language to ask whether land is unnecessary for the statutory purpose of the agency that controls it rather than unnecessary for “state purposes.”
The change, presented as a committee amendment to H.50, is intended to make the inventory question more specific and to limit subjective judgments about whether state-owned land should be considered surplus or sold. Senator Watson said the amendment was designed to avoid a narrow reading that could remove properties from public use: “The language is intended to not be narrowing but rather expansive in terms of ensuring that the statutory purposes of…an agency are included in whatever we deem as purposes of the state,” she said.
The discussion opened with a reading from a 1986 state inventory report introduced to the committee as historical context; the report said the purpose of listing state-owned buildings was “to display as accurately as possible a total listing of state buildings, location, and description of their general use and value.” A committee member noted that the inventory should include as much information as possible so that the state can maintain properties “in the best manner to serve the public.”
Committee members debated whether the inventory should ask agencies whether land is unnecessary for the agency’s purposes or whether it should ask whether land is unnecessary for state purposes. One member said the distinction matters because land that is unused by one agency could be useful to another. The committee settled on wording that asks agency heads to indicate whether buildings are vacant and whether any land is unnecessary for the statutory purpose of that specific agency.
Senator Lawson, identified in the meeting as the sponsor of the amendment language under discussion, told the panel she supported the revised wording: “I feel good about that. In fact, I think I like it better, because the point is shorter… and I think it does the clarifying work that I was hoping it would do,” she said.
Committee members emphasized that the inventory is a reporting and informational threshold, not an authorization to sell property. One participant summarized the intent: the inventory is “the first threshold” in a longer process and would show properties an agency believes it could do without; subsequent steps would determine transfers or sales.
The committee directed staff to update the draft to reflect the agreed language; a staff member said the revised draft should be ready by the following day. No formal roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript; the change was handled as a committee amendment agreed to in committee discussion.
Background: committee members referenced a 1986 inventory introduced by then-Governor Madeleine Kunin as precedent for producing an updated statewide property listing. The committee also noted that agencies such as the Agency of Human Services (AHS) may report properties they do not currently use, but the committee’s chosen language leaves room for other agencies or future needs to claim a property’s usefulness.
