Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/08/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB88 | |
| HB81 | |
| HB116 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 8, 2015
3:02 p.m.
3:02:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jane Pierson, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Anna
Kim, Tax Division, Department of Revenue; Brandon S.
Spanos, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; Representative Cathy Tilton, Sponsor; Heath
Hilyard, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton; Laura
Stidolph, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson; Micaela Fowler,
Liaison, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; Lacy Sanders, Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division; Cynthia Franklin, Executive Director, Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board, Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development.
SUMMARY
HB 81 EXEMPTION: LICENSING OF CONTRACTORS
HB 81 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 88 FEES FOR TIRES
CSHB 88(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Revenue.
HB 116 EXTEND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
HB 116 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
3:02:57 PM
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to remittance of tire fees; and
providing for an effective date."
3:03:40 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 88, Work Draft 29-GH1044\W (Nauman,
4/6/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
explained the changes in the Committee Substitute (CS). The
first change appeared on page 1, lines 7 through 9 with the
addition of the following language:
The department may only, on a form required under this
subsection, require a seller to provide information on
tires subject to the tax under this section.
Ms. Pierson elaborated that the change had originated from
Co-Chair Neuman based on a lengthy form he had previously
shown the committee. The second change appeared on page 1,
line 14 where the language "not to exceed $900 a quarter"
had been changed to "not to exceed $600 a quarter..."
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the
department may only require a seller to provide information
on tires subject to the tax. He asked for confirmation that
the purpose of the language was to limit the information
submitted to the department. Ms. Pierson replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Kawasaki had
joined the meeting. He remarked that department staff were
available for questions.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the quarterly return
["Alaska Tire Fees Quarterly Return" form (copy on file)].
He thought some of the questions on the form were
unnecessary and wondered who had developed the forms.
ANNA KIM, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, deferred the
question to her colleague.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that he had gone over the form
with the Department of Revenue (DOR). He detailed that the
department did not need to know about tractor or ATV tires.
The requirements had been slimmed down to the number of
passenger vehicles and studded tires the business had and
how many it had sold. He explained that the fee had been
reduced because the requirements had been slimmed down
significantly.
Co-Chair Thompson noted the form was much shorter.
Representative Kawasaki believed that sometimes forms were
more complex than necessary. He would not be opposed to
similar language for all forms requested by the government.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified the question. He remarked that
the form had been simplified significantly.
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, affirmed that the form had been
simplified. He detailed that the department had removed
page 2 related to inventory. Additionally, clarification
had been added to line 1 to indicate that the question was
related to tires subject to the fee the department was
asking about. Other clarifying changes had been made to the
form instructions. He noted that the forms would be
published as soon as possible.
Representative Gattis communicated that tire dealers in
Mat-Su had been working with the department to improve the
form. She had confidence that the changes would be
beneficial.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked that Representative Guttenberg
had joined the meeting.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 88(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Gara facetiously OBJECTED for discussion. He
joked that he had not made any comments about the bill. He
WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 88(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with
one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Revenue.
3:10:59 PM
AT EASE
3:13:59 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act relating to an exemption from the regulation
of construction contractors."
3:14:10 PM
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the committee had not
previously heard the legislation; therefore, he did not
intend to report the bill from committee that day.
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, SPONSOR, spoke to the
legislation. She shared that she had introduced the bill at
the request of the Mat-Su Homebuilders, the Alaska
Homebuilders, and the Alaska Board of Realtors. She read
from a prepared statement:
After speaking with some contractors, realtors, and
certain individuals throughout our state, it became
clear that there are individuals who are exploiting an
unintended loophole in the existing statutory
language. Thus creating an uneven playing field for
licensed professionals who abide by the law and
potentially exposing unwitting homebuyers to
substandard construction.
In short, HB 81 is really a consumer protection bill
and is not a bill to restrict fair trade. In order to
better understand HB 81 it is important to understand
what it is not and what it does not do. HB 81 does not
prevent Alaskans from building their own home, HB 81
does not prevent Alaskans from ever selling a home
that they've built, and HB 81 does not propose a new
licensure. It is not, nor was it ever my intent to do
any of those things.
Under current state law the licensed contractor
exemption opens up a situation where an unlicensed
contractor can operate a substantial business
enterprise while avoiding licensure, bonding, and
insurance requirements. HB 81 provides a means of
notifying the department if an owner/builder sells
their home before a two-year period in existing
statute. The department is not required to take action
on the notification, but simply is provided with the
ability to see if homes were being built repeatedly by
someone without a licensure.
The language before you is a result of a long process
of working with the Homebuilders' Association, the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and
individual Alaskans that ally concerns of subjectivity
on the part of the department, while making violations
to the exemption enforceable.
I am certain that my fellow committee members can
remember when they purchased their first home and what
a financial risk that is. It's one of the biggest
financial obligations that we make in our life. HB 81
helps us ensure those homebuyers that they have the
expectations of a uniform standard of professionalism.
HB 81 simply seeks to reasonably include all
individuals engaged in home construction as a regular
course of business in the existing residential
contractor licensure.
3:17:40 PM
Representative Gattis communicated that she had signed on
as a co-sponsor during the bill's early stages. She noted
that there were several things she had questions about. She
shared that she had been raised in a house that had been
built by her father out-of-pocket. She spoke to her
mother's complaint over the years that the house had never
been completed. She discussed that there were many Alaskans
who built their own homes out-of-pocket and sometimes never
completed the project. She referenced the two-year period
in the bill. She provided an example of a family living in
and building their home. She wondered what happened in the
third year if the home was still under construction. She
reasoned that some homes in Alaska had been under
construction for 10 to 15 years. She believed the bill
still had some struggles related to the timeline (i.e. when
construction started, stopped, etcetera). She was
supportive of the bill's purpose, but wondered at what
point the house became "completed."
HEATH HILYARD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, answered
that language had been included in the most recent bill
version (Work Draft 29-LS0346\E, Strasbaugh, 3/19/15) to
ensure that Alaskans were not unfairly prevented from
selling their home. He addressed questions related to when
a home was determined to be complete.
3:20:24 PM
AT EASE
3:22:29 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson set the bill aside [to obtain the most
recent CS].
HB 81 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act extending the termination date of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; and providing for an
effective date."
3:22:45 PM
LAURA STIDOLPH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, relayed
that the bill would extend the termination date of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to June 30, 2018. As
requested, Cynthia Franklin, Director of the ABC Board had
provided an updated fiscal note with a cost analysis, which
included the breakdown of expenditures. She relayed that
department staff was present to speak to the fiscal note.
Representative Wilson referred to the fiscal note. She
wondered if a $1.7 million change in revenue was related to
marijuana. She did not see a breakout of the numbers under
the note's analysis section.
Ms. Stidolph deferred the question to the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
3:24:43 PM
MICAELA FOWLER, LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, relayed that in addition to the
updated fiscal note the department had provided a document
breaking out costs related to alcohol and costs related to
marijuana. She elaborated that there was not an
appropriation request specific to marijuana in the fiscal
note. She detailed that the information had been included
because it had been in the governor's budget request. She
expounded that the increment had been stripped out of the
budget, but if the money was allocated elsewhere it would
be included in the ABC Board's budget.
Representative Wilson believed the fiscal note should
reflect that it only pertained to the ABC Board. She
observed that the fiscal note included $1.7 million more
(related to marijuana) if the bill was passed. She believed
the new fiscal note included funds needed by the ABC Board
in addition to what the department anticipated would be
needed for a marijuana board. She believed Ms. Fowler had
testified that the bill was not asking for funds related to
marijuana. She opined that the correct fiscal note should
only be $1.752 million if it only included the alcohol
portion.
Co-Chair Thompson agreed with Representative Wilson's
synopsis.
Representative Wilson wondered if the fiscal note would be
adjusted when the bill was moved from committee. Co-Chair
Thompson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson relayed that she was not comfortable
with including the marijuana portion if the amount was not
known. She thought the change would make the fiscal impact
zero since the $1.7 million was collected in fees from
alcohol license owners.
Ms. Fowler replied that the department would not draft a
note to show a zero, but the cost of alcohol licensing did
offset the entire cost of the ABC Board.
Representative Wilson thought the note would indicate
$1.752 million under total operating expense, but nothing
would come from general funds.
LACY SANDERS, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
replied that the fiscal note was informational only and was
not requesting an appropriation. She explained that the
department had illustrated what had been included in the
governor's FY 16 request. She elaborated that the ABC Board
technically included the marijuana regulation, which was
included on the fiscal note. She explained that marijuana
regulation was currently under the purview of the ABC
Board. The fiscal note provided an accurate picture and
would not issue an appropriation.
Representative Wilson observed that the fiscal note did not
include any indicator that it was purely informational. She
pointed out that there was a bill for the marijuana board
that she anticipated would have its own fiscal note. She
had not heard of an informational only fiscal note. She
wondered if there would be a problem if the fiscal note was
limited to the bill's continuation of the ABC Board and any
generated fees associated with the board.
Ms. Sanders answered that there would be a separate fiscal
note for the board. She explained that the information
included in the current fiscal note was related to
regulation of marijuana, which was not a board for
marijuana. She clarified that a marijuana board had not
been established, which would happen through a separate
bill. The regulation of marijuana had been set up through
the [statewide] voter initiative that had passed. She
furthered that the department's budget reflected money for
the regulation of marijuana, not a board for marijuana.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that if the
bill passed with the current fiscal note the committee
would be approving an additional cost to the General Fund
of $1.5 million.
3:31:18 PM
Ms. Sanders replied in the negative. She explained that if
an appropriation was required it would be included in the
note's first column titled "FY2016 Appropriation
Requested." She clarified that the funds appeared in the
second column titled "Included in Governor's FY2016
Request." She explained that the increment had been
included in the governor's budget as submitted to the
legislature.
Representative Edgmon noted that the initiative had said
"may" create an ABC Board, which was reflected in the
fiscal note. Ms. Sanders answered that the establishment of
a board was in a separate bill before the committee. The
current legislation pertained to the extension of the ABC
Board and its purview currently included the regulation of
marijuana.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the initiative called for the
ABC Board to oversee marijuana unless a separate marijuana
board was established. He reasoned that the legislature had
not established a marijuana board; therefore, the fiscal
note was correct.
Vice-Chair Saddler had never seen an informational fiscal
note. He asked for verification that if the first column
was blank it meant a note was informational only. Ms.
Sanders answered in the affirmative. She elaborated that if
additional money was necessary it would appear in the first
column. She added that the term "informational only" was
frequently used internally within the Legislative Finance
Division office.
Representative Pruitt asked to clarify the difference
between the marijuana and the ABC Board as well as the
sources of funds. He pointed to the fiscal note and
surmised that the total cost for the ABC Board without
marijuana in the current year was $1.7 million. He remarked
that the separate request was for close to $1.6 million. He
pointed to the change in revenues and wondered if it would
cost the state more for the ABC Board without marijuana.
Ms. Sanders answered that the fiscal note currently
reflected the revenue generated from alcohol regulation.
She relayed that eventually the department would develop
regulations for marijuana and would potentially collect
fees to cover the costs, the cost was indeterminate at
present. She elaborated that ultimately there would be a
funding source change in future budgets.
Representative Pruitt asked for verification that
eventually the fund source covering cost related to
marijuana would not be General Fund. Ms. Sanders replied in
the affirmative. She added that most likely funding would
come from program receipts (code 1005), which would cover
the entire agency.
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, affirmed the intention for both
substances to be funded by program receipts once marijuana
establishments were up and running.
Representative Pruitt assumed there was more than $1.7
million in "General Fund program" that was derived from
alcohol. He asked if the alcohol tax revenue would only pay
for alcohol related costs and not any costs associated with
marijuana.
Ms. Franklin answered in the affirmative. She detailed that
over the past several fiscal years there had been dollars
returned to the General Fund that were program receipts
from alcohol that had not been spent in the ABC budget. She
referred to current legislation (SB 99 related to ABC and
alcohol regulation). She discussed that in future years
there was potentially a need for the alcohol funds; the
department had not considered using alcohol program
receipts to fund marijuana costs.
3:37:58 PM
Co-Chair Neuman stated that some would prefer to see the
initial startup funds for the establishment [of marijuana]
to come from the taxation of marijuana sales. He wondered
if marijuana board legislation did not pass, whether it was
possible to develop a CS that would allow the state to
recoup the funds associated with marijuana when it began
taxing the substance.
Ms. Franklin deferred the question to Ms. Sanders.
Ms. Sanders answered that she was uncertain how the
specifications would be established in a CS. She relayed
that the ABC Board would set up regulations that would
include the fees that would be paid and anything in excess
of the operating costs would be deposited into the General
Fund. She was not certain when the ABC Board planned to
begin collecting fees.
Ms. Franklin relayed that the first [marijuana] licenses
would be issued in May 2016. The departments estimated that
the first tax coming in from the licenses would be around
July 2016. She recalled recent testimony from the
Department of Revenue, Tax Division that the first monies
from marijuana would be collected in 2017.
Co-Chair Neuman noted his preference that any excess fees
go back to cover the cost of the initial [marijuana] setup.
Representative Gara asked what had happened to the
governor's FY 16 request that had included $3.3 million.
Ms. Sanders answered that the governor had requested an
appropriation for $1.7 million. She detailed that the money
had been removed from the House and Senate operating bills.
There were other avenues under discussion that would get
the funds into the division's budget for FY 15 and FY 16.
Representative Gara did not want anyone to walk away
thinking there was no cost for marijuana regulation. He
noted there would be a period where the state was spending
money prior to collecting it. He reasoned that developing
regulations would only use state staff. He wondered why it
would cost money to adopt regulations.
Ms. Franklin answered that the cost was associated with
staff costs and the establishment of a database. She
explained that everyone would want significant data about
marijuana licenses and information related to moving
forward with implementing the voter's initiative safely.
She relayed that the division was a paper-based agency that
was unable to provide data currently on liquor licensing
without investing a substantial amount of staff time in
research. Additionally, there were costs associated with
tracking the substance in order to verify that retailers
were selling marijuana that had been grown legally in a
licensed cultivation facility. The governor's request that
had been stripped out of the operating budget had included
an additional six staff positions in addition to the
existing ten positions statewide that were responsible for
regulating the 1,875 liquor licenses. She continued that
the division had a PowerPoint presentation comparing the
requested staff with those in other states. She stated that
the division's staff working on liquor licenses was quite
small and the additional request was small. She relayed
that the division had reciprocal service agreements with
the Department of Law and paid by the hour for its lawyer's
time. She summarized that the cost came out of the
division's budget to write the regulations and to safely
enforce its licensing rules.
3:44:15 PM
Representative Gara expressed distaste at the idea of state
agencies charging each other for costs. He believed the
costs were pretend and confusing. He understood that there
would be some staff required to initiate the commercial
licenses prior to May. He did not know how involved the
board would be in enforcing against people pretending to
grow pot for personal use who were actually selling
commercially. He wondered if the department needed staff
for that purpose and why state troopers and police were not
sufficient for that role.
Ms. Franklin answered that there were two reasons the ABC
utilized five enforcement officers statewide and why it was
requesting three additional officers. First, the agency
became a de facto expert statewide related to the rules
designated around the substance. For example, if a citizen
called their local law enforcement officer because they saw
someone riding a bike selling beers, the law enforcement
officer would in turn call the ABC Board to ask whether the
activity was legal. She explained that there were many
rules under Title 4 associated with alcohol; it was
difficult to understand them all. She stated that it would
be even more difficult with marijuana if it remained in the
controlled substances act, for local law enforcement to
know the rules and how to apply them on the street. She
communicated that enforcement officers were responsible for
education, inspection of licensees to ensure compliance,
and for enforcing against individuals selling alcohol or
marijuana without a license. There were some examples of
businesses that had opened without a licenses. She
continued that ABC received the related calls and pressure
from the other individuals wanting to open a business who
saw the issue as unfair competition. Additionally, ABC
received calls from law enforcement and citizens. She
explained that the troopers' priority list varied by day.
The agency's priority was public safety and enforcement of
the rules around the substances. She noted that the agency
had an officer present for testimony. She relayed that
enforcement had been added by all states that had legalized
marijuana at statewide and local levels. She did not
believe the substance could be safely regulated without
officers making sure the rules were followed.
3:47:45 PM
Representative Gara discussed that currently personal use
was the only thing the state had. He stated that a law
enforcement officer understood the difference between
personal and commercial use and arrested people not
following the law. He understood staff would be needed to
begin issuing licenses in May; however, he did not believe
enforcement would be needed beyond enforcement officers. He
could identify $1.2 million that would do much more
important things. He did not support funding additional
enforcement officers before any commercial establishments
were in place. He stated that including marijuana on the
fiscal note was confusing and could be authorizing
positions the state did not yet need.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered if the ABC Board was currently up
to date on any complaints that had been submitted or other
day-to-day items. Ms. Franklin answered that the board had
addressed the issues in the audit and was up to date with
its current workload.
Representative Wilson did not understand why the ABC Board
was taking questions on the marijuana issue until something
had been put in place. She asked for verification that the
issue resided with the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
until the regulations were drafted. For example, she
believed enforcement would fall to DPS if an individual
began selling marijuana commercially before regulations
were in place.
Ms. Franklin answered that it was a public safety issue,
but ABC still received calls. She detailed that ABC was a
responsive state agency and could not have employees refuse
to respond to questions. She elaborated that citizens and
law enforcement agencies had contacted the division about
businesses that had started up prematurely. Currently under
statute ABC officers had specific enforcement authority and
a specific commission from the commissioner of DPS over the
criminally punishable provisions in AS Title 4. The
division had told callers they would have to call the
troopers related to the three businesses that had gotten
out ahead. However, that did not mean that the division did
not need to know the answers. She relayed that the division
relied on local law enforcement when it came to enforcing
Title 4 provisions; the agency's five officers statewide
could not provide enforcement alone. She added that the
same would be true for the three marijuana officers. She
stressed the imperative nature of the enforcement of rules
around alcohol and marijuana. She discussed that marijuana
was still illegal federally; therefore, in order to
implement the voters' initiative, the agency had to ensure
strict compliance with guidance given by the federal
government in the Cole Memorandum. The memorandum addressed
strict regulation and enforcement, including ensuring the
substance did not get into the hands of minors and that it
was not diverted across state lines. The division had
originally intended to ask for five officers; however, in
light of the challenging fiscal climate, the division had
limited its request to three officers. She reiterated the
imperative nature of enforcement.
3:52:46 PM
Representative Wilson was uncomfortable having the
substances [alcohol and marijuana] combined. She did not
want the state jumping the gun by regulating things that
had not gone through the legislative process. She
understood that some of the funds requested by the governor
[shown in the fiscal note] had been stripped out of the
budget; therefore, she wondered where to look to find the
most current budget information.
Ms. Sanders answered that currently in the House and Senate
versions of the operating budget (HB 72), there was
$1,752,400 and $23,000 in interagency receipts. There were
other options to get the marijuana funding for the ABC
Board. She pointed to the estimated supplemental cost for
FY 15. She explained that the governor's budget also
included money for marijuana regulation in the supplemental
bill and $1.5 million for FY 16 in the operating budget
request. The funding could be added to another bill that
would establish a marijuana control board or it could be
added to the supplemental budget.
Representative Wilson was concerned that the fiscal note
included items that did not reflect the bill. She stated
that the bill was about the continuation of the ABC Board
and making sure it was cost neutral.
3:55:33 PM
Ms. Sanders equated the voters' initiative [related to
marijuana] to a bill. She addressed that it was not the
normal legislative process, but because the initiative
passed there had been no opportunity for the department to
attach an appropriating fiscal note to the initiative.
Therefore, the department's inclusion of the funding in the
governor's budget was technically correct. She stated that
while it may be included in another fiscal note, currently
regulation of marijuana was under the purview of the ABC
Board; therefore, it was technically correct to include
marijuana in the fiscal note.
Representative Munoz asked whether it was best to use the
ABC Board or to establish a separate board for the
regulation of marijuana. She wondered if there were cost
savings associated with maintaining the function under the
ABC Board.
Ms. Franklin replied that the governor had introduced HB
123 that would create a marijuana control board. For fiscal
savings, the bill represented a two board, one agency
structure. She detailed that the ABC Board was comprised of
five volunteers and met five times annually. The idea would
be to duplicate the structure for a marijuana control
board. The bill proposed that marijuana board meetings
would occur the day following ABC Board meetings to reduce
staff travel costs; both boards were required to meet
across the state to provide public access to the boards.
The department was supportive of a separate marijuana
control board. She explained that the makeup of the ABC
Board was specialized to alcohol and contained industry
representation. She continued that increasing industry
representation would swell the board to 9 members for
alcohol and marijuana, which would not bring a significant
cost savings. There were other ways to provide a cost
savings by housing both boards under the same division.
HB 116 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:59:54 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 116 NEW FN DCCED.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| 03.30.15 DCCED HB 116 Follow Up.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 61 Air Force Definitions.PDF |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 61 Army Definitions.PDF |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 61 Coast Guard Definition Valor.PDF |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 61 Description of Valor Awards.PDF |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 61 Letters of Support.PDF |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB61 Sponsor Statement FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 88 CS WorkDraft FIN version W.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| Letter re HB 81.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Opposition Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81- Letter of Opposition- James Squyres-February 24.docx |
HFIN 4/8/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |