Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120

04/25/2019 03:00 PM STATE AFFAIRS

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ HB 139 AK PERM. FUND CORP. PROCUREMENT EXEMPTION TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HB 132 PERM. FUND:DEPOSITS;DIVIDEND;EARNINGS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HJR 6 CONST. AM.:PERMANENT FUND & DIVIDEND TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HJR 18 CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV;EARNINGS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
           HJR 6-CONST. AM.:PERMANENT FUND & DIVIDEND                                                                       
 [Contains discussion of HJR 5, HJR 7, SJR 4, SJR 5, and SJR 6]                                                                 
                                                                                                                              
4:21:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the  final order of business would                                                               
be  HOUSE JOINT  RESOLUTION NO.  6, Proposing  amendments to  the                                                               
Constitution  of  the State  of  Alaska  relating to  the  Alaska                                                               
permanent fund and the permanent fund dividend.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:21:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BRUCE  TANGEMAN, Commissioner,  Department of  Revenue (DOR),  on                                                               
behalf of the  House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor  of HJR 6,                                                               
by  request   of  the  governor,   lauded  the  actions   of  the                                                               
legislature  in  creating  the percent  of  market  value  (POMV)                                                               
structure of drawing money from  the permanent fund and noted the                                                               
current  discussions  in  the committee  meeting  addressing  the                                                               
split.   He stated that  HJR 6  would protect Alaskans'  right to                                                               
determine the  future of the  permanent fund dividend (PFD).   He                                                               
said that  the permanent fund  and the  PFD was never  broken and                                                               
worked  exactly  as  designed  for  34 years.    Over  the  three                                                               
decades, the PFD calculation and  the amount paid to Alaskans was                                                               
never  questioned, regardless  of the  size of  the check,  until                                                               
2016,  when  the  legislature  appropriated   the  full  PFD  and                                                               
Governor Bill Walker  vetoed it by half.  In  2017 and 2018, both                                                               
branches of government agreed on a reduced dividend.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TANGEMAN,  in  response to  Representative  Wool's  proposed                                                               
legislation [HB 132, introduced  and discussed during the 4/25/19                                                               
House  State  Affairs  Standing  Committee  meeting],  said  that                                                               
currently DOR tracks the market  to determine a five-year rolling                                                               
average; HB 132 would track the  price and production of oil.  He                                                               
stated that in 2012, the PFD was  $878; in 2013 the PFD was $900;                                                               
however, in  2015, the dividend  was the largest ever  at $2,072.                                                               
He stated that  the dip reflected the market  correction of 2008,                                                               
which  affected the  following five  years; in  2013, the  amount                                                               
again  increased and  was  at  its highest  level  in  2015.   He                                                               
conceded that  there has been  volatility in the PFD  amount, but                                                               
Alaskans never questioned the amount,  because they understood it                                                               
to  be the  result  of  the calculation  and  not  politics.   He                                                               
maintained that  political decisions regarding the  amount of the                                                               
PFD are  what "got  people's attention"  and created  the current                                                               
situation.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. TANGEMAN said  that the constitutional amendment  under HJR 6                                                               
would  guarantee   the  PFD;  PFDs   would  not  be   subject  to                                                               
appropriation; the funds would be  transferred to the PFD payment                                                               
fund and  distributed.   He maintained  that the  amendment under                                                               
the proposed  resolution would protect  the PFD; it could  not be                                                               
reduced by the legislature or  the governor's veto.  Further, the                                                               
amendment would  require that  any changes  to the  statutory PFD                                                               
formula  would require  a vote  of  the people.   He  emphasized,                                                               
"It's Alaska's PFD  and they should be entrusted  with the future                                                               
of any changes to the calculation."   He stated that the proposed                                                               
resolution  is  part of  Governor  Michael  J. Dunleavy's  larger                                                               
fiscal  plan,  which is  to  ensure  Alaskans are  included  when                                                               
deciding the size and scope of their government.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:26:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM MILKS,  Senior Assistant Attorney General,  Legislation &                                                               
Regulations Section,  Civil Division (Juneau), Department  of Law                                                               
(DOL), on behalf  of the House Rules  Standing Committee, sponsor                                                               
of HJR 6,  by request of the governor, relayed  that the proposed                                                               
resolution  consists of  a constitutional  amendment which  would                                                               
provide  for a  dividend in  the Alaska  State Constitution.   He                                                               
reiterated that  the statutory dividend program  was followed for                                                               
three  decades;  it not  being  followed  prompted a  court  case                                                               
challenge; the Alaska Supreme Court  stated clearly that absent a                                                               
constitutional amendment  providing for a dividend,  the PFD will                                                               
compete  annually for  legislative  appropriations.   He  relayed                                                               
that the proposed amendment follows up on that decision.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. MILKS paraphrased from the sectional analysis, which read as                                                                
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section 1:  This would  provide a  conforming amendment                                                                  
     to  the  existing  language in  order  to  authorize  a                                                                    
     portion  of  permanent  fund  income  to  be  used  for                                                                    
     dividends as set forth in Section 2.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section   2:  This   section  would   create  two   new                                                                  
     subsections in the permanent fund amendment.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection  (b) would  require that  a  portion of  the                                                                    
     permanent   fund    income   be   used,    without   an                                                                    
     appropriation,  solely   for  the  purpose   of  paying                                                                    
     permanent  fund  dividends  to state  residents.  Those                                                                    
     payments would occur according  to the dividend program                                                                    
     and formula currently set  forth in statute. Subsection                                                                    
     (b)  would also  allow  the legislature  to change  the                                                                    
     dividend  program,  including amount  and  eligibility,                                                                    
     subject  to the  approval of  the voters  in subsection                                                                    
     (c).                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection  (c) would  require that  any law  passed by                                                                    
     the legislature  to amend  the permanent  fund dividend                                                                    
     program,  including  the  amount  and  the  eligibility                                                                    
     requirements, would  not take effect unless  the voters                                                                    
     approved  the  proposed  law   at  the  next  statewide                                                                    
     election.  If approved  by the  voters,  it would  take                                                                    
     effect 90 days after certification of the election.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  3: This  transition  provision specifies  that                                                                  
     the dividend program in place  on January 1, 2019 would                                                                    
     remain in  place until the  legislature and  the voters                                                                    
     approved a change to the program.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section  4:   This  section  would  require   that  the                                                                  
     constitutional  amendment  be  placed  on  the  general                                                                    
     election ballot in 2020.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:29:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS   asked    for   the   administration's                                                               
perspective  on  the  changes  made  to  [SJR  5]  -  the  Senate                                                               
companion resolution.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MILKS  responded  that  the  largest  change  was  that  the                                                               
proposed  constitutional amendment  would  include the  statutory                                                               
formula for  calculating the dividend  amount, and any  change in                                                               
the formula would  be subject to the approval of  the voters.  He                                                               
mentioned  that an  additional change  to the  proposed amendment                                                               
was the replacement of annual payments with quarterly payments.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  asked for the  administration's position                                                               
on the quarterly disbursements.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:31:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MIKE BARNHILL, Director of Policy,  Office of Management & Budget                                                               
(OMB), Office of the Governor,  responded on the administration's                                                               
position  on  changes made  to  SJR  5  by the  Senate  Judiciary                                                               
Standing   Committee  [during   the   4/15/19   meeting].     The                                                               
administration supports  the elimination of the  requirement that                                                               
any  change in  eligibility requirements  [for the  PFD] must  be                                                               
approved by  voters.  The  administration does not object  to the                                                               
amendment  calling for  quarterly  disbursements of  the PFD  but                                                               
that  the  change would  be  accomplished  more appropriately  by                                                               
statute.     The  administration  did  not   voice  an  objection                                                               
regarding  the third  change -  rolling  SJR 6  into SJR  5.   He                                                               
explained that  SJR 6  constitutes the  administration's proposal                                                               
with respect  to a constitutional  spending limit.  He  said that                                                               
the  administration's   preference  is  that  the   two  proposed                                                               
resolutions be considered  separately; they represent substantial                                                               
policy amendments to the constitution.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  whether the  administration opposes                                                               
quarterly payments as a social engineering concept.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL  expressed that  there are  valid policy  reasons to                                                               
pay  the PFD  on a  more periodic  basis:   more of  the dividend                                                               
money  would stay  in state;  it would  have more  impact on  the                                                               
economy  of the  state; it  could  generate jobs;  and an  annual                                                               
dividend  tends  to   be  spent  Outside.    He   said  that  the                                                               
administration's objection  is not from a  policy standpoint, but                                                               
due  to a  concern for  the appropriate  place -  constitution or                                                               
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE  suggested  that quarterly  payments  would                                                               
benefit not only  the recipients but the earnings  of the corpus,                                                               
as the money would remain in  the corpus longer.  She expressed a                                                               
desire  to  hear  the perspective  of  Angela  Rodell,  Executive                                                               
Director,  Alaska Permanent  Fund  Corporation, (APFC)  regarding                                                               
quarterly payments.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE  asked  if  it is  possible  to  adopt  the                                                               
proposed constitutional  amendment in HJR 6  without adopting the                                                               
proposed spending cap and vice versa.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BARNHILL  answered  that  the  administration  intentionally                                                               
structured  the  proposed   constitutional  amendments  in  three                                                               
separate vehicles so that the  citizens would have the ability to                                                               
vote on each  one based on its merits; by  implication, one could                                                               
be adopted  without the other.   He said that  the constitutional                                                               
amendments would  give the voters  the opportunity to vote  up or                                                               
down on the spending limit [HJR 7  and SJR 6], on a dividend that                                                               
is constitutionally  appropriated [HJR 6  and SJR 5], and  on the                                                               
taxpayer's bill of  rights [HJR 5 and SJR 4].   He concluded that                                                               
one amendment  could be adopted  without the others;  however, it                                                               
is  the   Dunleavy  administration's  perspective  is   that  the                                                               
residents should have the opportunity to vote on each.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked  whether HJR 6 protects  the corpus of                                                               
the permanent fund.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BARNHILL responded  that  existing constitutional  construct                                                               
regarding the  permanent fund protects  the corpus;  the language                                                               
was adopted in 1976.  It  relays that the principle shall be used                                                               
only for incoming-producing investments,  implying that it cannot                                                               
be appropriated.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:36:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR FIELDS commented that the  constitution does not protect                                                               
the ERA;  therefore, the legislature  could still draw  down that                                                               
account.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL concurred.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL  asked  for   confirmation  that  under  the                                                               
proposed  constitutional amendment,  the  statutory formula  [for                                                               
the  PFD] would  be  in the  constitution, and  a  change in  the                                                               
formula would require a vote of the people.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BARNHILL replied  that  the  constitutional amendment  would                                                               
guarantee  the transfer  of PFD  funds pursuant  to statute.   It                                                               
would  introduce  direct  democracy   into  the  constitution  by                                                               
dictating that if the legislature  changes the statutory formula,                                                               
the people would automatically get  an opportunity to vote on the                                                               
change.   It would not  enshrine a particular  statutory approach                                                               
to the PFD  calculation.  The legislature would  retain the right                                                               
to  change the  calculation;  however, any  change would  require                                                               
approval by a vote of the people.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the  people would vote on any                                                               
changes that the legislature made  before the changes can go into                                                               
effect.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL responded, "Correct."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   asked  for  confirmation  that   if  the                                                               
legislature  wants  to  make  any  changes,  it  would  make  the                                                               
changes, put the  changes out for vote, and if  the people accept                                                               
the changes, the changes would go into effect the next year.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL  said, "Correct."   He  explained that  the proposed                                                               
constitutional   amendment   would   prepackage   a   referendum.                                                               
Currently under the constitution  when the legislature passes any                                                               
law, the  public can  get the  issue on  the ballot  by gathering                                                               
signatures in a referendum process.   The proposed constitutional                                                               
amendment would make the referendum process automatic.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:39:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned discussion  about a 50-50 split                                                               
of the  POMV draw  as a compromise,  producing a  dividend amount                                                               
that would be larger than that  of the last two years but smaller                                                               
than  this   proposal  would  yield.     He  asked   whether  the                                                               
administration has a position on the 50-50 split compromise.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:40:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:40 p.m.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:40:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL  answered that  the administration  has not  taken a                                                               
position on any  new approach to the PFD, such  as a 50-50 split,                                                               
but is willing to discuss it.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE  asked  for  confirmation  that  if  HJR  6                                                               
passed, it would  be put to a  vote on the 2020  ballot to decide                                                               
if it should be in the constitution.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL concurred.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR FIELDS  asked whether the administration  has mapped out                                                               
a  timeline, since  any  change in  the  statutory formula  would                                                               
substantially alter the budget process.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL  disagreed that  a change  in the  statutory formula                                                               
would  substantially change  the  budget process.   The  proposed                                                               
resolution clearly  states the  timelines; the  first opportunity                                                               
for  the legislature  to make  appropriations pursuant  to a  new                                                               
statutory  formula  would  be  the   fiscal  year  following  the                                                               
election.    For   example:    the  vote  is   in  November;  the                                                               
legislative  session  begins  the   following  January;  and  the                                                               
legislature  would  appropriate  for the  following  fiscal  year                                                               
pursuant to the constitutional amendment.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked  whether it would be  feasible for the                                                               
legislature  to  combine  the   three  resolutions  so  that  the                                                               
spending cap,  the income tax,  and the  PFD were all  put before                                                               
the voters in one ballot question.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  BARNHILL stated  that  he  appreciated the  representative's                                                               
desire  to   simplify  constitutional  issues  for   the  voters;                                                               
however, he offered  that considerable time and  effort was spent                                                               
to determine  the best way to  present the issues.   The decision                                                               
was  made  to  use  three   separate  vehicles  addressing  three                                                               
separate subjects.  He maintained  that giving the people a voice                                                               
in how the  PFD is calculated and in any  legislative decision to                                                               
change that  calculation is a  discreet issue that stands  on its                                                               
own. The  other two  issues -  giving people a  voice in  any tax                                                               
changes  or rate  increases  and  giving the  people  a voice  in                                                               
amending the constitution  to limit spending -  are also separate                                                               
discreet issues.   He conceded  that since all three  issues fall                                                               
under Article  IX of  the constitution, it  would be  possible to                                                               
defend  combining  them; however,  it  is  the intention  of  the                                                               
administration to  give the people  the ability to vote  each one                                                               
up or down.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:45:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX referred  to  the proposed  constitutional                                                               
amendment [in HJR  5 and STR 4], also known  as the taxpayer bill                                                               
of rights,  and asked whether  the legislature would  be required                                                               
to  approve a  tax passed  by  the people  through an  initiative                                                               
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. BARNHILL agreed that passage  of the constitutional amendment                                                               
would  require the  people to  vote on  any new  tax or  tax rate                                                               
increase  passed  by the  legislature,  and  alternately, if  the                                                               
people initiate  a tax or  a tax increase, the  legislature would                                                               
be required to  approve it before it is enacted.   He stated that                                                               
both mechanisms  currently exist  with one  exception -  when the                                                               
people initiate a  law, the legislature cannot repeal  it for two                                                               
years.  The resolution seeks to shorten that time frame.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  expressed her belief that  most people who                                                               
support the taxpayer bill of rights  do not realize that it would                                                               
impact  their  ability  through  the  initiative  process.    She                                                               
offered  that the  most  likely  tax to  be  approved through  an                                                               
initiative process  would be  an oil  tax.   She stated  that she                                                               
does  not  think  most people  realize  that  the  constitutional                                                               
amendment would give the legislature "a second bite at that."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL maintained  that the  three issues  - taxes,                                                               
PFDs, and  the spending cap  - are  all intertwined in  the final                                                               
budget  product.   He  asked whether  Mr.  Barnhill thought  that                                                               
separating issues that are intertwined might present a problem.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr. BARNHILL  responded, no.   He expressed  his belief  that the                                                               
people  can analyze  each issue  separately.   He  added that  if                                                               
there is an  emerging consensus within the committee  to roll the                                                               
resolutions  together to  move them  forward, the  administration                                                               
would most likely not object.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL suggested  that the  administration, through                                                               
the  proposed constitutional  amendments, is  introducing another                                                               
branch of government.  Raising  or lowering revenue would require                                                               
approval not  only of  the House, the  Senate, and  the executive                                                               
branch, but of the people, which would  take a year or more and a                                                               
great deal of educational campaigning.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  BARNHILL  responded that  this  very  point was  debated  at                                                               
length  at  the  constitutional convention,  and  the  convention                                                               
approved this  vigorous element  of direct  democracy.   He added                                                               
that Alaska has  a very strong access to  legislation through the                                                               
initiative  and  referendum  process.    He  suggested  that  the                                                               
governor is  proposing to take  that element of  direct democracy                                                               
that exists right now and  that the people regularly access right                                                               
now and  pre-package the initiative/referendum in  respect to the                                                               
PFD  and  new  and  increased  taxes.   He  opined  that  if  the                                                               
legislature were to make a change  to the PFD statute, there is a                                                               
high likelihood that a referendum would  be filed.  He added that                                                               
the passage of a personal income  tax would most likely result in                                                               
a  referendum as  well.   The administration  is seeking  to make                                                               
that referendum automatic and give  the people the opportunity to                                                               
vote on these very important issues that they care deeply about.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:51:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  FIELDS  asked  whether  the  inclusion  of  legislative                                                               
approval  of   voter-approved  initiatives  was   intentional  or                                                               
accidental.  As an example, he  referred to a voter initiative to                                                               
spend less money on per barrel tax credits to oil companies.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARNHILL  responded that requiring legislative  approval over                                                               
a voter initiated  new tax or tax rate increase  was no accident;                                                               
it was the point.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MILKS   responded  that   in  the   proposed  constitutional                                                               
amendment addressing taxes, if the  voters, by initiative, pass a                                                               
new tax or  increase the rate of tax, the  legislature can reject                                                               
it.   He stated that in  the original version of  the resolution,                                                               
the default was as follows:   if the legislature did nothing, the                                                               
new tax  was rejected.   The Senate Judiciary  Standing Committee                                                               
changed the default to the following:   if the voters pass a tax,                                                               
the legislature has the opportunity to ....                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[Due to  technical difficulties, the  last minute of  the hearing                                                               
was not recorded.]                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HJR 6 would be held over.                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB139 ver A 4.17.19.PDF HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 139
HB139 Sponsor Statement 4.17.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 139
HB139 Supporting Document - APFC Statement 4.17.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 139
HB139 Fiscal Note DOR-APFC 4.19.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 139
HB132 ver A 4.23.19.PDF HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 132
HB132 Sponsor Statement 4.23.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 132
HB132 Sectional Analysis 4.23.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 132
HB132 Witness List 4.23.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 132
HB132 Presentation 4.25.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 132
HJR006 ver A 2.20.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR006 Sectional Analysis ver A 3.21.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR006 Transmittal Letter 1.29.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR006 Supporting Document - Letter of Support.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR006 Fiscal Note GOV-DOE 2.20.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR018 ver S 4.24.19.PDF HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 18
HJR018 Sponsor Statement 4.24.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 18
HJR018 Sectional Analysis 4.24.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 18
HJR018 Supporting Document - APFC Resolution 4.25.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 18
HJR018 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.26.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 18
HJR018 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 4.30.19 #2.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 18
HJR018 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 4.30.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 18
HB139 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 4.30.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HB 139
HJR006 Opposing Document - Letter of Opposition 4.26.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR006 Opposing Document - Letter of Opposition 4.30.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR006 Supporting Document - Letters of Support 4.2.19 - 4.30.19.pdf HSTA 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM
HJR 6